Trinity DAC

[Revel Salon 2]

I'm absolutely loving the fact that this 1" thick DAC seems to be de-throning all other sota dac's out there including the completely over the top and exorbitant 3 box Vivaldi!

That would be great but for 60K for a one box solution the 3 box solution from DCS is not so exorbitant in price....

 

[jap]

http://cybwiz.blogspot.com/2013/03/trinity-dac.html

 

[esldude]

Hi esldude,
You referred to the 1st defect sample.
The 2nd sample measurement is more reasonable:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/...emium-cd-transport-second-sample-measurements
.
cheers

Yes, you are correct. And Mr. Fremer only listened for the review to the 1st sample which wasn't functioning properly. And gave a review praising it. If a treble roll off and a bass roll off at 50 hz is missed then how good can these evaluation methods be? The answer is not very. Not compared to basic instruments. There isn't some magic wonder the DAC performs that can transcend something as basic a audible frequency response variation unless that very variation is part of the allure, the signature sound.

 

[esldude]

Have you ever listened seriously to the Zanden transport/dac combo? If not, I will rest my case.

You may rest then. No I haven't heard it. Don't need to in order to realize a 50 hz roll off isn't great performance. An iPod can do better than that. My point wasn't so much about this particular DAC, as about the evaluation process that praises a broken version of this or any other DAC.

 

[Elberoth]

Red square I know exactly what you mean. I now have a MSB stack it did the same thing. Not with all , but some that I have written off with blaring sounds.

That is because the MSB is a low jitter design. In my experience, all dacs equipped with the latest, low phase noise clocks offer this grainless, ultra smooth and fluid sonic signature, which makes listening to poorly recorded CDs much more enjoyable.

I had an interesting discussion on DACs with Mike over the Audio Shark forum, where he noted:

I find it interesting how digital audio for people really falls into two different camps: those that seek uber detail and those that seek analog, smoother, warmer sounding. In our own DAC shootouts, I found many people picked the uber detailed DAC's because they could hear more - but over time, became fatigued. Whereas the more analog sounding DAC's didn't get picked often, but seemed to be the most enjoyable to listen to - long term.


I think that many of us could agree with Mike.

In my opinion, the main problem with digital, was that DACs used to be very grainy. You could try to cover that graininess with tube lushness, which would make the DAC sound 'analog' and fluid. The drawback was that you had also sacrified the details by doing so.

On the other side there was a resolution camp, which went for the maximum details (dCS, Theta etc). The drawback of going after maximum resolution, was that you also exposed the grain, which made long term listening a tiring experience ...

And that is how people got divided into two different camps.

In my experience, the best DACs can do both nowadays. Due to vanishingly low jitter levels, they are ultra smooth, fluid and grainless, exceeding best so called analog sounding DACs in that regard. But since they do not have to sugar coat anything anymore to sound smooth, they can also offer superior transparency and resolution.

The Trinity is just such a DAC. It is the most fluid and grainless DAC I have ever heard (by a wide marigin !) and at the same - the most detailed, articulate and dimensional one. It is just spooky real.

 

[Elberoth]

Or we don't or can't always perform all the measurements that are relevant to music reproduction. Frequency and distortion responses measured on sine waves, for example, may not be an entirely relevant read-out of the behaviour of gear on music with its complex signals and transients.

As a scientist (a biochemist) I am critically aware of the measurement problem -- that we sometimes don't measure, or don't know how to measure, the stuff that's really important. In a biological context, for example, it is much easier to measure single components, e.g., enzymes, of a system, than it is to measure their behaviour in a complex system as a whole. Yet a kinetic read-out of an enzyme may not tell you the real story about its behaviour, when other cumulative factors like location, diffusion, modulation by modification, and interaction with other proteins decide on its ultimate behaviour in the cell.

Spectral, whose gear measures great by any conventional standard and who are considered a reference for solid-state amps, have for example pointed out that it is important that nothing in the signal pathway retains 'heat memory', which would distort the behaviour of the transistors on quiet passages after loud and complex transients. That they have successfully tackled the problem to a large extent appears to be an important reason that their amps sound so clean and "fast". Yet this kind of thing is not one typically measured by audio engineers.

This is the most excellent post Al, thank you. I think that Steve should make it sticky !

As Alon the Wolfmman of Magico uses to say - if it sounds good, but measures bad - then you had masured the wrong thing.

 

[Elberoth]

Redsquare, please don't take this the wrong way, but badly mastered CDs sound REALLY REALLY bad, hence I'm struggling to reconcile your statement that they sound better than optimally presented hi rez.

I'm not sure you read the original post correctly. redsquare have only said that cd-rips on the Trinity sound better than hi-res on OTHER dacs, not that cd-rips sound better than hi-res on the Trinity:

With all other dacs I'm always looking for the best recording but with the Trinity, all those old cd's from the 80's that we dismiss as awful sounding, sound better with the Trinity than hi-res on current top dacs!

At least that is my understanding of redsquare's post, but I'm not a native english speaker so could be wrong.

 

[Elberoth]

That would be quite a trip for me as I belive they are in Wroclaw and I'm in Warsaw. I have heard them 2 or 3 times in show conditions (twice at Munich and once in Warsaw), but the show demos can only tell you so much.

I will keep an eye on them though, if you recommend them so highly.

 

[Ultimate Audio]

Hi,

We received our unit of the Trinity DAC.
I read all of this thread and must give our tribute to Dietmar for designing this product.
Also want to say that the words and praise that some users described here are in line with our first listening tests done in our studio.

The equipment that we used to listen to the dac is in the foto below (sorry for the quality but was taken by mobile phone).


