I currently listen to a Naim NSC222 into active ATC50 ASLs and I am in the middle of auditioning lots of streamers at home to upgrade my system. I have had Naim gear for years and I like and am used to their emphasis on vocal presentation.
I have auditioned both a Bartok Apex and Rossini Apex recently as one box solutions but I found the incredible detail a bit overwhelming and (the Bartok) slightly lean for my taste at first (especially at low volumes) although the sound image and “air” were absolutely incredible. Specifically, on a busy track, e.g. an indie band with a couple of guitars and other instruments the vocals sometimes go into the background a bit.
When it comes to vocalists with a piano or acoustic instruments e.g. Sufjan Stevens, Hayley Williams, Taylor Swift etc I’ve never heard anything as good as DCS.
Nevertheless I am hesitant in spending £000s on something I have reservations about.
I next auditioned a Linn Edition streamer with all the bells and whistles and I found the laid back sound more to my taste. The problem for me is that I’ve now heard what the DCS can do and those details, harmonics etc are missing from the Linn set up, despite the pleasant sound signature.
I have gone through a lot of threads on here about using a preamp with the Bartok and Rossini and although opinion seems divided, some comments echo my initial thoughts on the one box set up. So I am getting them both back on demo with a preamp. To be fair to the Rossini, I only had it for a couple of days so I need to give it a longer listen.
Did anyone else feel initially overwhelmed by the detail when first listening to DCS. It only seems to be an issue on certain tracks which I don’t think were well mixed in the first place.
My second question is about feeding the streamer via Ethernet vs USB audio via Audirvana. No matter which streamer I use, USB has better sound quality by a big margin. Not subtle at all. Would this difference be down to USB always being better than UPnP?
It is difficult to deal with subjective opinions . you herd what you heard. However if you are new to dCS you may not understand the user selectable options that can alter the sound. The resolution of the file being played relates to a choice of filters which need to be chosen ( once done it will remember that combination for the future). Other facorts that make a difference include the choice of map you prefer ( set and forget but may still be varied.) Map? It is how the data is applied to the current sources of the DAC converter - unique to dCS and the ring DAC which allows for exceptional accuracy.
II have to say that I am m a user of ATC k50s myself and the combination is superb IMO. i too use a preamp , in my case an EAR Yoshino tube based design.
UPnP and USB are different things and are therefore not subject to comparison.. USB is a digital interface. UPnP is a protoccol for the storage and replay of local files.
Technically eithnet is a a better ( lower jitter) interface than USB and is what most here will prefer. However poorly implemented ethernet networks can disappoint. Many of us t use high quality network switches though it is difficult to ascertain exactly why they have a beneficial result. Incidentally the ethernet cable to the dCS device should be unshielded e.g.CAT 5e.
Of course you may simply prefer something else. We have different preferences subjectively of course. But firstly give the dCS unit a fair trial by usng it as designed.
When I first acquired my Rossini, I wondered whether it might be a little too bright in my system. At the time, I was using Ayre amplification with YG Acoustics Hailey loudspeakers, these are very revealing components with plenty of resolution. But I was also in the process of upgrading my amplification, so I wanted to reserve judgment until I could hear how everything worked together in my room once I had settled on the amp situation. And then I also had the APEX upgrade done.
Over the next few months, I auditioned several excellent components. Once I heard the Rossini paired with the Ypsilon Phaethon hybrid integrated, combining a tube preamp stage with solid-state output, everything fell into place. The brightness disappeared, while all the resolution and clarity I enjoy remained. I could run through all of the usual audiophile adjectives, but suffice it to say that I had found exactly the sound I was looking for.
And yes, that is entirely subjective. Could I spend more and take things further? Undoubtedly. Move up to a Vivaldi? Absolutely. Upgrade the speakers or find even better multi-box amplification? Certainly. Replace the cabling with a single, more expensive loom? Of course. But I honestly don’t feel the need.
The Rossini sits at the heart of my system, gives me what I need in a single box (yes, I have the Master Clock, so I guess that’s 2 boxes), and works so darn well with everything around it. I’m at a point where I can simply enjoy and focus on listening to and finding great music with what I have.
Oh, and I happen to like Mosaic, too. It’s straightforward to use and works exceptionally well for me. Lastly, @PAR is spot-on: listening to and working through the filters and maps will help dial-in and fine-tune your experience and satisfaction.
When I got the Bartok the first time around I had a play with the filters but I was mostly choosing them at random. I didn’t hear much difference but I suspect the differences are subtle and need extended listening to find a preference.
I am going to audition the Rossini again with a Trilogy 914 preamp so I can compare the one box and two box set ups.
I was going to try both the Bartok and Rossini again side by side to see how much of a difference there is between them. I am coming to terms with spending £29k on a single hifi box but I just want to see what the extra £10k gets me.
Interesting that both you and @PAR use a pre. Would you have a pre before the clock?
