Life after Torreys

Audio Components DACs
63
mark-d said 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.


Our pleasure and thanks for posting!!

64
Elk said
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.

As I mentioned, due to the fact, that I use NAS to Jriver to Bridge II and Jriver only allows the DSP Studio with USB connected sources, I can’t use EQ’ing of mids (which I didn’t need in the past).

But due to the fact, that with a 3-band parametric sub + main speaker bass driver options I have 8-10 different adjusting options for bass response, I was able to fit the DS quite perfectly into the room and system in this regard.

Those who know how important the proper playback of the lowest octaves is for overall harmonic structure (incl. mids) can imagine, that if this fits, as well as presence area is quite uncritical i.e. through a ribbon driver, that 80% of a good basis for good sound is done.

After finishing the necessary bass settings due to a quite different (not necessarily less or more generally) bass weight from the DS than before, the proper balance was reached again and the DS turned out to be clearly more accurate in bass response and shape.

So I could imagine, if one has high expectations for a quite perfect sound and tonality, how challenging a change from a possibly very different sounding DAC to the DS could be if one does not have a sub and some add. adjustment options. I count the DS as ideal for real full range sound and quite mighty sounding speakers or setups, as many advantages come with its accuracy and its by trend more lean attunement in bass region and above, as long as one can fit to this accuracy from a possibly different previous setup.

The achievement of this final fitting is also an answer to your question why I finally decided for the DS.

If one achieved this or owns large speakers or has whatever setup where the DS fits in perfectly in bass and mids region from start, those other DAC’s with a clearly richer sound must sound clearly too fat in comparison IMO.

This is not meant to say the DS is difficult to fit into a system, but (depending on the degree of expectation for the result) it can be if one comes from the quite opposite direction.

65

I tried Firmware 1.2.1. At the same time I added a Cardas Clear Beyond Power cord to my power amp.

The result was added weight and midrange richness. Slight but enough to make it musical for me. The openness and space between instruments diminished somewhat but I preferred what I heard overall.

I am reverting to Torreys again to try it out just in case it is the contribution of the Cardas Clear Beyond that is giving the sound the much needed midrange bump rather than the firmware. Hopefully, I can get both the midrange richness and the airiness back again but somehow am skeptical.

From what I have read here and elsewhere, 1.2.1 is the firmware with the “best” midrange richness. I understand that both Pikes Peak and Yale are inferior to Torreys as far as this midrange attribute is concerned so it is a waste of time to try those. Is this correct?

66

yacheah…I would not write off Yale,Pikes Peak, or, for that matter,Torreys beta A version. You may like what you hear…

67
mark-d said yacheah...I would not write off Yale,Pikes Peak, or, for that matter,Torreys beta A version. You may like what you hear...
How do I get Torreys Beta A?

It isn’t available on the Downloads section. Also, aren’t the beta versions buggy?

I am basing my selection on the feedback I’ve seen here. I really don’t have the time to do all this “testing” or firmware rolling and so am happy to rely on received wisdom. I would really like a DAC that I can plug in and enjoy and listen to music, rather than playing the same test tracks over and over again. Ultimately, I like music more than hi fi.

So far, the DS has been a hassle as far as this is concerned and if it drags on, I am more inclined to conclude that the PS Audio house sound isn’t for me and give up.

68

Why not come to that decision if it doesn’t fit for you?

You should save yourself from fiddling around with old and beta firmwares, it won’t help enough as just switching cabling won’t help enough IMO.

If there was a simpler idea for you than to add or change a major part of your system or environment, someone would probably already have posted it. The DS can sound as you expect (or very close), but it seems not with small measures in your setup.

69

My vinyl rig also got more accurate in bass, the better it got and at the end, it then was -as the DS - more accurate (and lean) than my previous digital player. I assume (also from my following fitting with the sub and main speaker), the richer DAC’s just mainly produce more inaccuracies in bass which show up as “richness” up to the mids in a matching environment. Probably to a certain degree the improvements in the DS’ firmware also have this effect, which is why some still prefer the old, “worse” but slightly “richer” one.

