Merlot DAC and Syrah Music Server

[Andre Marc]

All (?) of these implementations use a full blown computer running Linux inside them. So you are not getting away from a computer just because there is no separate box. All else being equal, I like to see that computer outside of the DAC than inside. Whatever ills a computer has, putting it inside the DAC magnifies it.

That said, the computers they use are lower speed so you may get lucky and have it less noisy but I would not bet on it.

You also have to worry about longer term support of these products. There is no economic engine to provide software updates and you could wind up with a door stop as far as its embedded computer.

The real reason to get one of these embedded computer solution is ease of use. If you need a turnkey solution that you don't have to mess with, then getting one of these solutions that has been heavily tested in the field to be reliable and compatible make sense. Getting it for sound quality based on it being a feature, is not wise.

i simply won't get into a debate about the difference between a consumer grade computer loaded with a commercial OS rolling off the assembly line at Foxconn designed by computer engineers and a purpose built audio grade product with custom firmware designed by audio engineers. Bryston has SIX full time engineers working on the BDP line and two full time support people.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hi Mike
Mike agree about a learning curve. My question to you is whether there is an audible difference between DSD 64 files upsampled to DSD 256 vs native DSD 256

I ask this only because if there remains a paucity of native files and there is no audible difference why not just upsample our DSD64

Steve,

sorry if what I wrote was not clear enough.

absolutely native dsd256 files are clearly better than non-native dsd256 files sourced from analog tapes or dsd64.

this is based on my listening to my 27-28 dsd256 full album files, 10 of which are native dsd256 recordings.

no doubt the jury is still out. this is significant to me, but not fully definitive.

I've heard these files mainly in my own system thru the Lampizator Golden Gate. however; I also heard some of these native dsd256 files thru the Nadac in David Robinson's room, as well as 2 systems at RMAF, as well as the exaSound at RMAF.

to my ears with Native dsd256 there is a clear (1) expansion of the soundstage, (2) additional decay and ease, (3) increased detail and texture, and (4) increased sense of presence. I do not get those attributes clearly coming thru with remasterings to dsd256......except for some of the soundstage increase. in other words, I do like rematerings to dsd256 but am not excited about that step....and respect the lowered perspective on the significance of those. I agree. if we just consider remasterings then I would agree that the sweet spot for the step up is at dsd128. beyond that are diminishing returns.

 

[andrew_stenhouse]

Steve,


absolutely native dsd256 files are clearly better than non-native dsd256 files sourced from analog tapes or dsd64.

Mike
How close are you getting to your vinyl rig with native 256? or is just different, not necessarily better or worse, than vinyl?

Thanks

 

[microstrip]

generalizations about 'all computers' in listening rooms don't serve the discussions. there are one's that work well and one's that are not ideal. (...)

Yes, but when 99% of them sound inadequate we become less rigorous on language. I hope that soon I will have one of the few belonging to 1%.

 

[microstrip]

Steve,

sorry if what I wrote was not clear enough.

absolutely native dsd256 files are clearly better than non-native dsd256 files sourced from analog tapes or dsd64.

this is based on my listening to my 27-28 dsd256 full album files, 10 of which are native dsd256 recordings.

no doubt the jury is still out. this is significant to me, but not fully definitive.

I've heard these files mainly in my own system thru the Lampizator Golden Gate. however; I also heard some of these native dsd256 files thru the Nadac in David Robinson's room, as well as 2 systems at RMAF, as well as the exaSound at RMAF.

to my ears with Native dsd256 there is a clear (1) expansion of the soundstage, (2) additional decay and ease, (3) increased detail and texture, and (4) increased sense of presence. I do not get those attributes clearly coming thru with remasterings to dsd256......except for some of the soundstage increase. in other words, I do like rematerings to dsd256 but am not excited about that step....and respect the lowered perspective on the significance of those. I agree. if we just consider remasterings then I would agree that the sweet spot for the step up is at dsd128. beyond that are diminishing returns.

I can not understand why a Redbook file (44.1kHz/16 bit) does sound great on the Trinity and does not show a similar upgrade when played at dsd256 format in the Lampizator. The sound quality of the Trinity is mainly due to proprietary oversampling and staggering DACs of high linearity to get higher sampling, enhancing resolution. This should be able to be emulated in the transcription to dsd256, at less to get the full potential of the 16 bit 44.1kHz CD. Unfortunately the digital audio software people prefer to ignore these challenging aspects ....

