A remarkable Redbook CD afternoon at Goodwin's High End

[Al M.]

Dear Al,

Have you personally had any experience with playing Redbook CDs through any of the Lampizator products (which I think are only DACs) about which many members are very enthusiastic?

Dear Ron,

yes, I heard Redbook CD through the Lampi Big 7, which was very good, but still clearly fell short of what I later heard with a dCS Rossini. However, the upsampling from PCM to DSD at the time was done in JRiver, which is reported to be inferior to HQ Player. On the other hand, I have heard the result of upsampling from PCM to DSD in HQ Player through the NADAC, and also this fell short of the performance of the dCS Rossini. Perhaps HQ Player through a Lampi Golden Gate would do the trick? It would be quite a feat if it could equal or even surpass the performance of the dCS Rossini. At this point though I do not have high expectations until the audible result might convince me otherwise. The dCS performance was just on an entirely different level than what I had heard before from Redbook CD.

PS: Oh, and can't you persuade dCS to make a version of the Rossini with some tubes?

I second the opinion of Madfloyd and others.

 

[bonzo75]

Dear Ron,

yes, I heard Redbook CD through the Lampi Big 7, which was very good, but still clearly fell short of what I later heard with a dCS Rossini. However, the upsampling from PCM to DSD at the time was done in JRiver, which is reported to be inferior to HQ Player. On the other hand, I have heard the result of upsampling from PCM to DSD in HQ Player through the NADAC, and also this fell short of the performance of the dCS Rossini. Perhaps HQ Player through a Lampi Golden Gate would do the trick? It would be quite a feat if it could equal or even surpass the performance of the dCS Rossini. At this point though I do not have high expectations until the audible result might convince me otherwise. The dCS performance was just on an entirely different level than what I had heard before from Redbook CD.



I second the opinion of Madfloyd and others.

Hi Al, if I remember correctly this is from months back when the lampi played at mad Floyd's place, incorrectly set up?

 

[Al M.]

AI I'm not an expertise of computers, but it's simple to make acquaittance with a computer as main source of your Hi-End system. I had my first experience with ripped music files instead of CDs or SACD 10 yrs ago, but I wasn't very happy of the final results, because I hadn't understood a key point: the USB port is far from an ideal "Hi-End" way to trasmit electrical signals from your PC to a DAC. This is why some factories started to project and to make USB "adaptors", an interface between PC and DAC. But only when I listened to Berkeley USB I realized all the wonderful possibilities to change the "game" using files (I use AIFF uncompressed file ripped from original CDs). I had two Accuphase SACD and CD Players, the DP 700 and DP 600, both of them wonderfully engeneered and with the possibility to be used also as separate DAC. The first time I compared at home, on my usual system, a CD and a ripped file from my Mac Mini via Berkeley USB to Accuphase Players I couldn't believe to my ears: all the glance and the "digital unpleaseant flavour" suddenly disappered when I passed from CD to the ripped file from the same CD! I spent several days in these comparisons, even if it was clear after few seconds of listening that the easy winner was the Mac Mini plus Berkely USB. Only after six months I decided to buy a separate DAC, and all DACs (kindly lent by some good friends) tested on my systems had always great benefits if I used PC plus Berkely USB instead of CDs or ripped files using the direct USB port which is present in almost all DACs.
The ultimate improvement has come with Berkeley Reference DAC, and has been an improvement so great that now (from more than 1 year) I don't look anymore for any other change of the other components of my system because, for the very first time in my long audiophile life (more the 30 yrs, considering that I started to be an audiophile when I was 11 yrs old!). No more being anxious on which cable, which pre or power amplifier to change for obtaining a better sound! Because the music nowadays flows so naturally beautiful from my system that I need only to rip good music to listen to!

Thank you, Simone, for sharing your experiences.

And can I tell you a secret? A lot of recordings we audiophile people thought were indecent (for instance all the Bernstein recordings for Columbia in the fifties and sixties of last century...) sound now on my system so natural, so beutifully right! And I mean the "red book" format, ripped from CDs, no HiRes files or SACD....why not?

That has been my experience as well on both the Berkeley Reference and the dCS Rossini. The 'bad' CD of Bartok's violin sonatas that I reported on was transformed, from ugly frog to handsome prince.

Because in Red Book there is already every information we need, the only point is how to extract it from CD!

That is my opinion as well, now that I have heard what is possible. Digital theory of the Redbook format is correct, including the application of the Nyquist theorem on sampling rate, it is just a matter of correct implementation which had not been heard until recently, after more than three decades of compact disc.

 

[Al M.]

Hi Al, if I remember correctly this is from months back when the lampi played at mad Floyd's place, incorrectly set up?

It was at Madfloyd's place, yes. I cannot opine on the correctness of set-up, other than that it was JRiver rather than HQ Player, as I reported.

