Breaking news from DCS….

[microstrip]

Gentlemen,
Interesting note, especially for the dCS fans whose feelings were hurt by some mis-incentivized "audio journalists" no longer calling dCS the "best" dac:

I ran into an acquaintance mine. He's a customer of Goodwin audio in Boston. The sonic preference / taste of the social network of the Goodwin people and their customers kinda goes like Rockport and dcs is the best, magico is alright (and very "accurate" with spectral), and Wilson sucks. This guys owns Rockports, d'Agostino, and dcs Vivaldi stack. Very traditional audiophile taste.

Late last year, this guy heard the non-Acme version of dcs vivalidi against the Wadax. Although he admired the "spatial tricks and presentation" of the Wadax, he preferred the older vivaldi overall!

dCS sounds more like real music in his imagination - he knows , he goes to concerts. (Or he's just used to that sound and associates it with "reality" in his mind.)

So when he gets his Vivaldi upgraded to this new Acne level, he will like it even better than the reference wadax dac he heard at the dealer. No doubt!

Moral of the story (from a rational perspective): different social networks of audiophiles have different preferences and tastes, what good high end audio should be, and what's "state of the art". Unless this is all fantasy and intellectual masturbation for you, don't trust anyone, especially the mis-incentivized "audio journalists", but also guys who are part of social networks that don't share your tastes and preferences.

"State of the art" gear for one social network is utter dreck to another. (Personally, I'd take an entry level TotalDAC over any dCS or MSB regardless of price, due to tonal and dynamic realism the popular hifi products don't currently match.) So it could be a waste of time and money for you, as my Rockport friend has bliss already, even with the non-Acne dCS model of Vivaldi.

Yet I'm sure the audio oligarchs in the traditional hifi sound media will market and elevate the dCS Acme model to the level of BEST, for those who want to see it as such, or need to see it as such. After all, who wants to admit that their taste or imagination of realism / accuracy is not the best?

The usual narrative built upon an unknown friend who innocently feeds your hate towards the dCS sound ... You are a good writer, it is enjoyable read for those who ignore what really makes the difference with dCS gear and excellence in the high-end or simply do not like it.

As far as I see it, no one (with a perhaps a few exceptions) in WBF "trusts" any one - we are mature enough to enjoy ourselves reading and exchanging posts about our preferences without blind acceptance.

But you have a point - some people need the support of others to feed their reports. Also the high-end is a social activity that many times share common brands, common dealers and as a consequence some common preferences.

BTW, naming APEX the wrong way was the icing on the cake. Congratulations!

 

[stevebythebay]

The usual narrative built upon an unknown friend who innocently feeds your hate towards the dCS sound ... You are a good writer, it is enjoyable read for those who ignore what really makes the difference with dCS gear and excellence in the high-end or simply do not like it.

As far as I see it, no one (with a perhaps a few exceptions) in WBF "trusts" any one - we are mature enough to enjoy ourselves reading and exchanging posts about our preferences without blind acceptance.

But you have a point - some people need the support of others to feed their reports. Also the high-end is a social activity that many times share common brands, common dealers and as a consequence some common preferences.

BTW, naming APEX the wrong way was the icing on the cake. Congratulations!

Should this really be A.P.E.X.? All caps suggest an acronym. I’ve asked dCS about this with no response. Even the old grocery chain didn’t think to emblazon ACME all over their supermarkets.

As for forums, at least for me, it’s a means to be alerted to new info/ideas/experiences/music/tech/etc. rather than mere opinions. Far too much of the ‘net lives/dies on the weight of passing judgement. Not my game.

 

[LL21]

Should this really be A.P.E.X.? All caps suggest an acronym. I’ve asked dCS about this with no response....

https://dcsaudio.com/edit/introducing-apex

Looks like they just call it APEX. Could still be an acronym, but they dont add periods in between the letters.

 

[acousticsguru]

Gentlemen,
Interesting note, especially for the dCS fans whose feelings were hurt by some mis-incentivized "audio journalists" no longer calling dCS the "best" dac:

I ran into an acquaintance mine. He's a customer of Goodwin audio in Boston. The sonic preference / taste of the social network of the Goodwin people and their customers kinda goes like Rockport and dcs is the best, magico is alright (and very "accurate" with spectral), and Wilson sucks. This guys owns Rockports, d'Agostino, and dcs Vivaldi stack. Very traditional audiophile taste.

Late last year, this guy heard the non-Acme version of dcs vivalidi against the Wadax. Although he admired the "spatial tricks and presentation" of the Wadax, he preferred the older vivaldi overall!

dCS sounds more like real music in his imagination - he knows , he goes to concerts. (Or he's just used to that sound and associates it with "reality" in his mind.)

