Thanks. Yes and no… populating the luxury end of markets can be fickle and risky. Although, as you point out, demand inelasticity rules. If you look at one of my other loves, high-end photography, we could for instance invoke two contrasting cases -
Leica, who cultivated a genuine mystique and went all-out for bespoke ‘special editions’ targeting squarely the stupidly rich and collectors (but not photographers, per se); they thrive, although their products are IMHO massively overpriced and photographically irrelevant. I hardly ever see pros using them - unless they are showing off for customers…
Hasselblad, who did something very similar, but badly misjudged the market and in consequence went down the tubes and have since been sold twice. Despite producing great kit.
In actuality, the whole camera market is in meltdown because phones have destroyed the low and middle markets. Despite appalling levels of performance and real image quality Only the high end and niche pro markets will be left soon, with far fewer companies left standing. And continuing price rises are eroding even these markets.
Let’s hope this doesn’t happen with audio! Market transitions and paradigm shifts are notoriously tricky to navigate. And particularly if the game plan is raise prices and thereby losing a significant proportion of first time and follow-up customers.
That approach is begging to be undercut by stuff half the price and 90% as ‘good’.
OK, there is no solution, we’re all doomed. I give up.
It certainly is of interest. However the information on their webpage is unclear as whether the two clock groups work independently or are just derived from a single OCXO clock crystal. Unfortunately no online user manual is available which might resolve this essential point for Bartok owners.
Unfortunately there is also no technical specification for the clock’s performance beyond an assertion that it is “low jitter”. As for the “adjustability” of the frequencies that is also a bit mysterious.
So a bit of a pig in a poke* but if you can happily risk a couple of grand $, €, £ ( by the time shipping and local taxes are added) maybe worth a shot?
Looks like an interesting device - it appears on the face of it to tick many of the spec boxes and I assume the price is right. Despite living and working in China or Hong Kong for many years, I have never bought any Chinese hi-end gear; until recently, because none ever wafted past my attention. If it’s anything like Chinese camera lenses - it’s either heaven or hell; get lucky, and you have a superb VFM device that’s incredibly solidly built and designed to last a lifetime. Unlucky, though, and you have a piece of junk that goes straight back to the manufacturer. I wonder what this one is? And is anyone willing to take a flyer on it?
Important PS - Doh, I forgot Auralic is Beijing-based, and their stuff rocks - I still have an Aries and Vega driving my headphone system So if it’s anything like that, it may be well worth exploring. I’ll have a sniff around.
Some additional info. Interestingly, there is a recent review of the Denafrips Terminator DAC in the Absolute Sound. Now you shouldn’t necessarily believe everything you read in TAS, but it certainly a favourable and positive review.
Thanks for this. I shall definitely explore this further after my Bartok has returned from dCS… that reminds me to chase!
I seem to have had my Rossini loaner for as long now as my Bartok. And that’s where the trouble all started! Without access to the Rossini, I am sure I would have been more than happy with the Bartok (excepting its glitching).
But I will definitely progress this one and advise.
Anyone else sussed out Denafrips? Like, for instance, why the daft-sounding name?
I’m not using any Denafrips, yet… but I’ve got two Topping D70S DAC and D90 Preamp and both chinese devices are absolutely good in all senses for a ridiculous price, and with a Benchmark AHB2 completing the set the sound quality is awesome ! My Bartok + Benchmark HPA4+ DAgostino stereo amp sounds even better, but not 8 times better ( price difference) .
I recently demoed a Vivaldi clock with my Bartók. My setup is fairly simple. Roon → Bartók (via dCS provided Ethernet cable) → Luxman c700/m700 (Iconoclast XLR)-> Magico A3 (Iconoclast TPC). I did note a difference. The depth and sound stage were a bit deeper and wider, respectively. The Bartók + clock performed better than the Bartók alone. Maybe, however, I expected more difference based on the many strong endorsements for a clock in this community. But for me, with my setup, it was not better enough to buy the clock, nor was it better enough to me for me to consider trying the Rossini clock for a smaller upgrade. It did demonstrate to me that I was more than happy with just the Bartók. I was curious so I went back to the dealer with the clock and placed it in their system with a Bartók and switched around components. In some setups it made a bigger difference than in others, but in each case not enough for me to buy it. So for anyone out there asking the question “does my Bartók need a clock?” you really have to try it for yourself to see. Some people will be sold instantly, others will not.
The Puccini master clock is not truly compatible with Bartok.
Puccini ( with Paganini and Scarlatti) are from the second generation of dCS home products. Bartok ( with Rossini and Vivaldi) are the third generation . The provision for use of an external wordclock is different in respect of each generation.
In order to provide automatic switching between sample frequency rates the current (third) generation of clocks have separate clock outputs for 44.1kHz based frequencies and 48 kHz ones. You will see that your Bartok has corresponding inputs. However Puccini U clock has only a single wordclock output which means that you would have to manually select the correct clock frequency to match the file being played. This is not a big problem with locally stored files as you presumably know what the frequency is. However there is a diffuclty in doing this with streamed media where changes from 44.1 based files to 48 based ones may be frequent and where the rate is not necessarily identified by the source. Qobuz just shows the file as hi-res for example. You have to be playing the file via Mosaic and use the full screen view or look at the Bartok display to get a readout of the incoming frequency. However by then it is too late as the file is already playing.
A further questionable point is that according to the user manual the Puccini U Clock is specified only to frequencies <4x the base ( 176.4 or 192 kHz). So that might mean that it is unsuitable for the replay of DXD material ( native or upsampled). Whatever the correct answer may be it is not clear.
So there is a compatibility issue . What about sound? Each generation of clock improves upon its predecessor. One archived thread from this year has pictures of the interiors of various dCS clocks and you will see that Puccini is pretty basic in comparison. So there is no guarantee without further information that it will be better than the third generation clock built in to Bartok.
So, I would only go there if playing local files is my main source of music and streaming is something that I do infrequently or not at all. I would also need to be prepared that whatever I paid for the Puccini U clock was a small enough sum that I was prepared to write off if it isn’t a success.
EDIT.
This is effectively the same answer I gave you on June 17 2020 when you asked the same question phrased slightly differently.
To me the Rossini clock makes little improvement to the Rossini via speakers. The Rossini was a significant and obvious improvement vs Bartok. Based on my experience I’d skip the clock and put the money improving other parts.
Confirm that observation. Rossini is, indeed, a major improvement over Bartok in SQ. That’s why I agreed to an upsell when my Bartok proved a bit fractious.