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike
How close are you getting to your vinyl rig with native 256? or is just different, not necessarily better or worse, than vinyl?

Thanks

I think it's important to limit my comments to just my vinyl rig. because there are so many different degrees of vinyl goodness.

in my system dsd256 native files are not to the 'good pressing' level of musical value. they are different and certainly in some areas are equal to vinyl in noise floor and sense of ambience. but in terms of image density, dynamic life, involvement, cohesiveness, and emotion it's not in that realm.

the vinyl is here, now, present. you still look thru a clean window to the dsd256. no window or wall with vinyl.

all that said; native dsd256, based on my small but impressive sample size, is a revelation for us all and a great new level of real world accessible digital musical involvement. it is not necessary for it to compete with a 6 figure mature vinyl playback system.

so we are talking degrees of good here.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I can not understand why a Redbook file (44.1kHz/16 bit) does sound great on the Trinity and does not show a similar upgrade when played at dsd256 format in the Lampizator. The sound quality of the Trinity is mainly due to proprietary oversampling and staggering DACs of high linearity to get higher sampling, enhancing resolution. This should be able to be emulated in the transcription to dsd256, at less to get the full potential of the 16 bit 44.1kHz CD. Unfortunately the digital audio software people prefer to ignore these challenging aspects ....

I do not have PCM capability on my Lampizator GG. I elected to eliminate that option. and I have not listened to any software that up samples redbook to Quad dsd. I do own the Playback Designs MPS-5 and for 9 years have listened (or rather have choose not to listen to) to redbook up sampled to 2xdsd. so I cannot comment on your question exactly.

however; I do have a strong opinion about why the Trinity has a special unique ability to overcome the inherent negative characteristics of redbook playback. and that is that it's particular approach to it's ladder dac design, specifically the analog steps between the 8 dacs per channel, and it's elimination of any analog output stage, do somehow remove the non musical aspects of the PCM playback.

up sampling to any rate alone does not accomplish this task based on my understanding. I reserve the right to change my mind at such point I'm exposed to better up sampling approaches than I have yet experienced. you can go back to the Trinity dac thread and read Adam's explanation for more details on what Trinity is doing.

I can tell you that I spend hours a week enjoying redbook without reservation now and there is just so much great music I am enjoying. some of it sounds fantastic. the format is fine once you fix it.

but for it to be a good choice for me it does need fixing.

 

[microstrip]

I do not have PCM capability on my Lampizator GG. I elected to eliminate that option. and I have not listened to any software that up samples redbook to Quad dsd. I do own the Playback Designs MPS-5 and for 9 years have listened (or rather have choose not to listen to) to redbook up sampled to 2xdsd. so I cannot comment on your question exactly.

however; I do have a strong opinion about why the Trinity has a special unique ability to overcome the inherent negative characteristics of redbook playback. and that is that it's particular approach to it's ladder dac design, specifically the analog steps between the 8 dacs per channel, and it's elimination of any analog output stage, do somehow remove the non musical aspects of the PCM playback.

up sampling to any rate alone does not accomplish this task based on my understanding. I reserve the right to change my mind at such point I'm exposed to better up sampling approaches than I have yet experienced. you can go back to the Trinity dac thread and read Adam's explanation for more details on what Trinity is doing.

I can tell you that I spend hours a week enjoying redbook without reservation now and there is just so much great music I am enjoying. some of it sounds fantastic. the format is fine once you fix it.

Thanks Mike. I will wait until you listen to the best redbook transcoded to DSD256 - as far as I know there are a few software utilities performing this conversion.

I participated in the threads about the Trinity - unfortunately, probably in order to protect their intellectual property, the more important technical details, that should have relevance to sound quality, are omitted. Most of my questions are due to a mix of technical and audiophile curiosity, nothing else.

I know it is only semantics but I feel uncomfortable with your sentence "the format is fine once you fix it." IMHO the format is fine if you do not spoil it, as most servers/transport/ DACs/ players do when poorly matched to the systems. I have listened to enjoyable and excellent sounding redbook. But unfortunately very seldom.
I am very happy with my Metronome system. However the C2A DAC only plays PCM and the current buzz about DSD brought me out of hibernation!

