Introducing Olympus & Olympus I/O - A new perspective on modern music playback

For those who just started reading up on Olympus, Olympus I/O, and XDMI, please note that all information in this thread has been summarized in a single PDF document that can be downloaded from the Taiko Website.

https://taikoaudio.com/taiko-2020/taiko-audio-downloads

The document is frequently updated.

Scroll down to the 'XDMI, Olympus Music Server, Olympus I/O' section and click 'XDMI, Olympus, Olympus I/O Product Introduction & FAQ' to download the latest version.

Good morning WBF!​

We are introducing the culmination of close to 4 years of research and development. As a bona fide IT/tech nerd with a passion for music, I have always been intrigued by the potential of leveraging the most modern of technologies in order to create a better music playback experience. This, amongst others, led to the creation of our popular, perhaps even revolutionary, Extreme music server 5 years ago, which we have been steadily improving and updating with new technologies throughout its life cycle. Today I feel we can safely claim it's holding its ground against the onslaught of new server releases from other companies, and we are committed to keep improving it for years to come.

We are introducing a new server model called the Olympus. Hierarchically, it positions itself above the Extreme. It does provide quite a different music experience than the Extreme, or any other server I've heard, for that matter. Conventional audiophile descriptions such as sound staging, dynamics, color palette, etc, fall short to describe this difference. It does not sound digital or analog, I would be inclined to describe it as coming closer to the intended (or unintended) performance of the recording engineer.

Committed to keeping the Extreme as current as possible, we are introducing a second product called the Olympus I/O. This is an external upgrade to the Extreme containing a significant part of the Olympus technology, allowing it to come near, though not entirely at, Olympus performance levels. The Olympus I/O can even be added to the Olympus itself to elevate its performance even further, though not as dramatic an uplift as adding it to the Extreme. Consider it the proverbial "cherry on top".

 

Many thanks to Emile and team for being such gracious hosts! Fascinating and thought provoking visit (and a graduate seminar in Highend audio).

As a community we are fortunate to have the combination of world class ear, world class engineer, and world class person leading Taiko (just awesome)

 

So wonderful to see those pictures You are a lucky elf Ray. It must have been a truly unforgettable day

 

...hey honchos: What are those speakers in the Taiko room?

 

They look like Zellaton Reference

 

Yes, quite the pleasant surprise (and I had high expectations going in). Definitely on my list for this next chapter in my reality quest

 

(I sort of want to trade in my taiko network stack for the raw copper versions)

 

So wonderful to see those pictures You are a lucky elf Ray. It must have been a truly unforgettable day

I’m more like a flying monkey Steve!

 

I’m more like a flying monkey Steve!

Oreo!

Steve Z

 

Yes, quite the pleasant surprise (and I had high expectations going in). Definitely on my list for this next chapter in my reality quest

So your thoughts on the sound in the Taiko listening room?

 

Hey @ctydwn, let me clarify a bit more.

When I talk about "massive resistance," I mean the broader skepticism I encounter almost daily. Out of every 10 people I explain the Taiko Olympus XDMI to, about 9 fall into the "resistant" category. I’m not even trying to sell it - just suggesting they give it a listen in their system.

For example, one person recently spent close to a million dollars on equipment and still doesn’t believe a server can make any difference. He would buy the most expensive DAC there is but skip the server as a non-believer. Another refuses to even consider a "computer" in their setup, so both the Extreme and Olympus are a no-go. Then there’s the usual criticism: it doesn’t have this, it doesn’t have that, it’s a small card in a noisy computer, so it can't be good, the analog section makes the DAC, so that little card can't be good, etc. Little do they realize how much they’re missing out on their digital source.

I’m relatively new to the industry, but I’ve built pretty much everything myself over the years - speakers, amps, preamps, phono stages, turntables, servers, DACs, you name it, and have a good technical understanding of how things work. What really bothers me is seeing people spend massive amounts of money on the wrong solution for the problem they have. Like someone having an untreated room causing issues, and their dealer selling them more expensive amplifiers to solve the problem. And 6 months later they sell them the upgraded version of these amplifiers. And another 6 months later they sell them a more expensive amplifier because the last 3 did not resolve the problem. They are out $200K when all they needed to do is add a couple room treatment panels for example. People keep chasing their tails for years and years and are never happy with their sound. It really hurts me when I see that.

