Was Upcoming DS release - Now Windom has been released

48 hours of discs spinning into the DSD with Windom.

Some discs totally 'Wow" me, for example “The Popular Duke Ellington” (Sony Blu-Spec CD2 version)–I hear into the sound field more clearly than ever before, and the individual instruments stand out clearly defined and the micro-dynamics are equally clearly heard. This has really helped me see how cleverly re-imagined these “hits” are on this release.

I also was thrilled to hear Baby Face Willette’s “Face to Face” (“24 Bit by RVG” version from Blue Note Japan, EMI): Fred Jackson’s tenor on this is so strongly played and recorded with such emotional expressiveness–he parried and thrust at the accompanists and the sound of his instrument had surprising solidity.

There IS a brightness that is perhaps at times a bit much. I blame the recordings or pressings as much as anything else and I can’t fault Windom for the unfaltering clarity it exhibits. I’ll play about with speaker placement next week after a few more days of “spinning” (mostly unaccompanied as I don’t get to listen much on the weekends). There is a bit of warmth that I miss from Snowmass, and I certainly wouldn’t call the sound “rich” (though it is full and detailed in satisfying ways).

More of a change than I expected, and mostly for the better!

2 Likes

Interesting observations.
In my system, Windom is a bit warmer, and, not nearly as lively at the top. I’m not sure I feel Windom is an upgrade from Snowmass. I’ll live with it for a while, then reinstall Snowmass for a while.

1 Like

I don’t think that Windom is warmer or less warm than Snowmass. What I hear is less sibilance. This can often be confused with there being less energy in the highs and some people think that sounds warmer even though it is not.

There is no way that Windom is brighter than Snowmass. What Windom has is more detail and less sibilance. This is what you get when noise is reduced. I can play Windom louder than Snowmass with the same fatigue or at the same loudness with less fatigue.

Windom has more clarity thought the audible range. But, it is also more musical. Again, this is a result of less noise. You can think of it as noise causing the “picture” to be blurry. Removing noise brings the “picture” into better focus. It is easier to hear where voices and instruments are on the soundstage and there is more focus so their locations are more precise. This allows recordings with better height and depth information to sound more 3 dimensional. This means that bass has the same energy but is “tighter”. In other words, the bass is less a blur of energy and more defined. It is easier to hear the nuances and timbre of the instrument creating the bass sounds.Some people could hear this as less bass.

24 Likes

I would say that is spot-on, that’s how I hear Windom. Best description I’ve read. To my ears Windom is a refined Snowmass.

11 Likes

I don’t disagree except that in my system (and in mark’s above by his telling) there is a brightness presented as a result of “clarity” and “clean up.” Now we all have different systems and rooms and it may be a room, or cable issue etc. But there is a “brightness fatigue” beginning to be a factor at least at the moment in my system.

2 Likes

I can only report as I hear it after 205 hours continuous with a thumb drive in situ when not playing discs. Sounds wonderful !

9 Likes

Heeee…errrrrs…Johnny!

Fresh from the factory.

I second that emotion. Well said. I am pretty much in alignment with your analysis.
I had a similar revelation when I recently upgraded power cables to Shunyata
noise reduction ones and earlier with a P20 purchase. Every time you beat down
the noise floor, instruments and vocals get more refined in a better delineated space.
I guess this is what many call a “blacker background” , letting the music shine instead
of being buried in fatiguing noise.

1 Like

I just have to believe if someone is hearing more brightness that something is off.

I did try the Bob Dylan “OH MERCY” album and as the poster stated. It was amazing. I had music coming out the side walls, with Dylan dead center deep ! Windom is more refined in my system. This thread has morphed into a tech solving thread instead of the original post .

Mods should desperate it into a new thread so those who share the enjoyment can gloat instead of the loading issues. ! Go Windom !

6 Likes

Hi there
You have described the experience I have with Windom on my DSJ. Some brighter old recordings are now too bright but overall there is much more detail and nuance with voices, piano etc. What I hear sounds more like live instruments and not a hifi version of them. I am surprised by the additional fragility that voices have, more real. A leaner but deeper presentation overall which is definitely an improvement even though it seems to have a different tonal balance with less weight at the bottom and more information above.