 

[Blizzard]

I do not have PCM capability on my Lampizator GG. I elected to eliminate that option. and I have not listened to any software that up samples redbook to Quad dsd. I do own the Playback Designs MPS-5 and for 9 years have listened (or rather have choose not to listen to) to redbook up sampled to 2xdsd. so I cannot comment on your question exactly.

however; I do have a strong opinion about why the Trinity has a special unique ability to overcome the inherent negative characteristics of redbook playback. and that is that it's particular approach to it's ladder dac design, specifically the analog steps between the 8 dacs per channel, and it's elimination of any analog output stage, do somehow remove the non musical aspects of the PCM playback.

up sampling to any rate alone does not accomplish this task based on my understanding. I reserve the right to change my mind at such point I'm exposed to better up sampling approaches than I have yet experienced. you can go back to the Trinity dac thread and read Adam's explanation for more details on what Trinity is doing.

I can tell you that I spend hours a week enjoying redbook without reservation now and there is just so much great music I am enjoying. some of it sounds fantastic. the format is fine once you fix it.

but for it to be a good choice for me it does need fixing.

I wonder if your GG would outpreform the trinity with PCM if you used HQPLAYER to convert PCM to DSD 256 on the fly? If you could get superior results for PCM this way, that would sure save the hassle and expense of having 2 DAC's.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Thanks Mike. I will wait until you listen to the best redbook transcoded to DSD256 - as far as I know there are a few software utilities performing this conversion.

I participated in the threads about the Trinity - unfortunately, probably in order to protect their intellectual property, the more important technical details, that should have relevance to sound quality, are omitted. Most of my questions are due to a mix of technical and audiophile curiosity, nothing else.

I know it is only semantics but I feel uncomfortable with your sentence "the format is fine once you fix it." IMHO the format is fine if you do not spoil it, as most servers/transport/ DACs/ players do when poorly matched to the systems. I have listened to enjoyable and excellent sounding redbook. But unfortunately very seldom.
I am very happy with my Metronome system. However the C2A DAC only plays PCM and the current buzz about DSD brought me out of hibernation!

I'm convinced that PCM, specifically redbook, has an inherent edginess due to the way it deals with high frequencies. you can mask it with various methods, or dumb it down with NOS dacs. but it does absolutely need fixing. and I'm not saying that your Metronome system does not somehow do the same things.....but I don't know about that.

here are 2 links to posts Elberoth made on that Trinity dac thread that speak to the lengths that the Trinity dac has gone to fix inherent PCM nasties.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12023-Trinity-DAC&p=238265&viewfull=1#post238265

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12023-Trinity-DAC&p=244005&viewfull=1#post244005

he describes it so much better than I ever could.

 

[amirm]

i simply won't get into a debate about the difference between a consumer grade computer loaded with a commercial OS rolling off the assembly line at Foxconn designed by computer engineers and a purpose built audio grade product with custom firmware designed by audio engineers. Bryston has SIX full time engineers working on the BDP line and two full time support people.

I have managed the design and development of both. Computer architecture both at hardware and software is what I used to make a living from. I know the warts and advantages of both. You simply cannot go by packaging of one computer against the other as being an advantage in audio. It does not work that way. The moment you include networking in these system, that brings in a whole operating system with it and you are no more advantaged just because it is inside the audio box. As I mentioned, the inclusion and closeness to audio subsystem is a negative, not positive.

As to Bryston six engineers, I assure you none of them understand the guts of the Linux operating system that they are using. Or understand the CPU/SoC subsystem they are using. These are baseline platforms provided by others that they use and build their audio software stack on top of. It is a mistake to think one or the other approach is automatically better.

 

[Blizzard]

I'm convinced that PCM, specifically redbook, has an inherent edginess due to the way it deals with high frequencies. you can mask it with various methods, or dumb it down with NOS dacs. but it does absolutely need fixing. and I'm not saying that your Metronome system does not somehow do the same things.....but I don't know about that.

here are 2 links to posts Elberoth made on that Trinity dac thread that speak to the lengths that the Trinity dac has gone to fix inherent PCM nasties.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12023-Trinity-DAC&p=238265&viewfull=1#post238265

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12023-Trinity-DAC&p=244005&viewfull=1#post244005




he describes it so much better than I ever could.

