I am really enjoying Teds posts but I feel a need to remind some of you:
Do Not Feed The Trolls
4 Likes
Thatās right, we seem to be in a time loop. Every attempt to achieve a differentiation between personal taste and perception within the own environment as well as side effects within the master plan on the one side and unarguable facts, valid for an isolated field of observation on the other side, seems without result, it just starts again where it began.
At the end the final result of the whole package is what counts for the individual. You canāt wow someone for a Porsche who wants or needs a camper.
Ted, thanks for striving for accuracy and low noise. Iāll color the sound with tubes down the line in the pre if I want
Ok. Are there more updates to the system in the works? How long before system (programming) updates canāt improve the DAC significantly without resorting to physical upgrades? I am thinking in terms of the future of the DAC. Is there an upgrade path being considered similar to the PWD to the DSD in the past? I presume that with the experience you and others in PS Audio are gaining from the Obsidian project could trickle down to the DSD.
Iāll keep updating the DS and DS Jr as long as I can find things to make them better. For many releases Iāve thought that the next would have smaller benefits than earlier releases. But every time the differences were bigger than I expected. In principle when I canāt make things better with software there will be a new version of the DS. Tho itās not likely that any new versions will share the display, case, etc. from the DS/PWD, PS Audio has always been generous with discounts on trade ups.
Some of the TSS software and hardware ideas have already benefitted the DS and DS Jr. in the past few releases. That will continue. Any theoretical new DS level DAC would also benefit in hardware - newer or cheaper parts, perhaps some of the isolation tech, attenuator tech, S/PDIF and/or AES3 hardware improvements, reclocking improvements, etc.
7 Likes
I have been loving Tedās generous info sharing and explanations about DACs. Thank you so much, @tedsmith !!!
At the same time, I have been reading a variety of other online comments and reviews about DACs based on R2R, single-chip, and FPGA designs. Putting all this info together is a daunting task, especially since I have so little direct experience with most of these DACs, so Iām hoping to find out a bit more from forum members about how competing DACs compare with the PS Audio DS DAC. My current DAC is the SGCD, which connects to a pair of M700 monoblocks feeding Thiel 2.2 speakers. Iām currently waiting for delivery of a BHK Preamp to add a bit of tube magic to my system, and I plan to use the DAC in the SGCD with the BHK pre until I can decide which alternative DAC is likely to sound best with my room and other gear. I want a DAC that is transparent and accurate without sounding dry, bright, or analytical. Iām looking for a DAC that sounds very natural, non-fatiguing, and musical without sounding soft or colored.
In addition to the DS (which is high on my list of DAC choices), Iām also hearing great things about the Bricasti M3, the Audio Mirror Tubadour III SE, and the AudioByte Vox. Do any forum members have any comments or recommendations about any of these DACs?
Thanks for your kind reply, Ted. I will look forward for new updates and upgrades. As the Obsidian is probably going to be priced higher, than at present I can afford (who knows what could happen in the future), I hope that PS Audio introduces a new DAC to replace the current DSD at a more affordable price than the Obsidian, but with some of its features.
Also look at the Aqua La Voce S3, also an FPGA design to my ears in my system it sounds like your wish list. I also own a DS Sr.
1 Like
@dawkinsj Thanks for the suggestion of the Aqua La Voce S3. It sounds very interesting.
What are the biggest differences between the La Voce and the DS Sr. in your system?
More detail and more bass.
1 Like
For those who are interested in the Border Patrol, below are iinks for two very recent Border Patrol SE-i reviews. This quote from the Audio Beatnik review describes how the tube rectifier combined with the vintage chip effects the sound:
āWhat is interesting is that there is no real ātube-likeā signature to the sound that you would expect from a valve being in the circuit. What it does add is a density to the instruments that is absent in many of the DACs I have auditioned. This DAC renders instruments with tone and complex harmonics nicely but never slowed or muddied. The sound has a wonderfully open quality to the sound and the performance just unfolds.ā
But wasnāt the limitation of DS, the output stage noise? So, apart from Software, wouldnāt a hardware upgrade help lower noise, and provide even better resolution and sound?