4 Likes

I don’t find Windom brighter than Snowmass. Both are bright in their own good way. I agree that sibilance has been reduced and there is perceived less weight at the bottom. I stand by my earlier assessment that air has been slightly reduced. For example, playing my Chesky Demonstration Disc with Snowmass I could hear the soft hiss of the sound of the wind rushing out of the pipes of the organ in the church in which the choir sang, something the narrator specifically alerted the listener not to interpret as audio noise. With Windom I do not hear that hiss as well. The hiss was part of the real environment and is part of the recording. Snowmass better revealed that subtlety. With Windom it was not as apparent, as though it were being filtered out. Also, with Windom there is less sibilance in the choir. When I hear a real choir, I typically hear some sibilance. Sibilance is part of what makes something sound live. It may not always sound as pleasant live :slight_smile:

1 Like

It’s quite likely that Windom is more accurately representing the hiss of the wind rushing out of the pipes and that sound is less pronounced than how Snowmass presents it. More apparent doesn’t necessarily mean more accurate. The sibilance in voices is still present with Windom. It does not filer them out. What Windom does is reduce sibilance from artifacts in the music.

I keep coming back to what Ted said he did with Windom and that was reduce noise from the FPGA and other sources. I seem to recall him saying he did not do anything to change the voicing of Snowmass in Windom. Reducing noise is not going to hide or filter out real sibilance or noises from the organ pipes.

Maybe @tedsmith can chime and clear up any confusion I might have on what he did.

7 Likes

I don’t dispute what you are saying about Windom reducing noise, but the hiss on that particular track is not noise. According to the narrator, it is the sound of the wind of the pipe organ. If Windom is only reducing noise, there should be no reduction in the sound of the wind. It should be just as apparent on Windom as on Snowmass.

Besides the noise from the pipes, Snowmass probably also added noise (and Windom less). With Windom you may just be hearing closer to what was recorded.

There’s no frequency specific filtering in the audio band anywhere in any release of the DS. And in particular everything that has anything to do with filtering is identical in Windom to Snowmass (e.g. PCM upsampling, DSD upsampling, the filter in the sigma delta modulator.) The changes are purely using resources more carefully, i.e. same bits in and out, just changing the generated noise profile in the FPGA by moving when things happen around within each sample.

I’m not trying to argue with what anyone hears, but most of the guesses as to why Windom or Snowmass sounds like this or that are off the mark.

15 Likes

I think when people think “Noise”, they think noise floor, like some kind of hiss or white noise you can hear when the audio is silent. But in this case the noise as also mixed in with the signal itself, and the addition of noise adds the effect of more high frequencies and audibility. When the noise is removed and you hear the pure signal there is more dynamic range, more smoothness, but less artificial illumination of certain sounds.

6 Likes

This mirrors my experience. For my A+ list SQ jazz recordings, for acoustic, and relaxed music, I prefer Windom. For everything else, Snowmass. I do find Windom to be more bright, at least more bright in a way that I find off putting. I think it’s accurate to say that Windom’s increase detail and clarity comes at the expense, which is perhaps too strong a word, of warmth and weight. It would be nice if the DS line was able to contain two update versions and have a switch or menu setting to easily switch, depending on what sort of music is being listened to.

I think the recipe of one’s overall system goes a long way in determining if one prefers Windom or Snowmass. I listened to a high quality version of Natty Dread tonight on Windom and it simply sounded bright, though more detailed. This reminds me of debates I used have between Amarra and Audirvana. Amarra was warmer, Audirvana more bright and each had their place for certain sort of music.

1 Like

It’s really a pity that we don’t know what makes such firmware changes just sound as improvements in some setups and quite compromise affected in others. It’s definitely not the possibly different tonality of the setups I’d say.

1 Like

I do have a tube preamp and a tube amp. Both are very high quality and do not roll off on the top end or the bottom end. I also have what I would call neutral speakers. The sound is not overly warm in any sense of the word. Nor is it cold or analytical. For me, it the Goldilocks setup. It is just right!

My DirestStream is about 4 1/2 years old so I have been through several updates. My system is all PS Audio, and I can say without a doubt that the Windom upgrade is the most positive so far, and by a significant degree.

8 Likes