Successor to the DirectStream?

Audio Components DACs
22

First, Harvey is not be taken seriously. He’ll say anything to get attention.

Second, if you take an 192/24 PCM file encode it in MQA than decode it and it sounds better than playing the original PCM, you must have applied some form of digital processing beyond just encoding / decoding the original. Whatever you did to it can be implemented in a DAC that uses PCM as input, not MQA. You just apply the MQA encoding / decoding magic in the DAC as part of the D/A conversion technique (much like directstream converts PCM to DSD). So if indeed MQA encoding / decoding makes PCM (and DSD sources) sound better than the original, this is tantamount to saying Meridian has found a way to improve the D/A conversion process of PCM (and DSD) source material.

I’m a huge sceptic, but even if true, this would just be an innovation in D/A conversion, using an intermediate conversion to MQA.

23
edorr said First, Harvey is not be taken seriously. He'll say anything to get attention.
Assume you meant Harley. Yeah, I've met him more than once. 'Nuff said.
24

Yes, Harley. I must have had one too many Harvey wallbangers.

25
tony22 said @ksalno, take another look at the start of his "Listening to MQA" on Page 60. As follows:

"I heard a wide range of musical styles encoded in MQA from a variety of sources, including analog tape and existing 192KHz/24-bit “masters”. "

He then goes on to expound how all of this stuff sounded like the best thing ever. My interpretation of the underlined is existing content that was subsequently encoded with MQA, just as the analog content would have been encoded in MQA.


From what I understand from this article, it appears to me that MQA only works on an analog signal. The purported improvement in SQ comes from two things, improved timing precision on transients (referred to as temporal blur in this article) and better management of the noise floor, using their advanced sampling and quantization techniques. If I’m understanding this correctly, then the only way to use a digital master would be to first run it through a DAC so the MQA could then be applied to the analog signal. So the chain would be Std PCM DAC → MQA ADC → MQA DAC and then out via an analog chain to the speakers. Running standard 24/192 PCM into an MQA DAC wouldn’t improve the sound in any way that I can see, as there would be no MQA data encoded in the PCM for the MQA DAC to decode.

26

I would think that if you convert PCM to analog, and then analog to digital (MQA encoded) and then MQA digital back to analog the final analog can never sound better than the original PCM to analog conversion, because that analog is the source and the only information available to the MQA encoding. Making it “sound better” would require creating musical information out of thin air (audio alchemy?).

27
edorr said I would think that if you convert PCM to analog, and then analog to digital (MQA encoded) and then MQA digital back to analog the final analog can never sound better than the original PCM to analog conversion, because that analog is the source and the only information available to the MQA encoding. Making it "sound better" would require creating musical information out of thin air (audio alchemy?).
MQA doesn't add anything to the musical information. The claimed sound quality improvements (I haven't heard it but hope to at Axpona in a few weeks) are supposedly the result of removing pre and post ringing on transients which should make the music sound more natural and lifelike and a lower noise floor.
28

But that would be an A/D conversion technique …

29
edorr said But that would be an A/D conversion technique ....
Yep, that's why you need both an MQA compatible ADC at the mastering/recording side and an MQA enabled DAC on the playback side to get maximum SQ. It's also why MQA playback would have no value with a standard PCM file.
30
gordon said Just a guess but.... someone we know has been into home theatre lately. His partner in devilishness is already a "multi" kinda a guy. HHmmmmm?
I thought about that but why wouldn't DS owners be interested in that (at least those with separate home theaters, which leaves me out)? The devil can be very ambiguous at times so who knows.
31

Nothing to do with home theater.devil_gif

32

Be pretty awesome if “someone” put an upgradeable FPGA into a Sprout, replacing the shelf Sabre…

Currently, if the Sprout has a lot of success (as evidenced by being on the cover of, oh i don’t know - say, … Stereophile) there will be loads of copying in no time.

But, with an FPGA, it would be not be worth competing against - victory to PS Audio, again.

Can you imagine the devotion younger (I’m halfway in between) people would feel towards the brand that sold them that product ?

Wouldn’t need any higher output than current 50 w (at 4 ohms ?)

This wouldn’t interest DirectStream owners who push DS output through a separate, more powerful amplifiers.

Could use the same “software” as the DirectStream. So, no extra cost in maintaining the platform.