 

[bonzo75]

It was at Madfloyd's place, yes.

That was also when Ian had incorrectly set up jriver to provide lower bass, something he realized only when he put the MSB back. Not to mention it wasn't burned in, and was a different system. Not sure how one can even begin to compare. Kind of like comparing an incorrectly set up cartridge in one system vs a well set up in another

 

[Al M.]

That was also when Ian had incorrectly set up jriver to provide lower bass, something he realized only when he put the MSB back. Not to mention it wasn't burned in, and was a different system. Not sure how one can even begin to compare. Kind of like comparing an incorrectly set up cartridge in one system vs a well set up in another

Mafloyd's system is easily as resolving as the one we heard the dCS Rossini in.

 

[bonzo75]

Mafloyd's system is easily as resolving as the one we heard the dCS Rossini in.

So if you have two resolving systems you can compare two dacs with each in a student system, where in one the bass setting is incorrect?

 

[Al M.]

So if you have two resolving systems you can compare two dacs with each in a student system, where in one the bass setting is incorrect?

This is not what I said. I responded to a specific point in your list.

Look, I know you are a Lampi/DSD fan, but perhaps we should leave this discussion as is until we both have audible evidence under solid comparative circumstances one way or the other. I think this is the right thing to do.

 

[sujay]

That was also when Ian had incorrectly set up jriver to provide lower bass, something he realized only when he put the MSB back. Not to mention it wasn't burned in, and was a different system. Not sure how one can even begin to compare. Kind of like comparing an incorrectly set up cartridge in one system vs a well set up in another

Completely agree on your point regarding burn in. While I haven't listened to the Rossini and it may well be better than the lampi for all I care, for one, the price points are completely different. And coming back to burn in, I played the BADA reference (widely acclaimed as the red book champion of the world) from a cold start, with very few days of burn in and I promise you I am not kidding......my current CDP with a 10 years old DAC chip trounced it, maybe not in sheer resolution but definitely in musicality. So, in my view, its unfair to compare without adequate burn in (what is adequate is obviously up for debate but I wouldn't go there now). Another case in point to drive in home this point - I am currently auditioning the Bryston BDA-3, which in my view at its price point, is nothing short of fantastic and clearly superior to the DAC section of my current CDP. However, over an extended burn in period of about 100 + hours or so, the Bryston has changed so much for the better that I don't know where to start describing the changes.

As such, comparisons without burn in, don't do justice and may lead to wrong conclusions.

Cheers

Sujay

 

[Ron Resnick]

Dear Ron,

yes, I heard Redbook CD through the Lampi Big 7, which was very good, but still clearly fell short of what I later heard with a dCS Rossini. However, the upsampling from PCM to DSD at the time was done in JRiver, which is reported to be inferior to HQ Player. On the other hand, I have heard the result of upsampling from PCM to DSD in HQ Player through the NADAC, and also this fell short of the performance of the dCS Rossini. Perhaps HQ Player through a Lampi Golden Gate would do the trick? It would be quite a feat if it could equal or even surpass the performance of the dCS Rossini. At this point though I do not have high expectations until the audible result might convince me otherwise. The dCS performance was just on an entirely different level than what I had heard before from Redbook CD.



I second the opinion of Madfloyd and others.

Thank you, Al.

 

[bonzo75]

And is, in part, my reasoning as outlined previously Mike, with variations in valve sets imparting their own sonic effect upon the source material wave form, would the authentic to the recorded event Menuhin, Hendrix or Poly Styrene please step forward.

Welcome back, Keith

 

[Argonaut]

and is, in part, my reasoning as outlined previously mike, with variations in valve sets imparting their own sonic effect upon the source material wave form, would the authentic to the recorded event menuhin, hendrix or poly styrene please step forward.

i haven't got a Scooby really Let me faff around with a bit more valve rolling first, and I might take a stab at it

ftfy

 

[MadFloyd]

That was also when Ian had incorrectly set up jriver to provide lower bass, something he realized only when he put the MSB back. Not to mention it wasn't burned in, and was a different system. Not sure how one can even begin to compare. Kind of like comparing an incorrectly set up cartridge in one system vs a well set up in another

I feel compelled to interject here. I don't recall having JRiver setup to 'provide lower bass'. Not quite sure what you're referring to - but perhaps it's because my audition was flawed. As Al mentions, I cannot pass judgement on redbook upsampled to DSD on the Lampi because I was using JRiver to upsample (which I now know is terrible). I did, however, listen to my DSD collection. With two different types of tubes I tried, one offered thick bass and midrange with no treble, the other was quite nice in the treble but had very light fluffy bass. Both were quite soft with transients. I'm just saying this to jog your memory. I am not passing judgement on the Lampi in any way because I never heard it with high end tubes. I have a great deal of respect for the product as I know it has many fans who are audiophiles that I highly respect, including yourself - who has impressed me to no end with your recent continental hopping to hear great analog systems and continuous exposure to live concerts.

