yacheah saidYou found a Computer Audiophile poster who shares your opinion that the DS lacks midrange richness, and this discovery confirms that the multitudes of professional reviewers and satisfied owners who think the DS is tonally accurate are mistaken? Now that is rich!lonson saidYes, could be - the soundstage is certainly airier. And I can hear sounds I didn't hear before with the Cary. But once again, the musical flow seemed missing. With the Cary, the bassline made me want to tap my feet but with the DS everyone was just playing their own jam and it wasn't cohesive. I mean that piece certainly ain't free jazz.Mike, is it possible that the DS has a better channel separation of left and right than the Cary? I know it presents left and right with more independence than another source I have, and this could be interpreted as greater instrumental separation and perhaps a loss of “organic togetherness” and perhaps midrange leanness (though in my case in my system it doesn’t and the presentation is wonderful–but I do clearly hear the instruments more separated in comparison and not “knit together” by a baseline,etc.)
In your system, the tube pre and power probably fills it out. I have a tube pre with a full sounding solid state power amp but I guess that isn’t sufficient.
I’ve just read some comments on Computer Audiophile attesting to the same lack of weight. He compensated elsewhere in the system but eventually moved on to Lampizator I believe. I’m glad I am not the only one but I was kind of stymied by reviews saying the DS was full and rich sounding. Guess you can’t believe all you read.
I’ve heard systems that do the instrumental separation thing very well - Soulution with Magico speakers - but had more weight and richness to the sound and most importantly a musical flow. I tested my RVG’s of some aggressive sounding Freddie Hubbard and Jackie McLean on it and it was swell.
Following on from my earlier conversation with yacheah on another PS Forum thread, I’ve just played a couple of albums for the first time with Torreys: Back to Black (Amy Winehouse) and Medusa (Annie Lennox). Both I had remembered as sounding harsh, ‘toppy’ and confused (via Pikes Peak) but with Torreys in addition to the better transparency and bass definition, the voices were far richer and no longer harsh. In my perception totally ‘natural’ - Medusa sounded similar to what I remember from the vinyl album on my turntable setup but with better transparency and bass.
I’d certainly not wish Ted to attempt any direct modification of frequency response; just keep up the good work on improving S/N etc. The results so far are superb!
If it’s tonality fits perfectly into the system, the DS is easily one of the best sources up to approximately more than 4 times its price I’d say. That’s the max potential. So if it doesn’t fit and no adjustment is possible, one just has to decide to make system changes or improvements somewhere else or not. It’s that easy to me, anything else is wasted time.
Bootzilla saidI think we should leave everyone his perception as I guess under same conditions we would all hear similar things.yacheah saidI've just read some comments on Computer Audiophile attesting to the same lack of weight. He compensated elsewhere in the system but eventually moved on to Lampizator I believe. I'm glad I am not the only one but I was kind of stymied by reviews saying the DS was full and rich sounding. Guess you can't believe all you read.You found a Computer Audiophile poster who shares your opinion that the DS lacks midrange richness, and this discovery confirms that the multitudes of professional reviewers and satisfied owners who think the DS is tonally accurate are mistaken? Now that is rich!
I don’t give much on reviews in this regard. Too much weak equipment hyped (don’t speak of the DS).
In case one needs reviews to take notice, here’s one with slightly similar result as yacheah notes:
…“If there was an area that I found the DirectStream DAC to diverge from other DACs I enjoy its with timbral complexity and midrange richness. A DAC like the comparably priced Luxman DA-06 (see review) puts more meat on music’s bones and I would not object to someone saying it sounds more analog as compared to the DirectStream DAC. Compared to the less expensive Auralic Vega (see review) I found that the Vega also sounded more colorful and more lit up up top. I also would not argue if someone were to suggest that the DirectStream DAC was more neutral in a positive way taking personal preference into account.”…
makfi said My answers are in red. If i am indeed isolated case, i do not want to continue hijacking this thread and I will contact your customer support. But pls can any one with this same issue let me know?Thanks for your answers. Yes, I do think talking to customer support would be a good thing. The 16/44.1k really points to the control processor leaving a stale answer up. Otherwise random data would need to always have the lower 8 bits always zero which is even less likely. This means that the problem is very probably benign. (We still want to get to the bottom of it.)
I recently replaced a tube amp with a BHK 250, and this has got me thinking about the whole richness vs neutrality thing. I love the way the BHK clarifies complex orchestral textures; I can hear much more deeply into the music than I could before. I find it to be very accurate – a bassoon sounds just like a bassoon does in real life – without adding any extra midrange emphasis or richness. It certainly is not dry or overly analytical or whatever term you want to use. Yet occasionally I miss the tube amp. Is that because I got very used to its sweet sound over the years, and so I sometimes feel the BHK is lacking? I suspect so. This is my current audio issue to ponder.