Ironically, that same industry has created a vision in people's heads about what's good and what's bad. For example, someone with DAC X may value the clock above everything else and won’t even consider another DAC (Olympus included) unless it has a more expensive clock (because his dealer said so). And even if I had first hand experience with that DAC and suggest that the Olympus XDMI would sound better, they won’t take it seriously. Yet as soon as DAC X announces a better clock, they’ll jump on it - even if the upgrade costs more than the Olympus.

To be clear, I wasn’t pointing fingers at anyone specific (and definitely not SteveW). I’m just saying that some here have the capability to do meaningful comparisons but don’t for one reason or another - whether it’s valid or just skepticism about the XDMI analog card.

So, now that we've covered "massive resistance", where does that leave us? Ah, yeah, more data points. I want more data points too. I would love to hear these comparisons firsthand too.

Also, my mention about some people selling their expensive DACs did not imply that it was done after comparing XDMI analog to XDMI to Lampizator or MSB. I just like you am waiting to see more of these data points.

thanks for the reply @nenon.
it’s all good.
but actually your post makes it more confusing.

it is obvious i am not a beloved poster based on the reactions. lol

but again, everything you have written above speaks to the Extreme even more than the Olympus. versus your prior post which was clearly focused on the Olympus given the context and timing.

it is not new news that audiophiles are hesitant to spend big money on a computer/server. imho the Extreme already has put that question to bed for those that have taken that leap. there is no comparable at the Extremes price point. but yes many still will not commit to such a heady purchase. been the case for years. so new ‘massive resistance’ doesn’t make sense. taiko already broke the barrier w the Extreme.

your 9 out of 10 example above does not differentiate between the Extreme or Olympus. thus your prior post is quite confusing as i think we all understood it in the context of the Olympus. or maybe i am just crazy. and i trust you completely but of course you are a taiko dealer.

the difference between the extreme and the olympus should be notable and clearly differentiated.

and most importantly differentiate between XDMI analog out and XDMI digital out to XDMI digital compatible DACs. we know Emile has heard both. we know Lukasz has heard both. SteveW has heard from
others that have heard both apparently. i get we need to be patient for sure. i trust that no one on wbf has yet to do the comparison, totally understand. although that does seem really hard to believe.

i really do not think we just boil down to two camps. those wanting to rid ourselves of expensive dacs and those beholden to our current dacs. that really implies we are not discerning and really simplistic. imho i would like to evaluate both. without bias. and decide responsibly what makes most sense for musical enjoyment and fiscal responsibility

i will absolutely report upon receiving Olympus and I/o

 

imho i would like to evaluate both. without bias. and decide responsibly what makes most sense for musical enjoyment and fiscal responsibility

...agree with you, ctydwn, re: what makes sense. Except for the bias part. You'll be biased and rightfully so! That's no problem at all, in my view. Oh yes, and you are a beloved poster. We need all the biases accounted for. I have about 130 hours on my MSB card, so I must be getting close to fine, and will further summarize down the road.

 

Hey @ctydwn, let me clarify a bit more.

When I talk about "massive resistance," I mean the broader skepticism I encounter almost daily. Out of every 10 people I explain the Taiko Olympus XDMI to, about 9 fall into the "resistant" category. I’m not even trying to sell it - just suggesting they give it a listen in their system.

For example, one person recently spent close to a million dollars on equipment and still doesn’t believe a server can make any difference. He would buy the most expensive DAC there is but skip the server as a non-believer. Another refuses to even consider a "computer" in their setup, so both the Extreme and Olympus are a no-go. Then there’s the usual criticism: it doesn’t have this, it doesn’t have that, it’s a small card in a noisy computer, so it can't be good, the analog section makes the DAC, so that little card can't be good, etc. Little do they realize how much they’re missing out on their digital source.

I’m relatively new to the industry, but I’ve built pretty much everything myself over the years - speakers, amps, preamps, phono stages, turntables, servers, DACs, you name it, and have a good technical understanding of how things work. What really bothers me is seeing people spend massive amounts of money on the wrong solution for the problem they have. Like someone having an untreated room causing issues, and their dealer selling them more expensive amplifiers to solve the problem. And 6 months later they sell them the upgraded version of these amplifiers. And another 6 months later they sell them a more expensive amplifier because the last 3 did not resolve the problem. They are out $200K when all they needed to do is add a couple room treatment panels for example. People keep chasing their tails for years and years and are never happy with their sound. It really hurts me when I see that.