As soon as you’re able to adjust the bass to the new accuracy and to your room, you’ll notice sufficient richness again with the DS.

If you listen real full range and have those options, the main strength besides ambiance and pace of the DS is the accuracy and tonal shape of the bass, which enables to hear loud and quite uncritical with several differently recorded/mastered bass spectra. This is real fun at the end!

This way I can listen with in case of doubt always rather a little more than too little bass without hardly any relevant resonances at the spot. For sure at other places in the room there are resonances, but sitting down the spot with the DS is like when the eyes switch in front of a 3D picture to recognize the picture content and also tonality snaps into place there.

But as I said, this strenght of the DS can become a problem if you come from the other side of the range and have no option to compensate what actually is an improvement.

Edit:

to achieve such a bass accuracy with vinyl that comes very close to that of the DS, quite some effort is necessary. In my case this was a very costly motor & power supply and quite some effort in resonance conduction, means “mass drive TT -> special resonance conduction feet -> very heavy slate base -> air bearing isolation -> rack”. So one can’t achieve this with a standard turntable in a normal rack.

70

in the absence of any activity in this thread in the past month, may i fill the void by asking ted

  • if there are any measured differences between torreys a (my preferred distro by far) and torreys final

-if he could continue development of the next version along the lines of torreys a. else i am going to start a petition in change.org and get 50,000 signatures from audiophiles, music lovers, NGO’s and the general publickiss

71

With low level signals (say test tones at -80dBFS) Torreys A is less linear. With signals with slow fades at low levels you can hear zippering in Torreys A. Torreys Final on the other hand has just a little more noise (about a dB across the audio band.

But I’m pretty sure you aren’t hearing any of this with normal material - after you know what to listen to you can hear the effects of the zippering on certain percussive material at higher levels but that doesn’t come across as a change in tone as much as “something strange”.

I do think we’ll get more towards the “goodness” of Torreys A in the future.

72

Ted, I’m thrilled to read that from you. There was “something” about Torreys A that I was entranced by, that was lost in subsequent versions. I just figured my brain might have been amused by the effect of one of the inaccuracies you later fixed.

Can you share any insight into what you hope to recapture from that release? No worries if not… I’m still enjoying the music.

73

Except for fixing the zipper noise I don’t Torreys Final is technically better than Torreys A. But the zipper noise was a killer as far as I was concerned - once you heard it it could drive you nuts.

I’m not driving towards a particular sound difference between Torreys A and Torreys Final: I have some algo changes to try for the next release, but I also have some ideas on yet another way to lower jitter and noise which I think will get us the rest of the goodness of Torreys A.

74
Ted Smith said Except for fixing the zipper noise I don't Torreys Final is technically better than Torreys A. But the zipper noise was a killer as far as I was concerned - once you heard it it could drive you nuts.

I’m not driving towards a particular sound difference between Torreys A and Torreys Final: I have some algo changes to try for the next release, but I also have some ideas on yet another way to lower jitter and noise which I think will get us the rest of the goodness of Torreys A.


How did Torreys A sound different from Torreys Final - except for the zipper noise?

75

I am still using TorreysB because of the added energy in the treble area and wider soundstage. I think TorreysB don’t have the zipper-noise artifact either.

76
yacheah said How did Torreys A sound different from Torreys Final - except for the zipper noise?
That's hard to answer since everyone has differing opinions - the differences definitely depend on the rest of your system (especially things like soundstage changes or tonal changes like richness, etc.) Technically at higher output levels (say above 80 or 90) there shouldn't be much of a difference. If you typically listen at 40 to 60 (or quieter) you might not like the zipper noise of Torreys A. But besides the lack of zipper noise, Torreys Final definitely sounds better at lower volumes than, say 50, since it's more linear (i.e. the tone won't change as much as the volume is turned down with Torreys Final.)

