dCS Varese short review

[andromedaaudio]

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?

Bang for buck !!!
Hard to beat my Telefunken M15 A.
Bought it 13 years ago for Euro 1500 had it restored for another 1500 add another 450 US per tape
With good / top tapes nothing comes close , Jazz / Classical musical .
Density / realness/ macro / micro dynamics

 

[Al M.]

Bang for buck !!!
Hard to beat my Telefunken M15 A.
Bought it 13 years ago for Euro 1500 had it restored for another 1500 add another 450 US per tape
With good / top tapes nothing comes close , Jazz / Classical musical .
Density / realness/ macro / micro dynamics

Bang for buck at $ 450 per tape? Get real.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Bang for buck at $ 450 per tape? Get real.

Obviously you havent heard a good tape set up.
Tape quality lasts long and for example the Acoustic sounds tapes( and many others ) come in gorgious packaging .
No plastic CD crap here.

Reel To Reel|Acoustic Sounds

Acoustic Sounds Audiophile Vinyl Records

store.acousticsounds.com

 

[andromedaaudio]

Bang for buck at $ 450 per tape? Get real.

2 reel Box set (1 Album ).

I ll probably hear the Varese in Munich next month , it better be good for that kinda $$$

 

[andromedaaudio]

DCS Varese 305,000 US .

id say 5.000 for the tape machine 300,000 $$$ on Tapes , no brainer.

 

[Al M.]

Obviously you havent heard a good tape set up.
Tape quality lasts long and for example the Ultra analogue tapes( and many others ) come in gorgious packaging .
No plastic CD crap here

Yes, I have heard good tape. But 30 pIeces of music cost you as much as my DAC. I don't care about gorgeous packaging.

As for long lasting quality: All the CDs of my vast collection, many bought up to more than three decades ago, still play perfectly well (with very few exceptions suffering from specific issues that were limited in scope for a limited time decades ago).

 

[Ron Resnick]

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!

The Wadax set-up in the M9 room MSRPs for $600,000. I don't hear a big difference between $100,000 digital and $350,000 digital and $600,000 digital. My personal favorite digital stuff is Horizon plus Olympus, for a total of $150,000 or so, a fraction of dCS and Wadax.

I would much rather spend the next hundred thousand dollars on a tape machine -- on which I do hear a big difference.

 

[andromedaaudio]

But 30 pIeces of music cost you as much as my DAC.

You upgraded to the Mola Mola , i thought you still had the Schitt.
The shitt is about 1 tape lol isnt it ?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Only DAC / Server I would / might spend on is the WADAX system .

 

[Al M.]

You upgraded to the Mola Mola , i thought you still had the Schitt.
The shitt is about 1 tape lol isnt it ?

4 and a half tapes .

 

[Al M.]

Only DAC / Server I would / might spend on is the WADAX system .

Your exposure to good digital seems to be very limited.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Your exposure to good digital seems to be very limited.

More then my ears can bear

 

[Stereophonic]

The Wadax set-up in the M9 room MSRPs for $600,000. I don't hear a big difference between $100,000 digital and $350,000 digital and $600,000 digital. My personal favorite digital stuff is Horizon plus Olympus, for a total of $150,000 or so, a fraction of dCS and Wadax.

I would much rather spend the next hundred thousand dollars on a tape machine -- on which I do hear a big difference.

What a surprise coming from Taiko praetorian guard.....
One year ago, Extreme was enough so you have rised the bar from 30k to 100k for a Server. More expensive than dcs/Wadax ones.
But it is a Taiko one, of course....
There are a lot of Olympus costumers than really difference between dCS/Wadax vs Olympus sound because they listen silence from their virtual Olympus.
Still waiting more than a year for an Olympus after paying it is a shame....
And don't try to express your opinion about this because you'll be banned as me have been by Emile at Taiko forum.
Freedom of expression doesn't exist in Taiko world.

 

[Al M.]

More then my ears can bear

Well, then it's not good digital. Which was my point.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Well, then it's not good digital. Which was my point.

23 years of shows / dealershows ( incl audiophile systems ) isnt enough ??
Where do i need to go to find this good digital of yours ?
High up in some cave in the Himalayas ?

 

[rDin]

What exactly do you find "broken" in digital?

I'm coming from the technical perspective. ASR would have us believe that DACs are solved - they all sound alike and there's no point buying anything other than a £50 Chi-Fi product. Those of us who use our ears, or who have looked more closely at implementation know this isn't true. There are still technical hurdles to overcome, particularly in reconstruction filters where, as far as I know, no DAC is yet able to reconstruct the original pre-sample analogue waveform. Is that even important? Well, yes, I believe so, and I think that much of the differences we hear between DACs will be down to reconstruction filters and the way different designers try to overcome that problem. Currently, DACs remain "unsolved", and thus the digital format is "broken", in a technical sense.

The ASR view is actually what we should want from our DACs. That discrete little black (or silver!) box that perfectly reconstructs the original pre-sampled analogue waveform. No more. No less. But we don't yet have that, and so the question here then is what are dCS doing in the Varese that allows for the digital source to come through so wonderfully (and why does that cost so much to achieve)? And conversely, what are their competitors (including their own lesser DACs) doing that is degrading their sound in direct comparison. Is it reconstruction? Noise in the device? Power supply? Components? All these things? That any of these things can and do affect digital sound so readily reinforces the idea that its a "broken" format to me.

It's wonderful that dCS seem to have moved the dial, and may have moved closer to solving digital, but there'll be a Varese killer along soon enough. Perhaps it'll be a Chi-Fi product!!!