 

[bonzo75]

I feel compelled to interject here. I don't recall having JRiver setup to 'provide lower bass'. Not quite sure what you're referring to - but perhaps it's because my audition was flawed. As Al mentions, I cannot pass judgement on redbook upsampled to DSD on the Lampi because I was using JRiver to upsample (which I now know is terrible). I did, however, listen to my DSD collection. With two different types of tubes I tried, one offered thick bass and midrange with no treble, the other was quite nice in the treble but had very light fluffy bass. Both were quite soft with transients. I'm just saying this to jog your memory. I am not passing judgement on the Lampi in any way because I never heard it with high end tubes. I have a great deal of respect for the product as I know it has many fans who are audiophiles that I highly respect, including yourself - who has impressed me to no end with your recent continental hopping to hear great analog systems and continuous exposure to live concerts.

Hi Ian, I will pull up your post tonight. You had mentioned that when you put back the msb, you realized that the jriver setting was causing less bass

 

[bonzo75]

I feel compelled to interject here. I don't recall having JRiver setup to 'provide lower bass'. Not quite sure what you're referring to - but perhaps it's because my audition was flawed. As Al mentions, I cannot pass judgement on redbook upsampled to DSD on the Lampi because I was using JRiver to upsample (which I now know is terrible). I did, however, listen to my DSD collection. With two different types of tubes I tried, one offered thick bass and midrange with no treble, the other was quite nice in the treble but had very light fluffy bass. Both were quite soft with transients. I'm just saying this to jog your memory. I am not passing judgement on the Lampi in any way because I never heard it with high end tubes. I have a great deal of respect for the product as I know it has many fans who are audiophiles that I highly respect, including yourself - who has impressed me to no end with your recent continental hopping to hear great analog systems and continuous exposure to live concerts.

Hi Ian, I will pull up your post tonight. You had mentioned that when you put back the msb, you realized that the jriver setting was causing less bass

 

[bonzo75]

I found one...You were trying to upsample to DSD and that setting had caused incorrect bass, which you realized when you put back your analog dac. Also that you hadn't burned in the native.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?17764-Madfloyd-s-System&p=326256&viewfull=1#post326256

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I feel compelled to interject here. I don't recall having JRiver setup to 'provide lower bass'. Not quite sure what you're referring to - but perhaps it's because my audition was flawed. As Al mentions, I cannot pass judgement on redbook upsampled to DSD on the Lampi because I was using JRiver to upsample (which I now know is terrible). I did, however, listen to my DSD collection. With two different types of tubes I tried, one offered thick bass and midrange with no treble, the other was quite nice in the treble but had very light fluffy bass. Both were quite soft with transients. I'm just saying this to jog your memory. I am not passing judgement on the Lampi in any way because I never heard it with high end tubes. I have a great deal of respect for the product as I know it has many fans who are audiophiles that I highly respect, including yourself - who has impressed me to no end with your recent continental hopping to hear great analog systems and continuous exposure to live concerts.

my understanding is that earlier versions of JRiver could not up-sample properly to Quad dsd......prior to this last summer when version 21 was introduced.

my opinion is that JRiver's upsampling to Quad dsd in my system is not 'terrible', while very likely that MQPlayer is better.

so the question is in what way were you using JRiver at that time and is that relevant to how it currently can do that? setting up the up-sampling has to be optimized.

 

[bonzo75]

I found one...You were trying to upsample to DSD and that setting had caused incorrect bass, which you realized when you put back your analog dac. Also that you hadn't burned in the native.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?17764-Madfloyd-s-System&p=326256&viewfull=1#post326256

"I switched back to my Analog DAC this morning and noticed the bass was not great. I then set JRiver to not convert to DSD and it got a lot better. So now I'm suspicious of what JRiver's conversion is doing (and yes, I know you have said it's not good), but I've never broken in the PCM portion of the B7 so I can't really test it. "

 

[MadFloyd]

my understanding is that earlier versions of JRiver could not up-sample properly to Quad dsd......prior to this last summer when version 21 was introduced.

my opinion is that JRiver's upsampling to Quad dsd in my system is not 'terrible', while very likely that MQPlayer is better.

so the question is in what way were you using JRiver at that time and is that relevant to how it currently can do that? setting up the up-sampling has to be optimized.

Mike, I was upsampling to DSD128 (max rate of a Lampi Big 7). I don't recall details on how I setup JRiver to do that since it was a long time ago.

Oh and btw, it's HQPlayer, not MQPlayer.