Many people like what they perceive as a rich midrange, and that is certainly better (IMO) than something that sounds thin and lifeless. I think some designers deliberately add a little emphasis to the upper bass and lower midrange to get this sound, particularly with solid-state equipment. I prefer that source components like the DS DAC be neutral (which to me means as accurate as possible, without deliberately adding any particular coloration). There are lots of ways to get that richness if one wishes by using a tubed preamp, amp, and/or buffer, whereas a colored source is much harder to correct for. So I think Ted should stay the course with the DS; not because those who like a meatier midrange shouldn’t have it – everyone can and should seek out a system that gives him or her the greatest musical involvement – but because there are ways to get there without compromising the source.
Jazznut said…
“In case one needs reviews to take notice, here’s one with slightly similar result as yacheah notes:”
http://www.audiostream.com/content/ps-audio-directstream-dac#rtMvjOeykb2EDQls.97
…“Taking a more detailed view into its sound, I’d also say that the DirectStream DAC sounds very controlled throughout the frequency spectrum including fitful bass response that is at once controlled and hefty. If there was an area that I found the DirectStream DAC to diverge from other DACs I enjoy its with timbral complexity and midrange richness. A DAC like the comparably priced Luxman DA-06 (see review) puts more meat on music’s bones and I would not object to someone saying it sounds more analog as compared to the DirectStream DAC.”…
That review was two years and five firmware updates ago… Just keeping things in perspective.
mark-d saidThat review was two years and five firmware updates ago… Just keeping things in perspective.
Correct, as many of all the reviews are and I don’t want to pretend as if this one is more or less objective than others.
Althought I just know firmwares from 1.2.1. on, I never recognized a difference in this regard worth mentioning in comparison to differences between various DAC’s. Those who did, as far as I remember the postings, favoured the old firmware 1.2.1 for more richness, not the newer one’s, so that’s not really an argument. But as I said, I personally only recognized improvement with the newer ones, no big differences in tonality.
magister said I recently replaced a tube amp with a BHK 250, and this has got me thinking about the whole richness vs neutrality thing. I love the way the BHK clarifies complex orchestral textures; I can hear much more deeply into the music than I could before. I find it to be very accurate -- a bassoon sounds just like a bassoon does in real life -- without adding any extra midrange emphasis or richness. It certainly is not dry or overly analytical or whatever term you want to use. Yet occasionally I miss the tube amp. Is that because I got very used to its sweet sound over the years, and so I sometimes feel the BHK is lacking? I suspect so. This is my current audio issue to ponder.I decided for the same reason for the DS DAC (it reveals clearly more textures out of a sound than others) but I only decided so, because I’ve got the possibility to keep it sound more or less rich enough in my system. Otherwise things wouldn’t have sounded like real life in another way and inspite of the improved clarity and textures.Many people like what they perceive as a rich midrange, and that is certainly better (IMO) than something that sounds thin and lifeless. I think some designers deliberately add a little emphasis to the upper bass and lower midrange to get this sound, particularly with solid-state equipment. I prefer that source components like the DS DAC be neutral (which to me means as accurate as possible, without deliberately adding any particular coloration). There are lots of ways to get that richness if one wishes by using a tubed preamp, amp, and/or buffer, whereas a colored source is much harder to correct for. So I think Ted should stay the course with the DS; not because those who like a meatier midrange shouldn’t have it – everyone can and should seek out a system that gives him or her the greatest musical involvement – but because there are ways to get there without compromising the source.
I’m not sure if designers add anything. I think they all say they don’t. We read about a few reasons from Ted, why components can sound very different although all are fitted with a “flat FR”.
I’m not sure if there’s a difference if a source component or an amp or speaker inherits a required richness or not. It’s all the same, it comes with some advantages and consequences. You chose the DS for its advantages and consequences as you did with the BHK. If, as you said, you’re occasionally missing something, your previous tube amp delivered, it will stay like this occasionally and you know for which advantages you accepted it.
If you now would change your speakers to some more accurate and clarifying, you would probably again notice clear improvements, but maybe this time it would be too much compromise in tonality.
Most pure amp, cable or speaker manufacturers would claim, their product is most accurate and should be chosen for that reason and probably they point us to change or compromise the source if one searches for a different tonality. It’s a chicken and egg dilemma.
