Burmester! My cd player is nearly 20 years old. They changed the transport mechanism for me. I admit though it’s still a current model. My 911 monos on the other hand are discontinued and are 15 years old, they came back fully up to specs with a certificate of what was changed including them caps and power supplies.
dCS new flagship
- Thread starter Dunc69
- Start date
CD Transports are are dime a dozen mate. Try finding an official replacement OPU for a 20 year old CD/SACD Transport that the fella was bashing dCS for.
The Burmester cd 061 has a Philips Pro 2 optical pick up from what I know. The OPU was what was replaced…….
So now if you don't have the TOTL DAC in portfolio without at least 5/6/7/8/9/10 boxes its considered a crap? Interesting developments in HiEnd audio...
Take into account same path for pre, power, servers, switches, phono, etc. and we'll easily end up with like 30 boxes in the room..
Not cool
Take into account same path for pre, power, servers, switches, phono, etc. and we'll easily end up with like 30 boxes in the room..
Not cool
So this answers my question. You can't use the core with a Vivaldi DAC. Doesn't output the right formats...
Coming from 25 years of a Naim 500 multi box system I have many ex Naim friends who have grown tired of the box count and cabling. I moved down from the count this year and binned it all for a DarTZeel amplifier and preamplifier - a simple two box two cable setup. I have a Rossini APEX + Clock and stayed away from Vivaldi due to the box and cable count.
I guess my way of saying there are many of us who have been doing this for a while and are now interested in going in the opposite direction. As a dCS owner I am sure the Varese will have what it takes for sound quality. Too many boxes and cables for me (and the $250k is a bit over the top imho). Many of us on the dCS forum (of which I have been on since inception) have actually been asking for a box and cable reduction. As forum members have said Varese is definitely not aimed at the enthusiasts on our dCS forum
All we know at this point is it is arriving in 2025 and will be $37,500.
What does the TOTL stand for. I saw something on Stereonet but not on the dCS site.
Please name some manufacturers that still produce hi quality transports that are willing to source to their competitors?
Just a loud question - mainly to myself...what happened with the less is more in audio? Best example is the picture below from the real "rocket" industry where they go from complex to leaner designs and audio seems vice versa...but I'm not an audio engineer so I might be wrong...soon we'll approach a price parity - Raptor 3 with some TOTL audio component...go figure..
I agree, less is more. What's important is a dual mono power supply for the output stage. in the DAC increases channel separation. Because a class A output stage is usually used, the music signal is at operating voltage there. Don't install a cheap voltage regulator, if possible build it discretely with transistors, the ripple rejection (noise) value is usually 20db better. Use a good clock. Choose the DAC chip based on sound. Use a good signal interface, e.g. USB or AES/EBU. It all fits into one device without any problems. If you use a cd transport, I would go for good old quality, have it serviced once, new capacitors. Drive unit, new belts and lubrication, done.
Only two devices(transport & dac) not five
almost forgot to use good mains transformers, preferably Philbert transformers, which have virtually no stray magnetic fields.
Only two devices(transport & dac) not five
almost forgot to use good mains transformers, preferably Philbert transformers, which have virtually no stray magnetic fields.
It's not about the number of boxes but about the functions that are included in the overall system. You can stuff all this into one or two boxes, it may not mean that it is "less".
When CD was released, it was all done in the one box. Then someone had the bright idea to separate the functionality into two boxes, transport and DAC with an interface (SPDIF ). This was the first level of added complexity, As you add more interfaces the complexity increases. Having an external clock also adds complexity.
Simplicity is when you have all the essential aspects close together with optimised interfaces. Examples would be:
- the source as in CD optical drive close to the DAC connected by a short I2S bus;
- the clock should be as close to the DAC as possible to minimise jitter;
- not having multiple inputs and outputs with selection switching and extra processing/digital devices;
- digital devices are essentially noisy on the power supply, so the more processing you have the more noise;
Naim were very smart when they designed their first CD player, the CDS, in that they made it 2 boxes with all the essentials optimised in one and the power supply in the other. They also used the best of the Philips transports and selected 1541.
A rebuilt CDS with better parts (audio grade capacitors, UF rectifiers, improved regulators, no digital filtering/oversampling) and a clever analog filter would be something special.
The modern trend for digital is to have as much functionality/options/inputs as possible with everything externalised and connected with uber cables. Those that I have heard always sound wrong to me.
When you want in the top league jmf audio dmt 3.7 streamer cd transport, today the best drive unit for me . Too expensive fore me 50k€
www.jmf-audio.com
DMT 3.7 transport — JMF Audio
www.jmf-audio.com
When CD was released, it was all done in the one box. Then someone had the bright idea to separate the functionality into two boxes, transport and DAC with an interface (SPDIF ). This was the first level of added complexity, As you add more interfaces the complexity increases. Having an external clock also adds complexity.
Simplicity is when you have all the essential aspects close together with optimised interfaces. Examples would be:
- the source as in CD optical drive close to the DAC connected by a short I2S bus;
- the clock should be as close to the DAC as possible to minimise jitter;
- not having multiple inputs and outputs with selection switching and extra processing/digital devices;
- digital devices are essentially noisy on the power supply, so the more processing you have the more noise;
Naim were very smart when they designed their first CD player, the CDS, in that they made it 2 boxes with all the essentials optimised in one and the power supply in the other. They also used the best of the Philips transports and selected 1541.
A rebuilt CDS with better parts (audio grade capacitors, UF rectifiers, improved regulators, no digital filtering/oversampling) and a clever analog filter would be something special.
The modern trend for digital is to have as much functionality/options/inputs as possible with everything externalised and connected with uber cables. Those that I have heard always sound wrong to me.
I'm not advocating for more boxes (I only have one)! I'm just saying that technically it can be exactly the same thing (or sometimes even worse).
When it comes to digital, sometimes having everything crammed in close to each other may not be a good idea.
In your post, you mention a lot of things which are not so obvious, for example: some advocate for optical connection to the source (ex: MSB) rather than I2S (which is prone to noise, since it is a high bandwidth electrical connection).
Rather than argue pointlessly about the design, it's best to wait and listen.
Similar threads