 

[andromedaaudio]

I have heard Countless DCS products starting 2002 Scarlati stack ..........
Best sound i ve heard from DCS was with Rossini and its predecessor and always with tubes , ARC / VTL
I have never heard a good DCS set up with Solid state amplification ( Incl my Munchen 2022 , 2023, and 2024 visit )

 

[Al M.]

I'm coming from the technical perspective. ASR would have us believe that DACs are solved - they all sound alike and there's no point buying anything other than a £50 Chi-Fi product. Those of us who use our ears, or who have looked more closely at implementation know this isn't true. There are still technical hurdles to overcome, particularly in reconstruction filters where, as far as I know, no DAC is yet able to reconstruct the original pre-sample analogue waveform. Is that even important? Well, yes, I believe so, and I think that much of the differences we hear between DACs will be down to reconstruction filters and the way different designers try to overcome that problem. Currently, DACs remain "unsolved", and thus the digital format is "broken", in a technical sense.

Whatever technical problems there are left in digital -- and we might disagree on that -- like you I use my ears. And these tell me that digital becomes more and more satisfying, with some of the last issues that may have held it back being solved in a convincing manner. For example, I hear from my Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC pristine, clear highs that are non-fatiguing, and the sound of tenor saxophone in its full-bodied, fleshed-out harmonics finally is comparable to that of high-quality vinyl playback. It always had been a strong point there, and a weak point in digital. No more, to my ears.

If DACs remain unresolved, the same argument could be made for vinyl. Why does all vinyl playback sound different if there is a "perfect analogue waveform"? Turntables, tonearms, platters aside, even if you just change cartridges the sound changes. Not all cartridges can be "right", can they? So the true "perfect analogue waveform" remains unresolved, doesn't it? Does this mean that the vinyl format is "broken"?

(Spoiler: I don't think so.)

The ASR view is actually what we should want from our DACs. That discrete little black (or silver!) box that perfectly reconstructs the original pre-sampled analogue waveform. No more. No less. But we don't yet have that, and so the question here then is what are dCS doing in the Varese that allows for the digital source to come through so wonderfully (and why does that cost so much to achieve)? And conversely, what are their competitors (including their own lesser DACs) doing that is degrading their sound in direct comparison. Is it reconstruction? Noise in the device? Power supply? Components? All these things? That any of these things can and do affect digital sound so readily reinforces the idea that its a "broken" format to me.

I do agree that digital is more vulnerable than "Perfect Sound Forever" suggested. But vinyl playback is vulnerable as well. Why do different turntables, platters, threads for belt drive, power supplies, tonearms, cartridges all have such an, in many cases profound, effect on the sound? *) Not to speak of the different sound of phonostages. If only one of the resulting sounds can be "right", then all the others must be "degraded", no? If vinyl playback is so vulnerable to all these factors, by your standards it must a "broken" format too.

(Spoiler alert: I don't think it is.)

And while vinyl playback with all its flaws had been already for a long time a musically robust medium, digital is becoming more robust too. For example, rhythm & timing (the foot tapping factor), something that comes so easily and naturally to vinyl (even though not all vinyl excels equally), had been lacking for a long time in digital; in my view this was a real crisis point in the 1990s. Yet my last 4 DACs (since 2013) have been very robust rhythmic performers. I'll put the infectious swing on jazz and raw, terrifying, animalistic rhythmic drive on great rock of my current DAC confidently against that of any turntable.

_______________

*) And proper cartridge alignment seems to be an art, mastered by relatively few. Why is proper setup of vinyl so difficult and vulnerable to mistakes? Its (electro-) mechanical nature does make it vulnerable in its own way. A DAC is simple, you just put it in a rack (ok, different platforms and footers may make a difference, but you get my point).

 

[Audiocrack]

The Wadax set-up in the M9 room MSRPs for $600,000. I don't hear a big difference between $100,000 digital and $350,000 digital and $600,000 digital. My personal favorite digital stuff is Horizon plus Olympus, for a total of $150,000 or so, a fraction of dCS and Wadax.

I would much rather spend the next hundred thousand dollars on a tape machine -- on which I do hear a big difference.

The price of usd 600k you mention includes the Wadax reference sacd-player, its dedicated reference psu, an additional module in the dac to connect it - by way of two separate Akasa cables - to both the reference dac and reference sacd-player as well as various additional Akasa (dc) cables for the sacd-player. So if you compare (only) server/dac combinations of various brands the price of usd 600k regarding Wadax is not correct casu quo confusing.

 

[Elliot G.]

The Wadax set-up in the M9 room MSRPs for $600,000. I don't hear a big difference between $100,000 digital and $350,000 digital and $600,000 digital. My personal favorite digital stuff is Horizon plus Olympus, for a total of $150,000 or so, a fraction of dCS and Wadax.

I would much rather spend the next hundred thousand dollars on a tape machine -- on which I do hear a big difference.

Ron, I expect more from you.. First listening at a show and making quality decisions is IMO absurd. I was not at Axpona this year and the room that Magico had was our old room. We wrestled with that space for a number of years and if I am honest the room always won. I think at best in that room I would give our results a c+. Is that the gear? HELL NO. I invite you anytime to come to my room and listen to a Wadax in a proper atmosphere. BTW a Wadax DAC is under 180k and the server is under 80k.
I love the Axpona but trying to accomplish what is not possible meaning providing world class sound in mediocre spaces is not a battle that can be won. The Audio Industry needs to find better ways to display its wares.