By the way and just because it fits in the current discussion…
There was quite some discussion with the reviewer going on below his article, I just saw. He seems to have been a bit too open for people used to reviews just putting homage on anything.
Here an excerpt:
I read the opposite - an extremely positive review and a "Greatest Bits" award. You simply seemed to be pointing out that the DAC was very neutral, and might not be everyone's cup of tea.I think this sums up the review nicely.
Federico.
jazznut said Althought I just know firmwares from 1.2.1. on, I never recognized a difference in this regard worth mentioning in comparison to differences between various DAC's.Interesting.
Those who did, as far as I remember the postings, favoured the old firmware 1.2.1 for more richness, not the newer one's . . .Those who favor 1.2.1 are in the minority, but have been quite vocal in declaring their preference - absolutely appropriate. I have always preferred the increased purity and timbrel complexity of each update.
Have you similarly stuck to 1.2.1?
Have you tried the EQ I suggested (cut 2kHz to 4kHz by 2dB)? It is simple, free, and I am willing to bet you will find it pleasing.
No I never favored 1.2.1, I always preferred the latest firmware.
I didn’t try EQ’ing, mainly because I play from NAS to bridge II without PC involved, but also because my richness matters are more complex than a pure presence peak (which I don’t have). Due to several aspects my system is not critical in this area. It’s more a matter of harmonic structure over a wider band which I was used to in a bit different way.
If one would listen to it without alternative, there’s no reason to argue. If one knows how it could be, there’s room to improve.
jazznut said No I never favored 1.2.1, I always preferred the latest firmware.I am surprised, as those who favor 1.2.1 state they do so for the greater sense of richness they hear.
I didn't try EQ'ing, mainly because I play from NAS to bridge II without PC involved, but also because my richness matters are more complex than a pure presence peaki suggest you give it a serious try if you have not done so. Many are astounded with what EQ accomplishes. 1/2 dB over the correct range can really open up an otherwise good acoustic recording. Wilma Fine (Mercury) often incorporated subtle EQ in this fashion and her recordings were excellent to start with. It is a simple matter of connecting a laptop via USB for purposes of experimentation.
If one would listen to it without alternative, there's no reason to argue. If one knows how it could be, there's room to improve.There is always room for improvement, but in this circumstance it appears to instead be a matter of personal preference; each source has its own sound. Overall do your prefer the DS or one of the DACs you find richer? Why?
I find this discussion particularly intriguing as the DS is unique in my experience in its ability to portray timbrel texture, richness and accuracy. So many sources do not get timbre right, the harmonic structure is off, etc. That is, the DS’s midrange is particularly superb, without sweetening and without glossing over detail, and with no harshness.
Elk saidI find this discussion particularly intriguing as the DS is unique in my experience in its ability to portray timbrel texture, richness and accuracy. So many sources do not get timbre right, the harmonic structure is off, etc. That is, the DS’s midrange is particularly superb, without sweetening and without glossing over detail, and with no harshness.
I agree, this DAC ended my personal search and has just gotten better and better with upgrades. I may feel the upgrades come too frequently–I don’t like to change that often to be honest–but each has been a new window to deeper enjoyment.
Elk said
I am surprised, as those who favor 1.2.1 state they do so for the greater sense of richness they hear.
Overall do your prefer the DS or one of the DACs you find richer? Why?
There is always room for improvement, but in this circumstance it appears to instead be a matter of personal preference; each source has its own sound. Overall do your prefer the DS or one of the DACs you find richer? Why?I find this discussion particularly intriguing as the DS is unique in my experience in its ability to portray timbrel texture, richness and accuracy. So many sources do not get timbre right, the harmonic structure is off, etc. That is, the DS’s midrange is particularly superb, without sweetening and without glossing over detail, and with no harshness.
Thanks ELK for your commitment, but we saw, normal listeners as well as reviewers have different preferences and experiences. I don’t want to discuss it to death here and use this thread more than necessary to explain mine than I already did.
As I commented before, I always preferred the later firmwares because the improvements were much bigger than slight differences in richness, wich were not of the extent we talked about here and which exist between the DS and some other DAC’s.
As I also commented before, I finally preferred the DS due to its performance and because I could good enough compensate the compromises it comes with and which I experienced in comparison to other sources.
jazznut said By the way and just because it fits in the current discussion...Thanks for pointing out this review. It sounds like the Meitner MA 1 or Luxman DA 06 may work for me. The Meitner seems like the one if it can do all the detail and air that the DS can and have a "rich, full and musical sound picture" on top of that.There was quite some discussion with the reviewer going on below his article, I just saw. He seems to have been a bit too open for people used to reviews just putting homage on anything.