Certainly a hardware change can lower noise (and do other fine things.) Thereās also digital noise from the sigma delta modulator, but itās more benign. I was answering the question about whether Iād keep supporting the DS and DS Jr. with software updates. The TSS has better hardware and sounds better. If and when we might build a new DS level DAC, it will sound better than the DS (otherwise, why do it.)
1 Like
Thanksā¦ so essentially until Software can improve DS, it will continue as-is, when Software is optimized, then a new DS with better HW would be developed. Right?
BTW, speaking of better hardware, was reading up on Roland 808, and essentially they NEEDED faulty resistors to make the unique sounds it made! Quite a fascinating storyā¦ better hardware made it impossible to be made!
The film ā808ā closes by giving viewers an audience with the Creator. Rolandās wan founder, Ikutaro Kakehashi, sits at a desk in a navy suit wearing nasal oxygen tubes and, in labored, heavily accented and subtitled English, spins a familiar yarn. He claims that the 808ās distinctive sizzle was produced by the faulty transistors that he chose for the sound generator. As semiconductor improvements made them impossible to restock, āwe could no longer buy the defective transistor,ā he says. āSo, no way to come back!ā
1 Like
In this YouTube video from a few days ago, Steve Guttenberg articulates my experience of going down the transparent/ low noise/ ever more revealing rabbit hole. For me, the quest for more transparency is the Achilles heal of high end audio and will forever keep it a very niche arena. Hopefully a new generation of designers will come up with better strategies to make music as a whole sound better.
1 Like
I never looked for transparency. Itās a foolās mission. Thatās why people get caught up with āa wire with gainā. I want to enjoy listening to music. I want it to be, well, musical. Thatās why I have no problem listening to tube amps and tube preamps. I donāt want transparent sound. I want it to be alive and musical.
3 Likes
He basically makes the well known and true point that revealing, transparent gear can make bad recordings sound so and may be less forgiving than less transparent gear there. The rest seems to be your interpretation.
And just as you need good recordings to show the advantage of transparent gear, it needs a well balanced setup to show the virtues of reducing noise. That doesnāt make reducing noise a wrong thing, itās one of the most right things ever to enable great sound.
And I still think your observations may be right for what you hear in your setup with the music and recordings you prefer or mainly listen to. Just give up trying to make a common theory out of it.
2 Likes
What is transparency? How do we know itās real and not HiFi artifice?
So Guttenberg mentions sharp edgesā¦ Iāve never encountered sharp edges anywhere in the real world. Are audiophiles attracted to an artificially enhanced leading edge?
Speakers are still by and far the largest form of distortion in the playback chain. Itās possible certain distortions of the playback equipment are bad when combined with particular distortions of the recording.
1 Like
If a setup gets more transparent and revealing by reducing noise or other measures and still or even by then sounds sharp, edgy or whatever, the reason is, that thereās still something wrong at another place (not wrong with getting more transparent and revealing).
But Iām partly also with those other arguments: if the recording or the processes to produce media are not free of faults, losses and additions (which they are not), and optimized gear āassumesā it as perfect, thereās always a voicing necessary, to compensate for this false assumption.
Iām sure, if @dancingsea had a lossless parametric EQ or an active crossover level adjustment, heād choose the most transparent equipment and in case something changes not to his likes, rule out those tonality problems with those adjustments.
I wrote this often here: the main big problem for audiophiles to choose the right/better and not compensating gear is the inability to tweak tonality towards changing/improving equipment.
Side noteā¦ how would an electrostat or Ribbon sound for guitar amplification?
12 inch paper is the normā¦ we donāt use tweeters, crossoversā¦ anything of that nature.
Why arenāt there 3 way guitar cabinets?