So when he gets his Vivaldi upgraded to this new Acne level, he will like it even better than the reference wadax dac he heard at the dealer. No doubt!

Moral of the story (from a rational perspective): different social networks of audiophiles have different preferences and tastes, what good high end audio should be, and what's "state of the art". Unless this is all fantasy and intellectual masturbation for you, don't trust anyone, especially the mis-incentivized "audio journalists", but also guys who are part of social networks that don't share your tastes and preferences.

"State of the art" gear for one social network is utter dreck to another. (Personally, I'd take an entry level TotalDAC over any dCS or MSB regardless of price, due to tonal and dynamic realism the popular hifi products don't currently match.) So it could be a waste of time and money for you, as my Rockport friend has bliss already, even with the non-Acne dCS model of Vivaldi.

Yet I'm sure the audio oligarchs in the traditional hifi sound media will market and elevate the dCS Acme model to the level of BEST, for those who want to see it as such, or need to see it as such. After all, who wants to admit that their taste or imagination of realism / accuracy is not the best?

Just found this after I updated my Upsampler's network board software and the Mosaic app, and started wondering if there was a change to the sound - if so, for the better: hard to describe, perhaps even more natural and non-digital, a minor change in density? Not an earth-shattering difference (not even one that I feel would stand up in a blind test, even so, enough to excite my curiosity and turn to this thread).

I know TotalDAC and while I like the various models I've heard, they sound comparatively colored to me, so I cannot subscribe to the attribute "tonal realism" - coloration to me is when I'm consistently hearing the same superimposition(s) to the tonality regardless of genres and recordings played. Realism to me is when I'm hearing more of the instrumental or vocal character, attributes or idiosyncrasies, of the individual recording. As to dynamics, the difference in micro dynamics is huge to me - as a lover of piano music among other, I sometimes wonder if the comparison between different interpretations of the same Sonatas or Concertos by favorite soloists (the gradations, the touch, the micro variations in rhythm and timing within the bar lines) would be as pleasurable, let alone fascinating (I hear more "sameness" than variation or individuality with most other DACs). Macro dynamics with dCS are interesting in that the DACs sound so smooth that with some types of music, the element of genuine surprise is simultaneously there yet unoffensive, but I understand there's a comparative lack of that grittiness some may get used to with digital playback (not me, given my migraine sensitivity, I happen to find the micro and macro dynamics of the music itself plenty sufficient, and have no patience for additional "sheen"), but there's certainly no lack of natural weight and heft. Overall, I can see why dCS name their DACs after classical composers rather than death metal bands: I feel more drawn into the music rather than its presentation.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[acousticsguru]

Just found this after I updated my Upsampler's network board software and the Mosaic app, and started wondering if there was a change to the sound - if so, for the better: hard to describe, perhaps even more natural and non-digital, a minor change in density? Not an earth-shattering difference (not even one that I feel would stand up in a blind test, even so, enough to excite my curiosity and turn to this thread).

I know TotalDAC and while I like the various models I've heard, they sound comparatively colored to me, so I cannot subscribe to the attribute "tonal realism" - coloration to me is when I'm consistently hearing the same superimposition(s) to the tonality regardless of genres and recordings played. Realism to me is when I'm hearing more of the instrumental or vocal character, attributes or idiosyncrasies, of the individual recording. As to dynamics, the difference in micro dynamics is huge to me - as a lover of piano music among other, I sometimes wonder if the comparison between different interpretations of the same Sonatas or Concertos by favorite soloists (the gradations, the touch, the micro variations in rhythm and timing within the bar lines) would be as pleasurable, let alone fascinating (I hear more "sameness" than variation or individuality with most other DACs). Macro dynamics with dCS are interesting in that the DACs sound so smooth that with some types of music, the element of genuine surprise is simultaneously there yet unoffensive, but I understand there's a comparative lack of that grittiness some may get used to with digital playback (not me, given my migraine sensitivity, I happen to find the micro and macro dynamics of the music itself plenty sufficient, and have no patience for additional "sheen"), but there's certainly no lack of natural weight and heft. Overall, I can see why dCS name their DACs after classical composers rather than death metal bands: I feel more drawn into the music rather than its presentation.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

