dCS Varese short review

[wil]

Exactly. And on top of that, US$350K for a component that will likely succumb to the audio version Moore’s Law on the used market. Every time it changes hands it will be for half the previous selling price.

And how do you feel about equally pricey turntables? Analog broken?

 

[microstrip]

Late to this discussion, and the point may have already been made, but if the Varese is as good as being claimed; the game changer, the quantum leap, the paradigm shift, then my immediate thought is that digital is broken and has been all along.

Well, considering people still find improvements in vinyl playback we could also say that vinyl has been broken for 70 years ...

Being an audiophile is an hobby of preference. My preference for digital comes since long, even before I got the dCS Vivaldi, that I have been enjoying for almost ten years. I have now listened to the Varese three times with my recordings and selected recordings of friends. IMO it is an evolutive improvement on the dCS, surely "better" as some WBF members like to say.

In order to understand the "quantum leap" comment we must read its origin in reviews - it addresses the eternal and futile debate of digital versus vinyl. As a known long time supporter of the vinyl cause (Jacob Heilbrun) admitted that the dCS Varese could now reach zones that were reserved to vinyl and (I quote)

the compares and comments became hyperbolic.

Everything that came before. Broken.

No, my dCS Vivaldi and many others still sounds excellent. The same way I find my Studer A80 sounds largely better than any vinyl and still listen to a lot of vinyl, that I consider excellent.

Alternatively, there's a high level of delusion going on here. I'm very much not an ASR fan, but I can see them looking at this £265K DAC and thinking we truly are insane.

We are free to have any opinion. ASR address a different class of audio and music fans, that I respect, but unfortunately we find that one of their reasons of existence is fighting the high/end. Do you support their points of view on the high-end?

But how long until the next game changer comes along, showing that the Varese didn't "fix" digital after all...?

IMO the dCS did not fix anything - it simply gave some audiophiles the possibility of enjoying a better sound.

 

[Tangram]

And how do you feel about equally pricey turntables? Analog broken?

I doubt the depreciation would be the same, given how prized some iconic turntables are in the used market. Can’t say the same thing about “vintage” chip-based sources.

 

[Al M.]

Late to this discussion, and the point may have already been made, but if the Varese is as good as being claimed; the game changer, the quantum leap, the paradigm shift, then my immediate thought is that digital is broken and has been all along. Everything that came before. Broken. Alternatively, there's a high level of delusion going on here. I'm very much not an ASR fan, but I can see them looking at this £265K DAC and thinking we truly are insane. But how long until the next game changer comes along, showing that the Varese didn't "fix" digital after all...?

I am someone who immensely enjoys listening to music via digital (and yes, I enjoy vinyl in friends' systems as well). To me this is incomprehensible commentary, a head-scratcher as it were.

What exactly do you find "broken" in digital?

 

[microstrip]

Exactly. And on top of that, US$350K for a component that will likely succumb to the audio version Moore’s Law on the used market. Every time it changes hands it will be for half the previous selling price.

IMO Moore law can't be applied to stereo reproduction.

It would be great (or terrible, depending if we are buying or selling) if excellent high-end depreciated in the way you refer - I like buying used equipment. Surely some equipment can have even higher depreciation or even did not find buyers at any price.

 

[microstrip]

I doubt the depreciation would be the same, given how prized some iconic turntables are in the used market. Can’t say the same thing about “vintage” chip-based sources.

Apples and oranges, at minimum. The reason for the high price of most iconic turntables is being old and rare, being considered the top at the gold years of vinyl. Many times the referred prices are speculative, not real sales values - some audio dealers and audiophiles are simultaneously collectors and investors.

 

[Tangram]

Apples and oranges, at minimum. The reason for the high price of most iconic turntables is being old and rare, being considered the top at the gold years of vinyl. Many times the referred prices are speculative, not real sales values - some audio dealers and audiophiles are simultaneously collectors and investors.

Do you know any collectors of vintage high-end digital?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Do you know any collectors

depends on how you define 'collector'. in any case never like how people collect and revere particular vintage turntables or tape decks.

but we do see those who hold early (not really vintage) digital in high regard. whether a Mark Levinson No. 31 transport, or maybe an early Meitner dac, or such pieces. but actually collecting old digital pieces is pretty rare for all the obvious reasons. there is no real market for old digital hardware to support collecting.

the big difference is that vintage turntables and tape decks can be viewed as a (or one of the) pinnacle(s) of the category. whereas very few view early digital hardware in that way. most agree that digital took a few decades to mature.

of course everyone is entitled to their opinion about digital playback performance evolution. the used marketplace has voted strongly that newer digital is better.

of vintage high-end digital?

vin·tage
/ˈvin(t)ij/

noun
noun: vintage; plural noun: vintages

the time that something of quality was produced.
"rifles of various sizes and vintages"

not sure old digital fit this definition.

