I don’t claim to have heard them in their best light: but in every system I’ve ever heard them the highs were fatiguing to me: a well balanced system isn’t fatiguing and I didn’t hear the signs of jitter that I was used to so I assumed that the extra detail came from being a little hot in the highs. I could have been mistaken.
These days I do agree that the correct amount of detail doesn’t have to be fatiguing. In times past based on units like MSB and dCS I used to wonder (until I heard the EMM Labs equipment.)
Yes, toe tapping doesn’t work for classical… there it’s as you said.
Anyway a string quartet for me is also a highly fascinating and rhythmical experience in longer waves. I guess this is the equivalent to toe tapping in this case.
What are the highest priced DACs currently available and what are the prices? I guess this would include DACs that have external clock components designed as companion products.
Speaking of transformers for the DS Sr., I recently picked up a custom-built transformer box that contains two Western Electric REP 111C repeat coils - with inputs and outputs for RCA and XLR. The reason I purchased it was two-fold.
These transformers have quite a stellar reputation for improving the SQ in a given system. They are circa 1950’s and have been used in quite a few mixing/mastering setups outside of their original intended use (Telecom).
This device would allow me to convert the balanced out from the DS Sr. to unbalanced - thus taking advantage of the higher voltage output over the RCAs. I once owned a similar current-production unit that converted Bal to Unbal but this unit sounds far superior!
Taking advantage of the higher voltage from the DS DAC’s balanced outputs that are then converted to unbalanced before going into my amplifiers has brought about some remarkable SQ improvements.
Hi Ted. I seem to recall a comment, but wanted to be sure - these TSS Jensens can’t be backfit to the DS Sr, correct? In theory, though, could the main power supply in the DS be improved to provide stiffer performance, or does this improvement come mores so from secondary local regulation? Thanks.
The leakage is different between the TSS / Jensen transformer and the DS’s transformer. That leakage is used in the audio filtering, less leakage will cause less filtering of the ultrasonic noise and also a little peaking near the knee. A taller transformer will also be nearer the noise in the digital card (tho, personally I’m not worried about that a lot.)
The place the stiffer supply matters is right at the digital switches - the discrete regulator for the digital switches in the DS are designed around the current needed and have a reasonably low impedance, replacing the entire analog power supply with a new supply that has a lower impedance (from DC to over 400MHz) would be required (i.e. there’s no single chip to replace (or even just a few chips…)) The TSS also brute forces this somewhat by having twice as many digital switches so each only needs to deal with half the load.
Might I ask what aspect of the DS’s performance you would be changing to improve its bass response? Would it be and adjustment to the amount of LF phase shift?
There will be more bass extension for multiple reasons. The Jensen transformers are explicitly designed to be a Bessel response (i.e. linear phase) where the DS’s transformers don’t spec that. The DS has a unipolar supply for the digital switches. On the TSS there are bipolar power supplies for the digital switches (twice as much power supply all the way, including twice as many transformer windings, etc.) The reason this makes a difference is that the 0V position in the DS’s output is set by a resistor divider whereas the 0V on the TSS it is ground. That difference matters because any non-perfection in the 0V reference can produce less “stiffness” in the bass. Since changing the resistors in the DS made an audible difference I know that this matters in the TSS. Also the TSS will be more Snowmassy than Snowmass. That is, I’ll use more processing power in the TSS to add bass extension (or unwind the phase of the bass if you will.) Some of that work will also be in the next DS and DS Jr releases, but I have no idea when those releases will be.
Everything should be better: that’s the point With less noise and jitter bleed thru and a darker background overall, the presentation will be more “open” and more dynamic (a bigger difference between quiet and loud, even when they are there at the same time, e.g. listening to a flute or oboe in a full symphony.) Jitter often compromises the top end of many DACs, tho the DS goes a way to avoid that, the TSS goes farther (at some expense.)
Thanks, it all explains so much how digital developed over time and why I like the DS already as it is!
But I think those kind of dynamics, which independent of overall dynamic range make impulses more energetic are not only depending on blacker background, right?
I didn’t mean to imply that these were the only things that the TSS would do better. As I’ve mentioned above, among other things the TSS will have stiffer supplies, more headroom (more output devices handing smaller loads each), better output transformers, lower noise floor (both digital and analog), … all of which increase the dynamics. The goal isn’t to add energy to impulses, but to more accurately represent the impulses as they exist in the input. But FWIW it’s the contrast in the quietness to the loudness that defines dynamics - so lowering the noise floor (so you can hear quieter things) and raising the headroom (so you can hear louder things) will both help. Also other features help with dynamics as well: having a standard output level of 2VRMS (4VRMS for balanced) should help more systems run at the levels they were designed for. Being able to turn the volume above 100 to 120 or 140 will allow hearing more of quietly recorded material. …
I guess I could add that the cleaner a signal is (the less distortion) the louder we can turn things up without discomfort and hence the more apparent the dynamics.
What I meant is, but my observation over time was, that different equipment of a similar category of dynamic range and black background can sound quite different in dynamics/impulses. There even record players can sound more dynamic than CD players etc but also various equipment of digital itself sounds quite different in this regard.
I didn’t fully understand those different kinds of perception of dynamics yet I admit
In addition to an actual physical increase in volume, changes in instrumental timbre lead us to perceive dynamic changes.
The blacker the background and more precise timbre is rendered, the more dynamic appearing the playback.
However, distortion can also play a role. Acoustic instruments playing louder produce more harmonics. Tubes, vinyl and other sources of harmonic distortion - especially concurrent with increased volume - can lead us to perceive greater dynamics that that which is physically present.
With less noise and jitter bleed thru and a darker background overall, the presentation will be more “open” and more dynamic (a bigger difference between quiet and loud, even when they are there at the same time, e.g. listening to a flute or oboe in a full symphony.) Jitter often compromises the top end of many DACs, tho the DS goes a way to avoid that, the TSS goes farther (at some expense.)