Here an excerpt:
Hmm.Submitted by Michael Lavorgna on June 19, 2014 - 11:24amI see some people didn't like the review ;-) I'm not so sure how meaningful it is to say I liked something (or not). Isn't the more important aspect of a review how a given component sounds? But characterizing the review as being "negative" is misreading what I wrote or reading into what I didn't write, imo.I read the opposite - an extremely positive review and a "Greatest Bits" award. You simply seemed to be pointing out that the DAC was very neutral, and might not be everyone's cup of tea.I think this sums up the review nicely.
Vs Meitner MA1Submitted by grunter on July 9, 2014 - 6:43amThanks for the review. How do you put it against Meitner ma-1? It seems to me that they have a similar approach to d/a conversion. I've listen to ma-1 in my hifi system and I've liked it very much. Has got the directstream a similar sound? Thanks.Federico.
It has been a while...Submitted by Michael Lavorgna on July 9, 2014 - 7:51am...since the Meitner was here but I'd say it is a more accomplished DAC. I would not say the DirectStream sounds similar in a meaningful way as it does not present as rich, full, and musical a sound picture.
For at least one of us, this discussion has been very interesting, challenging me to stop enjoying the music for a minute (?) and try a bit harder to listen to the equipment. Unfortunately, now, with Torreys et al, I can only hear music…and something much more.
My historical DS personal perspective was that I also have experienced 1.2.1 as the pinnacle of our DS experience, also finding it’s “mid range richness” diminishing with each new “package” of firmware, even though I had to admit that the advance in resolution, timing, pace, etc., ad infinitum began to be noteworthy evolving to VERY impressive. While enjoying the “journey”, deep down, I “pined” for the emotional experience I recalled with 1.2.1, just hoping to have that flavor added back to what had otherwise become a delectable “sonic dish” (food, good wine, beer and spirits, metaphors).
The Regen came along and I felt something uniquely improved in the music, as well as the frequency spectrum. Not too long thereafter, Torreys came to our home. At first it was a mess, simply unlistenable in too many ways to believe…I was shocked. So, I got back behind my system rack (350 pounds of solid hard wood furniture built by some Indians in Northern Mexico…I have a goodly dose of Cherokee blood and am proud to be an Indian!). I discovered that somehow, my cable dressing had become a shambles which I very carefully readjusted and voila’, as they say, was immediately met with a musical experience that was totally unique to the past, including partially if not completely, 1.2.1.
Then recently came LanRover…about which I have already gushed equally self-indulgently on that page in Beta. We (my wife, as with so many of you, I reckon, has the golden ears in the house) immediately then began to hear music in a way that has seemingly erased all but our original hi-fi (mainly vinyl) experiences that set us down this path of audiophilia (which was decades ago). In the interim, I confess that I came to despise the arguments of the “accuracy at all costs” camp. Instead, I just wanted to hear a disc and feel the same (or at least close to) way ,emotionally, that I could feel after leaving a live performance knowing full well that the two sounds could never physically be identical. One was the true original and one was a reproduction, ultimately recreated in a form by people other than the performers. I just wanted to be “moved”, in either case.
So, along the long journey, came DS and 1.2.1 and it seemed to be a final destination, until now.
With Directstream/Torreys/LanRover something is happening we have never known before. It may be best described by our fairly recent attendance at a Jane Monheit concert in a wonderful cabaret venue where the performer/listener contact is pretty intimate; i.e., like it or not, you can’t get away unless you get up and leave. Then, hearing Jane downloaded from Tidal singing the same performance and most impressively, a more recent album, “The Songbook Sessions: Ella Fizgerald”, we became very clearly in touch with what was happening.
When we hear her or any performer…or performers in this system (happens the same for us, no matter what/who) we deeply feel their presence and a sense of identity that leaves us feeling like someone(s) was here in our home and now they have left, when the music is over. Like many, my wife and I find quite a bit to disagree on, everyday, but this musical experience, we describe to each other identically, We know it can’t be literally true, but vocalist, instrumentalist, band orchestra…in all cases we feel a connection to the performer that makes us almost swear that we now know something tangibly personal about them…strangers that they really are. (We don’t do dope!).
The sound(s) of music we have now are neither accurate nor richly colorfu…l or what have you. Instead, they are so whole, complete, real and meaningful as to be impossible for us to articulate very well, as you have seen. I apologize for that short-coming and thank you for indulging me.