 

[PeterA]

Here is a listening impression of the dCS Rossini one-box player just posted by fellow member ack in the Spectral SDR-4000SV thread. As it describes his impressions of this player in his system during a home demonstration, I thought it would be helpful to post it in this thread dedicated to the Rossini.

So the Rossini is an interesting player, and my evaluation focused exclusively on redbook. Let's keep in mind, again, that the 400RS/30SV are the most transparent-to-sources electronics I have owned to date; as such, they have elevated my analog to exceptional levels, and while my digital (Spectral transport/modified Berkeley Alpha DAC) sounds better than ever before as well, there is some dryness to the sound, but on the other hand, my digital is extremely dynamic and fast. The end result is elevated vividness all around, and if I had to use one word to describe the sound, it would be "literal"... and I like it that way. Somewhere in these pages, I posted a year ago that the most vivid sound I have heard to date was last year at Goodwin's, with the Vivaldi->30SV->400RS->Q5 system - breathtaking, in fact. I heard something very similar with the 4000SV->30SV->400RS->Cygnus not too long ago, as well. In the distant past, I've also heard and owned euphonic equipment, to one degree or another, which also sounded exhilarating in their own way, but at the end of the day, I grew tired out of that sound.

To get to the bottom of it, the Rossini is to these ears of the euphonic kind, which will appeal to many and will probably sound great in "dead" systems. It wants to add excitement and liveliness to the sound and presentation, and it succeeds; I can see why some folks are really gaga over it, and why a couple have recently said they were disappointed. It is definitely not literal, which the 4000SV absolutely is. For me, in my quest for better digital, there are two questions: a) is it better than my digital rig; and b) can it challenge my analog (again, with RBCD material).

From the very few notes, its euphonic nature came across quite easily, in this otherwise literal system of mine. I think this characteristic drops a bit as you go from Filter1 to Filter6, but not by a lot; adjusting the volume up and down from 0.0 to -6.0dB didn't change that picture either. This trait was evident with everything I played, from strings, to piano, to voices, etc. It is quite obvious with voices, as our ears are well trained for those types of sounds. I could not get the Rossini to sound truly natural in that respect, and examples included Ana Caram, Rebecca Pidgeon's beautiful voice and Livingston Taylor's (all on Chesky) who sounded like he had swallowed the microphone. One of his songs starts with him whistling, and we all know how that truly sounds and that's not what I heard. As the audition progressed, I felt there was a constant tiny reverb to the sound, and I am still left with that impression. Good or bad, it's what it is, and it will be appealing to some. My modified Alpha does not sound anything like this, and these voices are quite sweet and natural, breathtaking in fact.

Another interesting trait I noticed in the Rossini is its struggle to swing ultimate transient voltages, and it couldn't match the Alpha - that came through with sudden piano strikes, soprano (that was unexpected), and primarily with heavy bass drum strikes like the entry to Britten's Sinfonia Da Requiem, RR-120, where everyone I have demonstrated to have jumped off their seats, myself included - so powerful it is. My favorite Guilmant's Organ Symphony #3 (Chandos) didn't excite as much as the Alpha; ditto for many other similar orchestral pieces. I loved the sound of strings, but horns - which this system does extremely well - failed to impress and some sounded just plain wrong, too euphonic.

On typically thin-sounding CDs (many old Cheskys, e.g. Earl Wild's Chopin) the euphonic presentation was quite welcome, and this type of presentation would draw me in, whereas a literal rendering would sound really boring; however, the lack of ultimate speed and attack with piano key strikes eventually got to me.

Overall, the Rossini reminded me of the older Spectral SDR-2000 DAC at times - very clean, impressive, but euphonic at the same time - with authority, making beautiful sounds that I could listen to for hours on end. But again, this is not the type of sound I care for anymore. Older Spectral amps sounded something like that as well, so I have outgrown that sound. I am sure others would fall in love with this sound.

In the end, I had to answer my own questions: a) is it better (for my preferences) than my digital? The answer is a mixed Yes and No. To me, my modded Alpha and the 4000SV are superior because they are literal and quite dramatic when the recordings are really good - which also means they will sound bad on bad recordings. And b) does it challenge my analog? Here, clearly, No, despite the fact the Rossini has none of the Alpha's dryness; it's just not as vivid as my analog, rather more polite and more rounded, unnaturally euphonic, and did not come close to accurately portraying some timbres the way analog can (especially French horns and strings).

In the end, I felt the Rossini added too much lipstick on the pig, but how much lipstick we all like differs. I like the product, but is not something I would like to own. I hope to bring the 4000SV home at some point, but the problem with it is its closed, dead-end architecture. It might be a stellar redbook player, but that's it. The Rossini, on the other hand, offers so many more possibilities, which are hard to overlook or ignore.