Still have that beautifully simple front end; iPhone music via bluetooth => Desktop-DS driving bookshelf speakers… awesome.

Existing DS owners would buy as their secondary systems / desktop systems.

Would love to see the DS FPGA in a Bluesound / Sonos type product as well.

So many product opportunities for PS Audio - it must be difficult to work out what to say “no” to.

33

My wish list would be an all out flagship.

Currently ps audio has one dac meaning one flagship. Maybe a gold series DS dac.

Something that was not cost effective at the current price point.

But most of the research is already done.

So. If Ted had a increased budget do what he feels would give us a notable improvement. Even an upgrade path of possible. And I am not saying the current dac is not a champ it is.

Any thoughts

34

That would be on the top of my list as well (along with a MCH version of the DS, which is apparently not in the cards). I still think Ps audio has an opportunity to develop an external powersupply in a DS chassis that can feed one or multiple DACs and transports, much like MSB is doing. Of course, this would require hardware changes for existing DAC / Transport units currently in the field…

35

When talking Flagship, I was interested in how people use them (at least one does) in a multi-DS multi-channel environment.

@edorr - would you illuminate for me, please ?

For mine, the flagship wish-list product would be an upgradeable Devialet all-in-one with a PS Audio digital platform, and without the Amplifier; since the analog / amplification line runs via the Pxx’s + BHK250 / 300’s.

This would require integration of the Phono, as yet unreleased External Bridge, Direcstream into one product. Pretty awesome if it were also the Digital Lens / Memory Player, too.

What a challenge !

In a similar form factor, this would sell and sell and sell. But, devialet’s pricing is sharp, since the Devialet 120 will do this job (just use external amplifiers) for just EU$5k and AU$7.5k (rrp).

Not sure what the Phono + DS + External Bridge will end up being, but given my recent experience pricing PS Audio in Oz, I know AU7.5k would cover only the DS (rrp; apples to apples)

The expandable (to 400 mono’s) stereo 200 devialet (6 ohms) is EU$6k and AU$10.5k.

Devialet system is technically fabulous & musically solid, but it doesn’t sound as good as the PS Audio…

Doing a Devialet all in one would be a serious hardware and software design exercise, so might require another partnership (Ted; Bascom; ?).

And would seem like it is at least 2 + 2 yrs away, which is understandable but a bit unfortunate, because it is only in Stereo 120 / 200 and 400 Mono’s that Devialet have any advantage (in price) at all.

36

Thinking about this, there is no doubt that Devialet are “amortising” the massive (or at least really quite large) digital engineering effort across the entire platform, which uses identical electronics (phono, dac, etc.).

PS Audio does generate similar pricing at the Phono + DAC + 2 Mono price point (300 Mono vs 600 Mono; 3 dBw, allowing the same headroom),

not allowing for the anticipated quality of the BHK’s.

37
dvg_au said When talking Flagship, I was interested in how people use them (at least one does) in a multi-DS multi-channel environment.

@edorr - would you illuminate for me, please ?

Very simple. I am running a Lynx Card from my Multi Channel audio / video server into a stack of 3 x DS. I control volume in JRiver (I have a preamp on the mans channel, and run straight into amps for center / surrounds). I play MCH music downloads, DVD and Blu Ray rips, and SACD rips. Control the library with JRemote.

The alternative is to run 3 x coax from an Oppo with VanityHD board into the stack of DACs, but this requires spinning discs and you wont have access to DRC. This is what TEd is doind (into 2 x DS in 4.0 system actually).

I have ordered a server with MCH I2S card that will replace the lynx, but otherwise essentially the same setup.

38

A minor correction I’m using 3 DS’s via the Vanity HD card. But I have a modified preamp that sums 1/2 of the center signal into each of the left and right channels and hence I don’t run a center speaker. It is great to be listening to multichannel music again.

39

Of course. I forgot you sum the signals after D/A conversion, so you need a DAC for your center. If I run 4.0 (I tried), I add center to mains before D/A processing in JRiver, so I would not need a third DAC.

40

How about migrating the PS preamp tube stage into the DS (Lampi Big7 approach)?

41
Ted Smith said A minor correction I'm using 3 DS's via the Vanity HD card. But I have a modified preamp that sums 1/2 of the center signal into each of the left and right channels and hence I don't run a center speaker. It is great to be listening to multichannel music again.
Ted, what is your surround spkr arrangement ?