The preamp works in the analogue domain only when you are using an external DAC such as dCS,The clock provides the digital timing reference for the onversion fby the DAC rom an incoming digital source to an analogue output. This is then sent from the DAC to the (analogue) preamp.The latter supplies a power amp in turn..The clock has nothing to do with the analogue pre or power amplification and is effectively a part of the DAC albeit in a separate box for optimum performance.
As the clock and the preamp are not connected to each other , your query is not really relevant.
What I was getting at was that the preamp I am auditioning (Trilogy 914) costs the same if not more than the Rossini clock. I meant to ask if you had to choose between a preamp OR a clock, which one would make the most important improvement to the sound?
I assume the answer is the preamp as it is addressing the specific goal of the brightness of the sound whereas the clock is providing more clarity to an already excellent soundstage
Ah, you were meaning which should be purchased first if you can only afford one of them,
It is really down to the relative precedence that you place on the benefits either provides. Some will find that the preamp gives an immediate plus to the sound (but others may find a negative result for them instead as the addition of a preamp adds artefacts though you may decide that like them - like me.). Some may find the addition of the clock gives more subtle gains audibly but which are revealed fas fundamental with further familiarisation.
My story is that I have always had a preamp in my systems ,not preferring the occasions when I tried direct connection. On the other hand I simply could not hear any difference when dcCS loaned me their first wordclock ( Verona) around the turn of the century. I returned it. Two years later I bought one and now could not live without a clock ( Vivaldi these days).
BTW, the clock does not add a great deal to the sound in terms of standard audiophile criteria like tonal quality or even the soundstage ( of which there actually sn’t one for some musical genres - just being controversial). Why it can take time to appreciate is that musical qualities like phrasing, flow and naturalness are improved or even fully revealed for the first time, Vague eh!
So. in short, I am not a great help regarding your question .
For me, clock comes last, I’ve successfully postponed it because the sound is already so good. You will be trying with a preamp and Trilogy is an esteemed brand. I truly hope things will fall into place then, and using a more structured approach to mappers and upsampling settings, filters as most subtle last will yield something to your liking.
Clock is like the icing on the cake but you need to enjoy the cake first and I think trying with a preamp will at least allow you to hear what direction vs preamp will do in your system.
If you are looking for a streamer/DAC (with volume control) for your active ATCs, preferably in one box, you can try the EMM DV2i or MSB with a network card, among others. They seem to sound smoother than dCS. I am using a Rossini Apex and Soulution 725 pre, and they both sound very airy and crystalline to me, but to others, they can sound clinical and harsh. It is all up to your taste!
@August I will be getting them on demo tomorrow for about a week. I will listen to the Rossini by itself for three days or so and then I will add the preamp and see how it is different.
I will not know where to start with the filters, as I had the Bartok on demo for a week and had trouble noticing the differences between them. No doubt they will become apparent on extending listening.
@Simon2 interesting you mention the EMM DV2i because I had it’s little brother the Meitner MA3i on demo and while the sound was good (with Audirvana) I found the interface had its quirks.
I had trouble finding it on the network for a while, then when that was mostly solved it still didn’t show up in some instances.
The mConnect App was generally appalling. Radio was a pain to use etc.
The remote was terrible, and I like to control the volume with a remote.
Airplay didn’t work (not the most important thing but nice to have)
So for these reasons I would hesitate to go down the EmmLabs route.
The sound of all this equipment is very important obviously, but I will happily sacrifice some sound quality to get better functionality, interface and product support. I do not want to use or rely on Roon for functionality.
I find the Naim interface great, Linn superb and DCS ok (I wish it had a bigger screen though!)
Mapper selection makes most difference, together with upsampling setting. Mapper I would suggest either 1 or 3 and upsampling DXD or 2xDSD. Filters are more subtle, stick with 1 at first and experiment later.
To me, dCS had still has the best sound—you don’t sacrifice but prioritize sound when choosing dCS—and I had to sacrifice functionality by dealing with a huge, heavy “plank” dCS remote before adding a Soulution remote with the 725 pre. Regarding the streamer interface, I use an Aurender N20, and its mobile/PC interface is superb.
In my Rossini Apex setting in Mosaic, I wonder if the PCM signals from Qobuz can be upsampled to DXD (max PCM upsampling) or to DSD/DSDx2. Also, if the above is correct, why would I upsample a Qobuz signal to DSD over DSDx2 when choosing DSD 1-bit upsampling?
Yes, the Upsampling setting, which is a device-wide setting, applies to the network input and therefore to Qobuz, whether played via Mosaic or Qobuz Connect.
There is really no benefit to DSD upsampling compared to DSDx2 that I can see. With the higher frequency the quantization noise can be moved even further from the audio band. But it is not a simple case of ‘“the bigger the better” there is a fairly clear case of diminishing returns after, say DSDx4.
.