I reckon the D/A principle will be the same for TSS as the DS, meaning that the DSD stream is just low pass filtered in front of the Jensen trafo for each channel?
Yes, sort of: like the DS the design also uses the leakage inductance of the transformer as a part of the filtering. One thing I like about Jensen transformers is that their natural filtering is Bessel shaped, the natural roll-off doesnāt mess much with phase and looks like a time delay.
1 Like
I guess thatās not a problem: AD8139, a fully differential video opamp - they use about twice the current and cost about two times a much. They are the ones I used in my original prototype.
Did you ever consider using the Lundahl LL7401 instead of the Jensen?
Paul
Just caught up with this thread and saw the above posted on Sept 9 by pmotz. Can you add any comment on this? I remember a previous comment you made that the Digital Lens implementation in the DMP was better than that in both the PWT and Bridge II, so I guess the new design should be very much better. Can you give an update on when this might be available e.g. as a stand-alone Bridge III with ethernet in and I2S out?
Yes, theyāve been recommended to me a lot 
Lundahl doesnāt spec their deviation from linear phase - when I talked to them they basically said that it doesnāt matter (but it does.)
Their distortion is a little higher (0.05% @ 22dB @ 50Hz vs 0.015% @ 20dB @ 50Hz) And thatās the only point speced. Jensen provides a graph with distortion against frequency and input level.
They have a smaller bandwidth. For my purposes Lundahlās closer in high roll-off (i.e. +/- 3dB @ 80kHz vs -3dB @ 200kHz) would be a plus, but I canāt afford to lose any bass response (+/-3dB at 20Hz compared to -3dB at 0.4Hz)
1 Like
worked great in my Wadia 7 & 9 comboā¦
Glad to see this is really happening. Count me in for one. Beter watch it though lol. You made DS SR so god maybe hard to top it? Maybe not. My MSB select is a better dac duh. Surpass that and I will pay likewise price. Beauty of PSA is it probably will not in fact be six figures. I canāt wait for this. I hope you slam the best dacās on the market. Exciting times. My other post did not show up. If I said something inappropriate I apologize.
OH, it did show up my bad.
Interestingly enough as bad as speakers are the ones most of us are listening to allow us to hear minute changes in our electronics anyway! My B&W 800 Matrix may be old but can outperform so much of the over priced over rated stuff on todayās market!
We hear changes not because speakers are accurate, but because they are consistent in their inaccuracy.
So what speakers are over priced over rated and outperformed by your 10+ year-old speakers?
Iām not too sure about that. I think tweeter technology specifically has gotten crazy better since the B&W 800 Matrix speakers came out. I have a hard time believing those 800 Matrix can resolve/delineate fine detail like a current state of the art tweeter can do. Thereāve also been a lot of development on better cone materials and driver magnets since those speakers came out.
For simplicity the B&W 800 Diamonds. They are overly bright and donāt control the room modes like the 800 Matrix does. Paulās IRS are also older technology that goes beyond todays offerings.
I have heard the continum drivers that B&W is pushing now and they didnāt do anything that I would want to listen to.
Iām not trying to use B&W as the shinning example of new speaker technology. If you look at some of the AMT variant tweeters for example I think youāll find very, very good detail without sounding bright. Take Monitor Audioās heavily modified AMT tweeter. Very good example of what I mean. Their Platinum line of speakers using this tweeter are extremely good speakers. Better than anything Iāve heard from B&W.
Iām sure Paulās new speakers will be much better too. Iāve seen him make the claim theyāll sound much better than the IRS Vās. Are his speakers overpriced and over rated?
Commenting on the worth of a speaker that does not yet exist is an impossible task. kind of like all the craziness going on in the TSS forum. All I can say is yes there are some new tweeter technologies out there but integrating them into a system that can throw a huge sound stage in all directions and sounds natural and not over etched is another thing. There are speakers costing $100,000 to $300,000 today and they do not just for the sake of their high cost achieve sonic nirvana. A high price does not guarantee the best performance just as it is with electronics. High End Audio prices have become insane!
1 Like
Lol. And to claim there hasnāt been progress in speaker design since the Matrix 800ās came out and that all speakers today are just over hyped over priced bright sounding speakers is crazy. Sorry, if that were the case Iād think we see more people still owning your ancient B&Wās. Iām sure they sound great to your ears but, objectively speaking, there are plenty of modestly priced speakers that out perform yours in many ways. Thatās because the design of drivers is far more advanced these days and they can get distortion levels ridiculously low and sound better through material choices that werenāt even thought of when the 800 Matrix came out.
I have not claimed that there have been no advances in speaker design since the 800 Matrix were built. I am claiming and you are welcome to come and hear them for yourself that they like the IRS stand the test of time. They are a rare find and play music more than many of the over priced models available today. I have had the opportunity to hear the $65,000 B&W Nautilus and I would never want them in my system. I have yet to upon visiting high end shops, a rare find today to hear anything that would make me want to replace them. We have to wait and see what the PS audio offerings will do.
Many people donāt like the sound of a number of āmodern driverā designs over the last 10 years or so. Ironically there seems to be a recent trend towards iterations of paper based drivers. Maybe a response to hyper detail - bright, etched direction many have taken? I really like Magnepanās speakers and prefer the sound of their 20 year old panels over many of the dynamic speakers Iāve heard recently. Biggest advances in audio for me has been with DACās. The DS is a revelation. Everything else, including speakers, seems incremental at best and a matter of taste.
1 Like
I agree. I think most of the current Diamond and Beryllium based tweeters sound overly bright and forward. This is why lately Iāve only had AMT variant or Ribbon based tweeters here. I think they inherently sound natural and organic while still giving better detail retrieval over tweeter designs that are 10+ years old. But yes, speaker design in general has not been revolutionary lately. I think a lot of design has been focused in reducing distortion with contemporary or even older driver technologies as you point out. This is done through computer design and measurement; a luxury most designers simply didnāt have 10+ years ago. They can design a driver 90% of the way through by computer models then actually listen and make tweaks to get the sound they want to finish off the remaining 10% of design. This may sound like itās backwards, but as you point out, they arenāt reinventing the wheel here. They take a well know driver technology knowing it sounds good to begin with and change it through computer design to try and get the best performance from it possible. These are measurements no human can do with their senses. So using computer design is now critical to get the driver to perform itās best. That remaining 10% by listening is also crucial so you can give the driver the sonic signature youāre after.
As an example, here is a video of a Vandersteen driver helped designed by computer aid. They can actually see how the driver moves and based on this information they know how it will perform relative to other drivers:
This is where driver development is and will continue to go.