The AKM AK4490 chip is a breakthrough with SDM based PCM with my testing. It's looking like budget SDM chips might surpass the performance of SOTA R2R very soon.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I wonder if your GG would outpreform the trinity with PCM if you used HQPLAYER to convert PCM to DSD 256 on the fly? If you could get superior results for PCM this way, that would sure save the hassle and expense of having 2 DAC's.

Elberoth (Adam) has the Golden Gate, the Trinity dac, and I know he has used the HQPLAYER. he likely has done that comparison. I have not and have no current plans to try it. but I do agree that it would be nice if it worked out the way you suggest.

 

[Blizzard]

Elberoth (Adam) has the Golden Gate, the Trinity dac, and I know he has used the HQPLAYER. he likely has done that comparison. I have not and have no current plans to try it. but I do agree that it would be nice if it worked out the way you suggest.

You can try for free. Just download the HQplayer trial. Are you afraid it may sound better? Sounds like the computer you have discribed in a few threads has more than enough power for it.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You can try for free. Just download the HQplayer trial. Are you afraid it may sound better? Sounds like the computer you have discribed in a few threads has more than enough power for it.

petrified.

 

[Blizzard]

petrified.

Yeah the majority of the expense of these uber high end DAC's is from the oversampling engines. Jussi at HQplayer has figured out better algorithms than these megabuck DAC's that can be run on a piece of hardware your using in your system already. At very minimum it's at least worth the 30 seconds to install the free trial.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yeah the majority of the expense of these uber high end DAC's is from the oversampling engines. Jussi at HQplayer has figured out better algorithms than these megabuck DAC's that can be run on a piece of hardware your using in your system already. At very minimum it's at least worth the 30 seconds to install the free trial.

i'll probably see if my son will humor me with more of his time to set that up to try. I likely used up a bunch of my 'dad' points lately so with all the various set-up and quad dsd download assistance.

I know I personally am not getting into that and messing up stuff I don't know much about.

lets agree neither of us know whether Jussi can better the Trinity dac on redbook with his up sampling software and the Golden Gate with quad dsd. maybe he can.

 

[Blizzard]

i'll probably see if my son will humor me with more of his time to set that up to try. I likely used up a bunch of my 'dad' points lately so with all the various set-up and quad dsd download assistance.

I know I personally am not getting into that and messing up stuff I don't know much about.

lets agree neither of us know whether Jussi can better the Trinity dac on redbook with his up sampling software and the Golden Gate with quad dsd. maybe he can.

Yes your correct. But you have the gear at your disposal to find out. I'd love to compare the Trinity to my AK4490 based DAC/HQplayer combo.

 

[andrew_stenhouse]

@Mike Lavigne
Thank you for your reply - very considered and informative and gives me a good sense of context to understand where DSD 256 (or DSD generally) is at over on your side of the pond.

I always enjoy vinyl systems more than digital; it is as you say, the presence that vinyl brings in your system which attracts me to vinyl in others systems, and in my own when I was solely vinyl based for a couple years.

That said I am excited about the developments that are unfolding, and look forward to the next few years, when I hope our digital replay progresses to permit the reproduction of the best aspects of vinyl preserving that essence of "life" and "being there" that so far, I have only experienced in the best vinyl rigs I have had the privilege of hearing (and to a much lessor extent that existed in my own meagre vinyl system).

Onwards and upwards.

Ahhh Mr Blizzard re:

But you have the gear at your disposal to find out.

True, but I think the point is Mike doesn't want to do so.

You do push. I am not sure why.

 

[LarsS]

I have managed the design and development of both. Computer architecture both at hardware and software is what I used to make a living from. I know the warts and advantages of both. You simply cannot go by packaging of one computer against the other as being an advantage in audio. It does not work that way. The moment you include networking in these system, that brings in a whole operating system with it and you are no more advantaged just because it is inside the audio box. As I mentioned, the inclusion and closeness to audio subsystem is a negative, not positive.

As to Bryston six engineers, I assure you none of them understand the guts of the Linux operating system that they are using. Or understand the CPU/SoC subsystem they are using. These are baseline platforms provided by others that they use and build their audio software stack on top of. It is a mistake to think one or the other approach is automatically better.

Your dead right Amir, only advantage with a one box design is the ease of use as you say. There's lots of RF/EMI emitted from a computer polluting the environment, you'll want to keep that far away from the DAC.
Also made a living from the IT industry for +30 years since Intel released the 8086 ...