The zipper noise was a (unanticipated) side effect of trying to lower the output noise: but that (1 or 2dB) noise tradeoff probably isn’t the biggest difference - it’s more likely that statistically we got a lower jitter build with Torreys A than Torreys Final. If I can lower the jitter overall more on the next release then we should have the best of both worlds…

77

Ted, is this the same very low level noise one can hear with a non-dithered signal on a long note decay disappearing into ambient noise as the signal bounces between bit levels? (I hope I explained that well.) After hearing this artifact I became a believer in adding dither when truncating bit-depth.

78

Good deduction - the zipper noise bug is a relative of the undithered decay problem. Tho technically I’m not dithering, one could think of my bug as accidentally combining two signals with differing error profiles: Their sum produced a stepped signal when the two errors were too (anti)correlated.

79

My perception of Torreys A did involve a wider soundstage and something which might match the description of “greater treble energy”. I go direct from DAC to power amp and normally listen with the DS output level set to “high” and the digital volume closer to 50 than 100 – because in my system I feel like the treble clarity is better without the attenuator engaged, and high frequency clarity is something I particularly value.

I’m open to the possibility that my preference here is actually towards something which is less true-to-the-source. I’ve met other people who have that kind of tendency (including one with a clear preference for higher jitter and another for speakers with greater cabinet resonance). Maybe I like a zipper-y treble effect and just think it’s clarity. confused

80

I’ve ended up with a less categorical view of what’s right vs. euphonic. On one hand I trust my system when things sound more engaging and real especially when it matches the sound of some other well built systems I admire. On the other hand when I make technical improvements that change things I don’t get overly worried about it (unless they make something worse somehow). The flatter the FR the better, the closer the wave shape to the theoretical waveshape the better, the lower the jitter and noise the better, etc. As long as I don’t feel like I’m making compromises by having to balance the effect of one technical improvement against another I feel that I’m getting closer to “the truth”, e.g. to what’s coming in on the input bits.

Some systems will have a bigger difference in treble energy with and without the attenuator than some other systems, so I’m not surprised when people report a sound quality preference one way or the other.

I know you were joking, but I don’t think anyone would really like the zipper noises. They are obviously not too intrusive since Torreys A was out for a while until a few people noticed them and rubbed my nose in it :slight_smile: I do like the fix for them in Torreys Final in that in addition to fixing the zipper noises Torreys Final sounds better than earlier releases (Yale, Pike’s Peak, 1.2.1, etc.) on the test cases we used to fix and test the zipper noises problem.

81
Ted Smith said The flatter the FR the better, the closer the wave shape to the theoretical waveshape the better, the lower the jitter and noise the better, etc. As long as I don't feel like I'm making compromises by having to balance the effect of one technical improvement against another I feel that I'm getting closer to "the truth", e.g. to what's coming in on the input bits.
Hear! Hear!

It has been very satisfying to hear how the closer to theoretically perfect, the better the sound.

82

Ted said, …They are obviously not too intrusive since Torreys A was out for a while until a few people noticed them and rubbed my nose in it smile I do like the fix for them in Torreys Final in that in addition to fixing the zipper noises Torreys Final sounds better than earlier releases (Yale, Pike’s Peak, 1.2.1, etc.) on the test cases we used to fix and test the zipper noises problem.

When I first tried Torreys Final there was something far wrong with it…My system sounded lifeless, boring and unmusical. I definitely preferred Beta A. I was one of the few who heard the zippering noise and I reported it to Ted, but that said, I still preferred A … Ted assured me Torreys Final was the correct way to go and that I should reload Yale then Torreys Final… After doing as instructed by Ted; - Straight-Away - I heard Torreys Final as all other who loved did… And now without question I prefer Torreys Final above all previous Firmware … But I have to say even though Beta A is compromised with the zippering bug there is still something about it I like…! Musically Beta A falls well short of the mark when compared to Torreys Final. ( I see Torreys Final akin to a grown up 1.2.1 ) But with A. there is still this sense of the occasion and it has something about it that I like, especially with Jazz and acoustic guitars, etc…difficult to articulate why — :