I'm starting to think something is indeed different with the Upsampler's network board software upgrade, it's just that it's not as clear in some recordings as others. But after some classical, I turned to one of my favorite albums of which I keep hoping there will be a better remastering one day, Keith Jarrett's live concerts in Bremen and Lausanne. Most of his recordings have been remastered, some in high-resolution PCM, some even DSD, but for Bremen/Lausanne, all we have is this early red-book CD set, which really can't hold a candle to the LP, regardless of the digital playback system used. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it sounds different, and to me better: fractionally greater density and warmth? It's as if the sound carried better at a low playback volume. Hmm…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[stevebythebay]

Just found this after I updated my Upsampler's network board software and the Mosaic app, and started wondering if there was a change to the sound - if so, for the better: hard to describe, perhaps even more natural and non-digital, a minor change in density? Not an earth-shattering difference (not even one that I feel would stand up in a blind test, even so, enough to excite my curiosity and turn to this thread).

I know TotalDAC and while I like the various models I've heard, they sound comparatively colored to me, so I cannot subscribe to the attribute "tonal realism" - coloration to me is when I'm consistently hearing the same superimposition(s) to the tonality regardless of genres and recordings played. Realism to me is when I'm hearing more of the instrumental or vocal character, attributes or idiosyncrasies, of the individual recording. As to dynamics, the difference in micro dynamics is huge to me - as a lover of piano music among other, I sometimes wonder if the comparison between different interpretations of the same Sonatas or Concertos by favorite soloists (the gradations, the touch, the micro variations in rhythm and timing within the bar lines) would be as pleasurable, let alone fascinating (I hear more "sameness" than variation or individuality with most other DACs). Macro dynamics with dCS are interesting in that the DACs sound so smooth that with some types of music, the element of genuine surprise is simultaneously there yet unoffensive, but I understand there's a comparative lack of that grittiness some may get used to with digital playback (not me, given my migraine sensitivity, I happen to find the micro and macro dynamics of the music itself plenty sufficient, and have no patience for additional "sheen"), but there's certainly no lack of natural weight and heft. Overall, I can see why dCS name their DACs after classical composers rather than death metal bands: I feel more drawn into the music rather than its presentation.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Just reading your comments here, I’m blown away listening to Yes‘s “Fragile”, as I’d not heard it so many times in the past on my system. The best words I can use to describe the sound I’ve been hearing with this latest update of the Upsampler are richer and enveloping. As you might be able to tell from my gear list in my signature, for me it’s speed and transparency along with attack and decay. Cymbals crash and fade with a realistic form I’ve not heard before. And the more challenging and complex the music the more layers and detailed filigree of background finally are emerging. And certainly all instruments sound closer to what I’d always hoped they might. As you might imagine I’m one happy camper.

 

[Al M.]

As to dynamics, the difference in micro dynamics is huge to me - as a lover of piano music among other, I sometimes wonder if the comparison between different interpretations of the same Sonatas or Concertos by favorite soloists (the gradations, the touch, the micro variations in rhythm and timing within the bar lines) would be as pleasurable, let alone fascinating (I hear more "sameness" than variation or individuality with most other DACs). Macro dynamics with dCS are interesting in that the DACs sound so smooth that with some types of music, the element of genuine surprise is simultaneously there yet unoffensive, but I understand there's a comparative lack of that grittiness some may get used to with digital playback (not me, given my migraine sensitivity, I happen to find the micro and macro dynamics of the music itself plenty sufficient, and have no patience for additional "sheen"), but there's certainly no lack of natural weight and heft. Overall, I can see why dCS name their DACs after classical composers rather than death metal bands: I feel more drawn into the music rather than its presentation.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Indeed, a hardening of sound, or sudden transients with overly hard edges, can sometimes be mistaken as "dynamics".

With the latest changes to power delivery in my system, which overall are a big step forward, I have noticed that on some musical material a previously perceived 'exciting edge' that led to an enhanced perception of dynamics has been smoothed off. Yet I have found out that this is actually a good thing, a removal of artifact (an artifact that is not found in unamplified live music either). On the other hand, a few tests on critical material confirmed that dynamics, both macro and micro, can be just as explosive as before. In other words, the system still reproduces true dynamics of music, but has stripped away the fake ones.

 

[acousticsguru]

Just reading your comments here, I’m blown away listening to Yes‘s “Fragile”, as I’d not heard it so many times in the past on my system. The best words I can use to describe the sound I’ve been hearing with this latest update of the Upsampler are richer and enveloping. As you might be able to tell from my gear list in my signature, for me it’s speed and transparency along with attack and decay. Cymbals crash and fade with a realistic form I’ve not heard before. And the more challenging and complex the music the more layers and detailed filigree of background finally are emerging. And certainly all instruments sound closer to what I’d always hoped they might. As you might imagine I’m one happy camper.

