I’m wondering that so many just seem to have experienced “different” sounding cabling within a price range and use it for tone control more or less. Even before I landed where I am now, I was in a price range where it would have been much too expensive to hold similarly good cables in parallel for compensating equipment or firmware differences. Not to speak of my assumption that each different sounding cabling will handle very basic demands (like phase coherence) differently. So we care for the best and most accurate DAC/firmware and then we change something like cabling to alter what we achieved at DAC level just to compensate tonality?
Now, in my setup the difference to everything else I heard rg. cabling is so big and it sounds so much more right in so many ways, that the cabling got as much a core component as the speakers. If I’d switch cabling due to a component or firmware change (even against very expensive alternatives), ambience, soundstage and timing would kind of collapse. At a rather standard level I can easily accept that tone control purpose of cabling, but not in a highly optimized high end system. I admit, my advantage is, that I can compensate tonality changes with turning volume of single chassis up and down on my active speakers.
So no, I definitely don’t compensate tonality changes with switching cabling. And remembering how folks tend to claim certain concepts or equipment represents neutrality, accuracy and truth to the recording (during their whole development phase?), I wonder how changes that need such compensation can happen at all.
Enough of this trying cables is free; presumably, you paid a fair penny or more for any that are worth listening to.
We’re not talking this time about the usual differences of appreciation where some find one version has better this or that quality than another (bass, soundstage, etc.). That a decent number of people are finding the tonal balance of 3.0.6 sufficiently unsatisfactory that they are going back to 3.0 just to enjoy listening to the dac or, alternatively, they are needing to resort to switching cables, then it suggests that the update process didn’t work this time as intended (perhaps updates need to be more widely tested). Not a crime, just a problem to be recognized, examined and solved.
I did pay a fair penny. But if I hadn’t liked them I could have returned them for a full refund. But have kept the same cable for all the firmware changes. I currently prefer 3.0.0
I am in two minds as to whether I prefer it or 3.00. There is more detail both in the treble and bass with 3.06. The midrange also has a clarity and more inner detail that is almost incandescent with some vocal recordings, which is engaging and pleasing to the ear.
However, 3.06 is also drier than 3.00. It’s lost the roundedness and fullness that 3.00 has. On the plus side, it sounds slightly faster with more tension and drama. There is more air and space between the notes. On the downside, with bright, less than pristine recordings the highs can be a bit too much. 3.00 is more forgiving in this respect. 3.00 also imaged larger than life in my setup. 3.06 has a more natural presentation.
I had switched to a fuller and warmer sounding power cord on the preamp already - which I preferred - even with 3.00 on the DAC, so that is not a factor.
That’s an excellent description of 3.06, and what I heard when I initially tried it. However the leanness or dryness in the midrange improves with more run in time, and does become fuller, although not quite as full as 3.0, but perhaps more neutral sounding. I’ve decided to stick with 3.06.
I like many aspects of SM v3.0.6, but in my system SM v3.0.0 sounds best overall. The best way I can describe it is that, to me, v3.0.6 sounds more precise whereas v3.0.0 sounds more musical. If there were a way to create a hybrid OS of v3.0.0 and v3.0.6 which retains the best aspects of each, that would likely be the killer app.
Welcome to the Forum, @entman, I see you joined one week ago and that you have made a total of seven posts so far, including your “way off topic” post immediately above.
In actuality, the discussion of the various SM versions is very much on-topic. This thread was created several weeks before SM v3.0.6 was released. Ever since SM v3.0.6 entered the wild, we have been posting in this thread as to how it sounds compared to other SM versions, and not just v3.0.5. In fact, if you were to read the entire thread, I think you would find way more comparisons of v3.0.0 to v3.0.6 than you would of v3.0.5 to v3.0.6.
In other words, the thread has evolved over time, and the most recent posts comparing v3.0.0 to v3.0.6 that somehow offended your on-vs.-off-topic sensibilities are topical.
Once again, welcome to the Forum. I look forward to anything constructive you have to add to this thread.
And vive la différence, as I believe that the most interesting sonic comparison of SM versions is v3.0.0 vs. v3.0.6. Most people, I think, prefer v.3.0.0 and v3.0.6 to v3.0.4 and v3.0.5. (There is no v3.0.1, v3.0.2 or v3.0.3, at least not in the wild.)
Personally, I rank the SM versions I have heard as follows (I have yet to try v3.0.5):
Th really remarkable thing is the FPGA is IDENTICAL in 3.00 and 3.06 the only changes were in the PIC for operational issues. That makes it practically impossible to predict how those kind of changes are impacting the sound of the DAC.
No, there’s a remote chance that they might have picked a different one of the 20 compiles of the FPGA, but all 20 compiles have the identical source and function. But I doubt that they would have picked a different one.
I do remember the release of Snowmass was delayed because there was an issue with the refresh rate of the display that did cause sonic. The lowered the refresh from somewhere around 1400 hz to 180 and that took care of it.
I’ve been flicking between 3.0.0, 3.0.5 and 3.0.6 over the last week now that my DSD has run in. Interesting. 3.0.0 is really lush but in my system, the highs sounded a little bit recessed / dull. 3.0.6 had that reedy dryness that others have reported but did sound more detailed (in an analytical way) - perhaps it would suit someone running a fully solid state system?. 3.0.5 was the pick for me though. It retains most of the lushness of the midrange of 3.0.0 but has a more subjectively extended treble. Bass is good, nicely extended. 3.0.6 is just too dry in my system, to my tastes - perhaps it might be good in a tube based system looking for a bit more clarity?
I swapped firmwares repeatedly and did reboots after each swap. Let each firmware run for good while too. I also did fast swaps of firmware, giving them a few minutes before moving on. The results were very consistent to my ears.
So to me, 3.0.5 is still the winner. I have a BHK preamp and a Class A solid state amplifier (Pass Labs XA25) so that might explain why I like the “middle of the road” 3.0.5?
I’ve said it before, so I’ll say it again (I can’t help myself ) I think the only 2 releases worth trying are 3.0.0 and 3.0.6.
3.0.0 if you have a relatively noisy feed (rfi etc) as it reduces high frequency detail, and 3.0.6 if you’ve managed to reduce the noise so high frequency detail isn’t reduced.
) I think the only 2 releases worth trying are 3.0.0 and 3.0.6.