 

[microstrip]

Do you know any collectors of vintage high-end digital?

A few pieces of digital are becoming collector items - some CD transports, as the CEC TL0 or the Metronome Kalista Ultimate.

DACs will probably be of much less interest, as they simply become obsolete when new models were launched. But curiously demand for old dCS Elgar plus DAC's is high.

 

[microstrip]

vin·tage
/ˈvin(t)ij/

noun
noun: vintage; plural noun: vintages

the time that something of quality was produced.
"rifles of various sizes and vintages"

not sure old digital fit this definition.

IMO vintage addresses the concept of well made, stylish, nostalgic or uniqueness of goods of yesterday.

Some digital fits it.

 

[pk_LA]

Isn't this all a question of relative performance and cost? Many, many people would find a $10,000 DAC ridiculous. In fact, I think the ASR site might use a $10,000 DAC as kindling for days.
a) I do not believe that a great $100,000 DAC is 10x better than a great $10,000 one. Nor is a $250,000 one 2.5x better than $100,000.
b) I do not believe there is a sound rationale for any high-end audio gear. None of it.
But, for some people the passion and pursuit of the best sound possible makes the irrational additional expenditure a worthwhile one. Alas, I am one of them.

With that said, I agree that $350,000 for a DAC is obscene. That's crazy! I mean, $250,000...okay, I get it! But $350,000!? No way!

 

[treitz3]

The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No price can be put on that.

Tom

 

[pk_LA]

The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No price can be put on that.

Tom

I beg to differ, Sir!

 

[pk_LA]

I beg to differ, Sir!

(disclosure: I am contemplating a $350,000 dac atm...asking myself how much for how much beauty)

 

[treitz3]

Understood. The beauty is up to you, as to whether or not you will accept it. For some? It may not be worth it. Is it to you?

Tom

 

[thedudeabides]

that said, I agree that $350,000 for a DAC is obscene. That's crazy! I mean, $250,000...okay, I get it! But $350,000!? No way!

What exactly do you "get" with a $250K DAC price tag that you don't "get" with a DAC priced at $350K. I guess I'm asking how one differentiates between various degrees of obscenity. $250K is obscene but understandably so but $350K is not? Is that your point? Thanks for any clarification.

 

[pk_LA]

What exactly do you "get" with a $250K DAC price that you don't "get" with a DAC priced at $350K. I guess I'm asking how one differentiates between various degrees of obscenity. $250K is obscene but understandably so but $350K is not? Is that your point?

I was (unsuccessfully) attempting a bit of humor. The point I was trying to make was; the price threshold that triggers people's disgust is somewhat arbitrary. I suppose it is affected by a number of factors but nonetheless, it is arbitrary. We are talking about companies that have (usually) less than 20 employees. Hard cost of goods on this stuff is...what? $1,000? Maybe...

 

[thedudeabides]

In the hi end audio world and as you are aware, prices can be, and in many cases are IMHO beyond obscene. With no rational nexus to the "real" world justifying msrp. I guess that's why I misunderstood your attempt at humor. Best.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

for how much beauty?

a bag full.

at least my particular bag. itch fully scratched....and never gets old even a little. every day makes me sit up and notice. the most unassuming music fills my soul.

 

[Al M.]

I was (unsuccessfully) attempting a bit of humor. The point I was trying to make was; the price threshold that triggers people's disgust is somewhat arbitrary. I suppose it is affected by a number of factors but nonetheless, it is arbitrary. We are talking about companies that have (usually) less than 20 employees. Hard cost of goods on this stuff is...what? $1,000? Maybe...

Development costs have to be included in the price. I work in a biotech company, and the material costs of our products may be a relatively small portion of the sales price, but all the very expensive development costs have to be recuperated as well. Not to include them in the price (at some rate per individual product sold) would be financial suicide for us; the real world doesn't operate on material costs alone. We operate on an overall financially healthy but in relative terms modest profit.

This is not to excuse the outrageous prices of some high-end products. Yet a statement "Hard cost of goods on this stuff is...what? $1,000? Maybe..." is completely beside the point. Unless it was another attempt at humor...(I did get and like your first one.)