Warmest Regards
Miguel

 

[Elberoth]

Miguel,

Did you use the Aurender to drive the Trinity ? Was that the S10 or W20 ?

 

[Ultimate Audio]

Hi Adam,

W20 with USB output.

KR
Miguel

 

[Elberoth]

Are you gonna get the transport as well ? Me and my friends have beed wondering, how the Trinity transport would compare to the battery powered W20.

 

[Ultimate Audio]

Yes. We also will have the PC&Drive.

 

[LL21]

I would say that show conditions tell you almost nothing, good horns are just more real than any other loudspeaker, and
Ralphs are the best around, their compromise is size and I suppose expense.
KR Keith.

Hi Keith, I heard the cessaro at AE in HK...the beta I think...I recall what it looks like but not name. The one thing I missed was the propulsive bass on deep house I get from cones. They had them with the cessaro subs too. Watt has been your experience with this element? I did not live with them...only spent a long afternoon...but AE have a good reputation for attention to detail. Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Spectral, whose gear measures great by any conventional standard and who are considered a reference for solid-state amps, have for example pointed out that it is important that nothing in the signal pathway retains 'heat memory', which would distort the behaviour of the transistors on quiet passages after loud and complex transients. That they have successfully tackled the problem to a large extent appears to be an important reason that their amps sound so clean and "fast". Yet this kind of thing is not one typically measured by audio engineers.

"Heat memory", was studied in depth by Gérard Perrot (founder of Lavardin) who published several articles about the audio thermal memory distortion in semiconductors - most in french, as far as I remember. See: http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/memory/ . He found that a type of small signal FET was particularly exempt of this type of distortion and built modules using them.

I have tried Lavardin electronics years ago and it sounded very clean, detailed and free from artifacts. Unfortunately the only power amplifiers they manufactured were not powerful enough for my speakers. The preamplifier sounded great - IMHO exceptional. I did not keep it because it lacked a remote.

 

[microstrip]

(...) As Alon the Wolfmman of Magico uses to say - if it sounds good, but measures bad - then you had masured the wrong thing.

Adam,

Originally said by Daniel von Recklinghausen, a great audio engineer who used his ears and has an open mind.- “If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you’ve measured the wrong thing.”

 

[spiritofmusic]

First of all, I haven't heard Trinity, nor am likely to do so soon. And I know the pitfalls of commenting on, let alone criticising equipment as such, in the face of those who have extensively. So this comment is just for discussion, not a dig at Trinity proponents.
But I'm really struggling to reconcile that the POOREST quality 16/44 rips via the Trinity DAC trump the FINEST 24/96 and 48/192 on other high end DACs. I'm actually in a pretty small minority in not liking a lot of hi rez I've heard, but I'm fully aware there is a MASSIVE information difference btwn great hi rez and substandard rbcd. Am I really to take that Trinity DAC transforms grainy, glare ridden, mechanical sounding, examples of typical early digital, into smooth, flowing, organic, non fatigueing yet detailed prime examples of digital circa 2014?
If so, then the Trinity with the best of hi rez must be truly, radically transformative.

 

[Elberoth]

Personally, I wouldn't go as far as to say that an examples of typical early digital sound better, but well recorded CDs have a good chance of sounding superior to similar hi-res recordings on other designs.

 

[Al M.]

Personally, I wouldn't go as far as to say that an examples of typical early digital sound better, but well recorded CDs have a good chance of sounding superior to similar hi-res recordings on other designs.

Yes, that sounds reasonable. It also appears one more confirmation of the idea that there is nothing inherently wrong with the resolution of the 16/44 format, as also convincingly pointed out in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

It is just that CD is harder to implement technically than higher resolution formats, that's all.

 

[ack]

Yes, that sounds reasonable. It also appears one more confirmation of the idea that there is nothing inherently wrong with the resolution of the 16/44 format, as also convincingly pointed out in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

It is just that CD is harder to implement technically than higher resolution formats, that's all.

I've seen this video quoted a number of times, and there have been plenty of threads in the past on it (which I only purused)... Before we get carried away, I think it's best to address the statement that "there is nothing inherently wrong with the resolution of the 16/44 format". My response is, THERE ABSOLUTELY IS, and Monty's video actually indirectly points out the issues. Here they are:

1. Did you notice toward the end that the square wave input is not a square wave anymore at the output, after digital processing and reconstruction? He clearly says why: the signal is band-limited, thus the summation of all harmonics is "incomplete", causing the ripple effect he shows. This is a MAJOR inherent issue with digital, and consequently with RBCD, and higher sampling rates will reduce the band-limiting effect.
2. When it comes to sineware processing, he correctly claims and demostrates that the difference between higher and lower number of bits is noise; he then discusses dither and noise shaping (which pushes noise up to higher frequencies). But what he does not say and show is what happens to noise with higher-than-16 bits, and naturally you would expect it to be even lower.
3. He correctly states that lower noise results in wider dynamic range (letting you get closer to the theoretical limit of ~96dB for RBCD, not necessarily cross it); naturally, you would expect that even higher-than-16 bit resolution will result in even higher dynamic range - you might argue we don't need more, but I'd say this is yet another limitation of RBCD. [BTW, related to noise attenutation and dynamic headroom gain, under Steve's system thread, there is a discussion of how could he and Marty perceive louder overall sound with the Shunyata Typhons plugged in - and both Shunyata and I said basically the same thing: lower noise will result in higher dynamic headroom].

I like Monty's video, but as he says at the end, he has carefully chosen his demos - he's no fool. But let's not draw the wrong conclusions from his video.