Fair enough. But that explanation, however true, exposes a problem for the user, and presumably developer, when within the same overall firmware version the the resulting sound of each seemingly unrelated change turns out to be potluck.
1 Like
I am very proud of our team. They put the customer first - and our customers are always the end users. Some companies place their dealers in that position, figuring end users are the dealer’s customers, but we’ve never thought that way. Dealers are intermediaries
to end users and end users are our customers and the entire focus of our team. Thanks for noticing.
6 Likes
@Paul - if you want to get a snapshot what a company’s leadership believes, interface with all employees. A leader sets culture, how the customer is treated, what the employees believe, how they act, behaviors, it all comes from the leader. This is what makes your company unique, the reason this community is special… thanks for fighting the resistance every morning and acting as a PRO. Thank all your staff, they represent your values well, from sales to design engineers, from techs to service… the mantra always is “how can we help you”… that is worth millions…
4 Likes
It’s only potluck if you get tied up in details but those details are small compared to the changes from release to release: substantive changes in the code have the expected changes in the sound. I don’t think most would say that from release to release the DS has had only random changes in sound quality. You can still tell which car/driver is better in a race even tho each specific run varies somewhat in lap time.
5 Likes
Blush. Thanks!
1 Like
i just did upgrade to 3.06 from 3.05, and I immediately noticed smoother highs and bigger soundstage. Call me crazy, but a noticeable difference.
2 Likes
Everyone here pretty much says the same,only the system synergy or listening habbits tells whether its a keeper or not. We are all crazy:sweat_smile:
1 Like
You know it’s so fascinating, because in my brief time so far with 3.06 after living with 3.00 for months and months is. . . more often than not the opposite of your impressions. I need to do a lot more listening and will next week (my wife is taking a four day weekend and I have family in town from VA and WA so not much listening possible in the near future). I’ll do a few reboots with the card out and put more hours on and see how it all settles in. But it is interesting how Ted notes all that changes is noise suppression and how that influences the sound of different systems differently.
1 Like
Again, fair enough, but at the level of sound refinement (and cost) we’re dealing with here it’s in the details. And the gap was large enough between 3.0 and 3.0.5 that there was a long thread, with many, including myself, hearing substantial enough differences between the two to put up with the technical glitches involved in going back. And here again, the discussion is about whether to stay or go back.
I want to be clear that my comments are not about the quality of your work, about which I have no qualms, but rather what seem to be the practical implications of the point you’ve made about the technology being used.
My point was simply that most people aren’t going from Snowmass back to Redcloud or Huron because of the differences in the PIC code. We definitely understand some of the changes in the PIC code that make the sound better. There should be significantly fewer (no?) differences in the sound quality in the TSS with changes upstream. If we were to redo the DirectStream hardware we could reduce the changes as well. The simplest change of adding another reclocker is pretty costly, but most changes that affect sound quality would be free.
2 Likes
You pretty much nailed what I experienced when comparing 3.0 to 3.06. I really wanted to keep 3.06 but as you stated:
“I found 6 to lack energy in the frequency spectrum that brings life to music.”
Well we have found Matrix x spdif 2 to be that needed reclocker you are maybe referring to ,work very well. But still all these SM versions are easy to hear sounding different. Which is not a bad thing. Something for everyone. I dont understand all this questioning why changes in PIC are making a difference or not. Main thing is that there are improvement ( also bug fixes ) or at least sidesteps by every version and sound is tunable to suit our tastes and systems by SW version. Lot easier than changing speakers or amps to match,and for free.
I was speaking of another reclocker on the analog board - that’s where they have the biggest effect. But yes having multiple choices isn’t all bad.
3 Likes
[quote=“tedsmith, post:192, topic:10205”] We definitely understand some of the changes in the PIC code that make the sound better.
[/quote]
And some fair number of people think the PIC changes within Snowmass have made it worse, or are a mixed bag, which like the 3.0 vs 3.0.5 discussion, PSA has thus far refused to admit as a plausible possibility, unless I’ve missed it. My point is that it seems to me your response to my voicing comments provides the basis for that understanding. But yes, PSA has tacitly accepted that possibility, or are flexible enough, to keep the various versions available to users, and for that I am grateful. Enough said. Back to listening.
My interpretation: when we start to think about what choice they have, we might understand…they release a firmware with big effort in voicing/choosing the different compiles…then there are bugs in something like the PIC code that have to be fixed…better it makes no sound difference as this could change the perception of the originally released firmware and be a risk of complaints (those PIC code changes are not crosschecked soundwise I guess, they come as they are)…so I understand that this is the reason why there was a long “official fall silent” regarding sound changes by PIC code. Meanwhile the possibility of sound changes and even a concrete statement that they led to the better in case of 3.06 were communicated. I guess, the reason why no one from PSA officially reports how he perceives those changes in detail is, that this could be also a confirmation to those who don’t like this change for those reasons. Those listeners then do have the choice to go back to another PIC release, but they only have the choice between a bug fixed sound they don’t like or a sound they like with bugs. Fine for most but not ideal in terms of a sound fully under control after bug fixes by PSA.
That’s how I explain the reactions/non reactions to myself and I can retrace that somehow.
Fortunately those changes are small and I’d say in a well balanced setup they are interesting to follow but don’t change the general character.
Odd, my opinion is that 3.0.0 lacks excitement. 3.0.6 has it in spades by comparison.
1 Like
After a few days I’ve gone back to 3.00 other than the quirks in the DAC volume settings it’s my keeper. The sound matches my old ears frequency response.
I thought you said it sounded ‘very.bright.’? Bright , to me, always seems like a negative.
Anyway. I’m really happy w 3.0.0. I’m waiting for the next mountain top. :). I mean - that’s the way to get rid of this controversy!! Lol.
1 Like
It did sound bright for the first hour or so. It sounds swell since then. I think I may stick with 06. But I have to leave my system for five days to go traveling. Bah. I probably should have given 3.0.0 a bit more time but it took effort to stay in my chair with it.
I enjoy the added high frequency detail and imaging with 3.0.6 vs. 3.0.0, but the mids are lacking in fullness/warmth… Bass is great, highs are great… midrange seems lacking though.