Ironically, that same industry has created a vision in people's heads about what's good and what's bad. For example, someone with DAC X may value the clock above everything else and won’t even consider another DAC (Olympus included) unless it has a more expensive clock (because his dealer said so). And even if I had first hand experience with that DAC and suggest that the Olympus XDMI would sound better, they won’t take it seriously. Yet as soon as DAC X announces a better clock, they’ll jump on it - even if the upgrade costs more than the Olympus.

To be clear, I wasn’t pointing fingers at anyone specific (and definitely not SteveW). I’m just saying that some here have the capability to do meaningful comparisons but don’t for one reason or another - whether it’s valid or just skepticism about the XDMI analog card.

So, now that we've covered "massive resistance", where does that leave us? Ah, yeah, more data points. I want more data points too. I would love to hear these comparisons firsthand too.

Also, my mention about some people selling their expensive DACs did not imply that it was done after comparing XDMI analog to XDMI to Lampizator or MSB. I just like you am waiting to see more of these data points.

When I read your first post I didn't consider you see way more different perspectives! You get to hear many more opinions. Thanks for clarifying Vassal...

 

...agree with you, ctydwn, re: what makes sense. Except for the bias part. You'll be biased and rightfully so! That's no problem at all, in my view. Oh yes, and you are a beloved poster. We need all the biases accounted for. I have about 130 hours on my MSB card, so I must be getting close to fine, and will further summarize down the road.

we really need to put this to rest. There is no correct answer. There are two wonderful paths, both of which lead to Valhalla. Of course there is preference and bias. All we can add are data points. I doubt these will be determining factors when all is said and done when it comes for each user to decide their own path.

 

Regarding the expressed difficulty of comparing analog DAC and an external DAC with native XDMI connection, I want to share my own experience of comparison. I often find that quick ABAB comparison is not always reliable and strict sound volume matching is not necessary - as long as I listen at an optimal and comfortable volume. Sound volume output varies from component to component. Strick mechanical matching may distort the sound quality (good for one component) of the other comparison component. Increasing sound volume beyond the comfort zone of a given component would expose the flaws more clearly or annoyingly. The more reliable way for me is to listen to a component for a week. My Olympus will come with the analog DAC board preinstalled and I will ship out my H1 for XDMI retrofit and upgrade soon thereafter. I have little doubt that the analog DAC will sound better than H1 (experienced only in its USB connection with Extreme) because of Olympus' XDMI. Without an AB comparison, I think I can still have a clear idea how the analog DAC stacks against H1 in terms of overall musicality when I focus on a few tracks I am very familiar with (solo piano, chamber music, orchestral music, vocal music). The same week-long "lived-with" comparison will be applied to analog DAC vs. H360 with native XDMI link. No doubt they will sound different, but at the end of the week (after both components are fully broken in) I will have a preference one way or the other. In my case, I have no choice but to use an external DAC for my second digital source (modded DVD transport for my large video disc library).

 

we really need to put this to rest. There is no correct answer. There are two wonderful paths, both of which lead to Valhalla. Of course there is preference and bias. All we can add are data points. I doubt these will be determining factors when all is said and done when it comes for each user to decide their own path.

totally appreciate your view Steve!! but we are literally talking about whether a current stand alone DAC matters. a $50,000 to $125,000 dollar investment. that ‘answer’ matters to most people.

 

totally appreciate your view Steve!! but we are literally talking about whether a current stand alone DAC matters. a $50,000 to $125,000 dollar investment. that ‘answer’ matters to most people.

once again it will come down to one's ears, one's ass in the sweet spot and one's pocket book.

 

IMO, we need critical reviews to determine if:

1. There is a clear winner.
2. There is a qualified winner.
3. It is horses for courses.
4. Preference of flavor.

This applies to each compare.

I don't think this will come to preference of flavor, which means statistically indifferent performance.

I am certain listener values will be all important. Are you a micro or a macro? (I'm decidedly a micro). I highly value accurate transient response, harmonic alignment, spatial presentation (xyz), micro resolution, separation, and contrast. Don't give a whit about frequency response, banging slam, or max spl. From what I've heard of the Olympus, it fulfills my micro wants. I know some macros who would be fine with a laptop (military artillery service, bless their hearts).