Richer is a good term: I'm currently listening to Jarrett's Bremen/Lausanne, of which I'm disappointed that there's still no better digital remastering than the early red-book CD set, as it's one of my favorite Jarrett (double) albums. An SACD release à la Köln and Standards Live would be nice. The way the notes ring out appears to have more, yes, harmonic richness.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[stevebythebay]

Richer is a good term: I'm currently listening to Jarrett's Bremen/Lausanne, of which I'm disappointed that there's still no better digital remastering than the early red-book CD set, as it's one of my favorite Jarrett (double) albums. An SACD release à la Köln and Standards Live would be nice. The way the notes ring out appears to have more, yes, harmonic richness.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Agree that would be a wonderful recording but for its less than stellar sonics. However, one my Jarrett faves is “Facing You”. And as an ECM recording available from prostudiomasters.com at 192/24 it’s quite nice. Yet the bulk of my Jarrett collection are the jazz trio works from the late 70’s into the next decade, especially with Gary Peacock And Jack DeJohnette.

 

[acousticsguru]

Agree that would be a wonderful recording but for its less than stellar sonics. However, one my Jarrett faves is “Facing You”. And as an ECM recording available from prostudiomasters.com at 192/24 it’s quite nice. Yet the bulk of my Jarrett collection are the jazz trio works from the late 70’s into the next decade, especially with Gary Peacock And Jack DeJohnette.

Yes, of course! I probably have all the high-resolution releases, maybe that's why I keep wondering how Bremen/Lausanne fell by the wayside…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[LL21]

Richer is a good term: I'm currently listening to Jarrett's Bremen/Lausanne, of which I'm disappointed that there's still no better digital remastering than the early red-book CD set, as it's one of my favorite Jarrett (double) albums. An SACD release à la Köln and Standards Live would be nice. The way the notes ring out appears to have more, yes, harmonic richness.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Will have to check those out...my favorite Keith Jarrett is far and away. So far also have Munich, Well Tempered Clavier I & II, La Fenice, Bregenz/Munich, Vienna, After the Fall.

 

[acousticsguru]

Will have to check those out...my favorite Keith Jarrett is far and away. So far also have Munich, Well Tempered Clavier I & II, La Fenice, Bregenz/Munich, Vienna, After the Fall.

View attachment 90953

Ah, yes! I remember going through a phase when the last track I played before going to bed was "I Fall in Love Too Easily / The Fire Within".

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[LL21]

Hah!

 

[microstrip]

(...) Macro dynamics with dCS are interesting in that the DACs sound so smooth that with some types of music, the element of genuine surprise is simultaneously there yet unoffensive, but I understand there's a comparative lack of that grittiness some may get used to with digital playback (not me, given my migraine sensitivity, I happen to find the micro and macro dynamics of the music itself plenty sufficient, and have no patience for additional "sheen"), but there's certainly no lack of natural weight and heft. (...)

"the element of genuine surprise is simultaneously there yet unoffensive" - great words to describe the dCS sound.

Some equipment surprises you the first time you listen to a recording and then it becomes common. Not the dCS Vivaldi - recordings I know well often seem to have something to find.

 

[AndrewChen]

base Vivaldi and MSB Select 2 are more linear than the Wadax, based purely on measurements.

Can you point to where one might view the Wadax system measurements?

 

[Elliot G.]

I have heard that the base Vivaldi and MSB Select 2 are more linear than the Wadax, based purely on measurements.

Heard where and from who? and what does this even mean? What measurements are you even talking about?

 

[Stereophonic]

Unfortunately they are not public but I will ask.

Hahahahahaha
Good luck !!!

 

[Lee]

I have heard that the base Vivaldi and MSB Select 2 are more linear than the Wadax, based purely on measurements.

Heard where and from who? and what does this even mean? What measurements are you even talking about?

Following a conversation that I initiated with Elliot, I deleted my prior comments. It is unfair to bring up measurements if the data has not been made public.

 

[AndrewChen]

It is unfair to bring up measurements if the data has not been made public.

Yes. That being said, it would be a shame if the measurements don't go public, assuming they're from a reliable source. I'm looking forward to WADAX having Stereophile review and measure their system.

 

[Steve Vu]

Yes. That being said, it would be a shame if the measurements don't go public, assuming they're from a reliable source. I'm looking forward to WADAX having Stereophile review and measure their system.

If you are interested in the measurements, you can see the $100-$200 DACs are better than $15k-$20k DACs on the ASR.