In a recent video Paul and Ted discuss the upcoming firmware update Windom, and state that it won’t be as big of an improvement as Snowmass was. Although that may be true in terms of the overall scope of the improvement, meaning Snowmass affected more parameters of the sound. But it sounds like Windom, although more limited in it’s scope, makes improvements in the one area of the sound I treasure the most, palpability.
If Windom makes strides in how tangible and real things sound, it will imo be the top of the MTN.
I assume the term palpable was put forward by Paul or Ted. I guess they would be best to clarify in what context they used the word. Personally I’ve spent a lot of time and energy getting things set up just right in my setup. A massive change in tonal characteristics of the new release would probably mean big changes in my system. I’m selfishly hoping it’s more an evolution then revolution.
That was my interpretation of Paul’s words. Paul said there was a richness and fullness to the sound that wasn’t previously there. I interpreted that as an increase in palpability. The DSD as it stands with the latest firmware is the best digital I’ve heard in my system, but there is always room for improvements. The DSD sounds a tad lean or less full to me compared to live music. Hopefully a richer and fuller sound is also a more accurate representation of live music.
I would not classify the sound of the dsd used in conjunction with the BHK preamp and amp as lean in any way. I believe system synergy due to speakers used with that equipment would be responsible for that. Surely the sound of my system using the B&W 800s is not lean.
I’m sure anyone listening to my system with the DSD and BHK preamp and amp would not consider it lean either. But having lived with an Ayon tubed CD player, I consider the DSD a tad on the lean side of reality. Although the DSD wipes the floor of the Ayon CD player I had in just about every way, the Ayon had a fuller richer sound which was quite enjoyable. I wouldn’t mind a little more flesh on the bone sound from the DSD.
If I could get a release with the spatial refinement of 3.0.0 and the detail and bass definition of 3.0.6 I would have a mountain top I could live on… anything extra would be a sublime surprise.
Ted, in every release to date I understand you’ve improved the sound quality of the DS DAC by making things more “correct” and/or more efficient, and I don’t doubt that you’ve followed the same methodology with Windom.
But I am curious how confident you are that the reported “fullness” and “richness” are a truer reproduction of what’s described by the input data, versus the kind of pleasant-sounding distortions that tubes (or dare I say it… pre-amps) can impose on a signal? Do you have any ideas about what exactly is happening in the analog domain to account for such audible differences?
This is not a critical question, just endless curiosity. I love my DS DAC and am so grateful that I have the privilege of listening to the music it conveys to me hour after hour.
There are good technical reasons to Windom better than Snowmass - it’s not just a “reflavoring.” (And you’ll have the same people deciding which of 20 compiles to use as you did in Snowmass.)
For my part, each change was only motivated by trying to get more crap out of the way of the sound. E.g. using fewer of the resources in the FPGA that generate the most noise (something we learned about in Snowmass.) And I did a little more of the “Huron -> Redcloud” type changes as well.
I had high confidence that based on the technical changes it would sound better, but I was mildly surprised at the report of more fullness. To me, here, it’s simply nicer to listen to and I knew it was better technically. In hindsight I think I can understand where the “fullness” comes from, but I’m not positive - I have two good contenders, perhaps they both helped.
If anything, Windom will have less distortion the Snowmass, especially with the volumes near the top.
I can’t convince many that we need to think of the FPGA as an analog device, not a digital device. But (at least some of) the engineers at Xilinx certainly know this. From the 2nd release of the FPGA code we’ve known that the noise and jitter in the FPGA can’t be ignored and I’ve been making good progress on that from release to release especially since about Yale. It’s basically the same difference as that between the “bits-are-bits” people and those that take jitter seriously.
Think I get the Fullness Thing, but so many things hereabouts have changed/gotten Fuller lately that I can’t really/reliably comment. But I feel confident saying, You Da Man, Ted✊🏻