I'm really looking forward to reports of these compares. It will aid in my decision making, hopefully narrowing the appropriate choices. Being months away from my Olympus delivery, I'm in a dead stop holding pattern until I can learn something.

 

as an interested bystander (without a dog in the fight) to this dialog about comparisons i find it interesting that there is no recent mention of any analog reference to use as a target, or just a milepost. the talk about dac-bias and tube-bias can be minimized with a performance reference that cuts through all that with some degree of objectivity. otherwise we get into so many differences, instead of actual performance improvements. how do we find the sustaining performance qualities we most desire? what are the best most effective tools? and physically it's much easier and more fun to do an A/B with a resident analog reference than all the gear changing it takes to compare these dac/interface options.

as a 2+ decade serial format comparer i made my analog references central to my view of my digital. not that there were not things digital did better than my analog, but only that it gave me some truth to measure by and got me past some of my biases. and particular analog references can work over many different systems effectively.

many here in this discussion don't have any handy high quality analog reference to use; but some do. and probably some are not interested in an analog reference. no worries.

just that no mention of it seemed curious. i will now return to quiet by standing.

 

as an interested bystander (without a dog in the fight) to this dialog about comparisons i find it interesting that there is no recent mention of any analog reference to use as a target, or just a milepost. the talk about dac-bias and tube-bias can be minimized with a performance reference that cuts through all that with some degree of objectivity. otherwise we get into so many differences, instead of actual performance improvements. how do we find the sustaining performance qualities we most desire? what are the best most effective tools? and physically it's much easier and more fun to do an A/B with a resident analog reference than all the gear changing it takes to compare these dac/interface options.

as a 2+ decade serial format comparer i made my analog references central to my view of my digital. not that there were not things digital did better than my analog, but only that it gave me some truth to measure by and got me past some of my biases. and particular analog references can work over many different systems effectively.

many here in this discussion don't have any handy high quality analog reference to use; but some do. and probably some are not interested in an analog reference. no worries.

just that no mention of it seemed curious. i will now return to quiet by standing.

as an interested bystander (without a dog in the fight) to this dialog about comparisons i find it interesting that there is no recent mention of any analog reference to use as a target, or just a milepost. the talk about dac-bias and tube-bias can be minimized with a performance reference that cuts through all that with some degree of objectivity. otherwise we get into so many differences, instead of actual performance improvements. how do we find the sustaining performance qualities we most desire? what are the best most effective tools? and physically it's much easier and more fun to do an A/B with a resident analog reference than all the gear changing it takes to compare these dac/interface options.

as a 2+ decade serial format comparer i made my analog references central to my view of my digital. not that there were not things digital did better than my analog, but only that it gave me some truth to measure by and got me past some of my biases. and particular analog references can work over many different systems effectively.

many here in this discussion don't have any handy high quality analog reference to use; but some do. and probably some are not interested in an analog reference. no worries.

just that no mention of it seemed curious. i will now return to quiet by standing.

sure of course let’s compare to state of the art analog. but let’s at least start with state of the art digital observations via currently available xdmi digital connections to premier lampizator and msb dacs. at least the variables can be managed for a direct comparison

that all said. i sure hope you MikeL have an olympus and i/o en route to share your report on comparisons to top tier analog. surely your switch from taiko to wadax doesn’t mean for life

 

The ultimate reference should be live music experienced "nearfield", close to chamber music players or in the first 10 rows of a concert hall. Important to re-calibrate our ears from time to time with attending live music sessions. Otherwise we live in a hifi world, relying on one sound system reference or another comfortable to yourself. I was puzzled by the several references of one's lengthy process of getting used or reoriented to Olympus' sound. For me, it would be simple, does Olympus XDMI sound like live music or not. Live music does not have the kind of exaggerated boom-box or subwoofer bass many hifi lovers crave for or the kind of tubey sound relished by some people. I imagine Olympus XDMI sound may be somewhat leaner (without being clinical) than the Extreme's USB sound (which higher noise may attribute to some "density"). An LP system has its own problems. Nothing wrong if one loves the hifi sound though if it enables him to love music more (which matters ultimately). For me, I prize the clarity of attack and leading edge, which give reproduced music a sense of liveliness.