DS Audio Grand Master + EMM Labs DS-EQ1
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
The least expensive DS Audio cartridge + decoder is about $2,500 in total. I am told that the least expensive cartridge gives you about 85% to 90% of the performance of the most expensive one.
The Grand Master costs $15,000 + $12,000 for the EMM Labs decoder = $27,000. (I don't know what the top of the line DS Audio decoder at three times the price of the EMM DS-EQ1 gets you.)
Last edited:
Jonathan concludes his review of the Grand Master by repeating Ken Kessler's conclusion that "this is possibly the best cartridge [I've] ever heard."
PS: It is very unfortunate that I have to even think about this, but I note that DS Audio took out a full-page advertisement in that issue of TAS.
Last edited:
And then there is the 003 newly released third generation at around £5000, this may just be their sweet spot!
Peter Ledermann ran a talk for The Audiophile Society a few days ago that delved into this subject.
He contends that much of the noise from the groove is what he termed jitter. Greater the mass at the magnet end of the cantilever the greater the energy reflected back down to the stylus. This, he contends, causes the stylus to jump in the groove, sample the encoded information and cause noise.
Soundsmith designs are low mass at the magnet end for this reason. I've not tried one so couldn't say whether they are notably better at noise avoidance than other designs
The even lower mass of the DS cart would suggest even less reflected energy and might explain the low noise? In any case your observation appears to bear out PL's assertion.
No, the decoder is the phono. The cartridge and decoders are available separately so you can choose any of the DS decoders to go with your cart of choice or one from the likes of EMM.
With DS Audio you can mix the cartridge and the decoder and can be good choice the cartridge Grand Master with the decoder Master 1 that cost 15.000 usd like the emm labs,instead 40.000 usd of Grand Master decoder
Why bought Emm Labs and not the DS Audio decoder Master 1 that cost same like Emm Labs?
Why bought Emm Labs and not the DS Audio decoder Master 1 that cost same like Emm Labs?
I have not seen a comparative review of the EMM Labs DS-EQ1 versus any of the DS Audio decoders. Ed Meitner is a somewhat indirectly known quantity to me based on the number of personal friends I have who love his DACs.
But what I really want is a Jim White of Aesthetix designed tube optical decoder.
Practically speaking, with DS Audio seemingly making significant improvements to this young and novel cartridge technology so rapidly, and with the strong likelihood that more third party companies will make their own decoders, there is a good argument for starting initially with the entry-level DS Audio cartridge + decoder package, and then waiting a good long time before upgrading to a later generation top-of-the-line DS Audio cartridge and one's favorite future very expensive decoder.
Jim has not indicated anything. He is a brilliant designer, and I am sure he can figure it out if he wants to.
I always thought the electro-mechanical interface was part of the charm. Optical readers won't read 'mass effects', so there goes the 500 pound installation down the tubes.
No pops or clicks, as somebody said, means electronic processing of some sort.
Optical systems seem to pop up every ten to fifteen years.
Too many hosannas, epiphanies, eurekas and 'game changers' generally mean: wait a year and see how the technology sorts itself out in the field before committing.
No pops or clicks, as somebody said, means electronic processing of some sort.
Optical systems seem to pop up every ten to fifteen years.
Too many hosannas, epiphanies, eurekas and 'game changers' generally mean: wait a year and see how the technology sorts itself out in the field before committing.
Why do you think this technology is brand new? I think this technology has been around for at least seven years already. The company is in the third generation of its cartridges.
Who said "no pops or clicks"? I certainly did not. From this inaccuracy you deduce incorrectly "electronic processing of some sort."
Why don't you go hear it for yourself?
Last edited:
I thought that debate required a certain amount of contra. So sorry to offend the status quo. Are you going to start screening the site for commercial conformists?
As I said, the optical readers seem to flame and fade periodically. There are reasons for con as well as for pro.
As I said, the optical readers seem to flame and fade periodically. There are reasons for con as well as for pro.
I totally respect and strongly desire contra -- especially when it is grounded in facts and not based on assumptions.
An audition which converts a skeptic is the most valuable evidence of efficacy.
Thank you.
An audition which converts a skeptic is the most valuable evidence of efficacy.
Thank you.
Similar threads