But most of all, I thank the true genius of Ted, Paul, and that team up there in Colorado. Yep…count us in with those a bit nervous about the next upgrade, as we just don’t want to be disappointed.
jedi1 said For at least one of us, this discussion has been very interesting, challenging me to stop enjoying the music for a minute (?) and try a bit harder to listen to the equipment. Unfortunately, now, with Torreys et al, I can only hear music....and something much more.My historical DS personal perspective was that I also have experienced 1.2.1 as the pinnacle of our DS experience, also finding it’s “mid range richness” diminishing with each new “package” of firmware, even though I had to admit that the advance in resolution, timing, pace, etc., ad infinitum began to be noteworthy evolving to VERY impressive. While enjoying the “journey”, deep down, I “pined” for the emotional experience I recalled with 1.2.1, just hoping to have that flavor added back to what had otherwise become a delectable “sonic dish” (food, good wine, beer and spirits, metaphors).
The Regen came along and I felt something uniquely improved in the music, as well as the frequency spectrum. Not too long thereafter, Torreys came to our home. At first it was a mess, simply unlistenable in too many ways to believe…I was shocked. So, I got back behind my system rack (350 pounds of solid hard wood furniture built by some Indians in Northern Mexico…I have a goodly dose of Cherokee blood and am proud to be an Indian!). I discovered that somehow, my cable dressing had become a shambles which I very carefully readjusted and voila’, as they say, was immediately met with a musical experience that was totally unique to the past, including partially if not completely, 1.2.1.
Then recently came LanRover…about which I have already gushed equally self-indulgently on that page in Beta. We (my wife, as with so many of you, I reckon, has the golden ears in the house) immediately then began to hear music in a way that has seemingly erased all but our original hi-fi (mainly vinyl) experiences that set us down this path of audiophilia (which was decades ago). In the interim, I confess that I came to despise the arguments of the “accuracy at all costs” camp. Instead, I just wanted to hear a disc and feel the same (or at least close to) way ,emotionally, that I could feel after leaving a live performance knowing full well that the two sounds could never physically be identical. One was the true original and one was a reproduction, ultimately recreated in a form by people other than the performers. I just wanted to be “moved”, in either case.
So, along the long journey, came DS and 1.2.1 and it seemed to be a final destination, until now.
With Directstream/Torreys/LanRover something is happening we have never known before. It may be best described by our fairly recent attendance at a Jane Monheit concert in a wonderful cabaret venue where the performer/listener contact is pretty intimate; i.e., like it or not, you can’t get away unless you get up and leave. Then, hearing Jane downloaded from Tidal singing the same performance and most impressively, a more recent album, “The Songbook Sessions: Ella Fizgerald”, we became very clearly in touch with what was happening.
When we hear her or any performer…or performers in this system (happens the same for us, no matter what/who) we deeply feel their presence and a sense of identity that leaves us feeling like someone(s) was here in our home and now they have left, when the music is over. Like many, my wife and I find quite a bit to disagree on, everyday, but this musical experience, we describe to each other identically, We know it can’t be literally true, but vocalist, instrumentalist, band orchestra…in all cases we feel a connection to the performer that makes us almost swear that we now know something tangibly personal about them…strangers that they really are. (We don’t do dope!).
The sound(s) of music we have now are neither accurate nor richly colorfu…l or what have you. Instead, they are so whole, complete, real and meaningful as to be impossible for us to articulate very well, as you have seen. I apologize for that short-coming and thank you for indulging me.
But most of all, I thank the true genius of Ted, Paul, and that team up there in Colorado. Yep…count us in with those a bit nervous about the next upgrade, as we just don’t want to be disappointed.
Garsh!
Well,interesting thread for sure on the virtues of is it rich or is it not. The only thing I can say at this point,for me at least,is the DS dac hits most of my parameters for a music making machine. Listening to music in a home environment will not be the same with me as it will be with you. Way to many variables involved. I think the best anyone of us can hope for is to ultimately achieve the goals of what best suits our own needs in our own homes with our own ears without killing the financial well being of life’s other important conditions. Now, if I was a millionaire…all bets would be off. 
Thanks PS Audio for doing what you do. Which is the pure enjoyment of bringing that elusive magic of music…into my home. 
jazznut said Thanks ELK for your commitment, but we saw, normal listeners as well as reviewers have different preferences and experiences.Of course.
But do try the EQ I suggested. A -1dB or -2dB cut centered around 3kHz with a low Q of 1 or 0.9 has a very different effect than taming a presence peak. If you have not heard this I anticipate you will be very pleased.