Y’all are far more conversant than I am when it comes to the technical aspects of dCS and its DAC products. Some of us, though, tend to focus primarily on the musicality and overall sound quality of a system without spending quite as much time worrying about external streamers, file servers, interconnects, USB or Ethernet cables, and so forth.
Please understand that I am definitely NOT suggesting there’s anything wrong with doing so, different horses for different courses. I simply appreciate the relative simplicity of what my Rossini APEX can do in my system and, more importantly, just how truly great it sounds.
Here’s something from almost the opposite end of the technology discussion that I thought might be interesting to fellow dCS owners.
The Colorado Audio Society did something pretty fascinating this past Saturday at our monthly meeting. We held a showcase of different DACs representing the remarkably broad range of price points in today’s marketplace (without prices going over the top). For those who may not know, CAS provided much of the volunteer backbone and local community support that helped make the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest (RMAF) such a terrific gathering for audio enthusiasts from across North America for so many years. We greatly miss having RMAF in our backyard.
Before anyone condemns the exercise because of the inherent shortcomings of A/B/A testing, let me say that the organizers went to considerable lengths to make this a fair and credible blind audition. The 30+ attendees were able to judge the sound quality of each DAC without knowing which brand or model they were hearing. The process itself was quite methodical and took several hours to complete. We worked our way through the DACs sequentially: 1 vs. 2 vs. 1, then 2 vs. 3 vs. 2, followed by 3 vs. 4 vs. 3, and so on through all 10 units with a short needed break in the middle. So, while the individual musical excerpts were necessarily brief, each DAC was heard repeatedly and in direct comparison with the next one in the sequence. By the time we finished (each DAC was heard 3 times), everyone had spent several hours listening, comparing, and forming their impressions as they scored each DAC in 10 different assessment categories.
They also did an excellent job of creating as level a playing field as possible. The same inputs, interconnects and power cords were used throughout, and the output levels of the components were carefully level-matched. In addition, the organizers prepared approximately 30–35-second excerpts from six different songs so that everyone heard exactly the same musical selections through each DAC.
The selections covered a wide range of music: solo female voice; male voice accompanied by acoustic guitar; a symphonic selection; techno; big-band jazz; and rhythm-driven rock. The excerpts were deliberately chosen to provide a good cross-section of musical styles and to exercise the full audio frequency spectrum. Although 30–35 seconds obviously isn’t a long time, the selections gave us an opportunity to listen for how each DAC handled the treble, midrange and bass individually, as well as how naturally and coherently those ranges came together as a musical whole.
A call had gone out beforehand asking CAS members who would be willing to furnish their DAC for the comparison, and please note that I am purposely avoiding the word “shootout,” because the purpose was not to declare winners and losers. Ultimately, 10 different DACs were offered up, including both solid-state and tube designs, with retail prices ranging from approximately $350 to $34,500.
Needless to say, the results were pretty interesting and, in some cases, surprising. Twice during the testing I wrote in my notes “that’s mine!” Once I was spot on and the other, well, its a pretty great DAC too.
The DAC I supplied was my Rossini APEX, but without the Master Clock. I made the case that the clock was needed to let the Rossini sing at its resolving best, but the organizers quite reasonably pointed out that none of the other DACs would have the benefit of an external clock and they wanted to keep things as even-steven as possible. So I smiled, said that was fine, and figured, let’s just go with the Rossini sans clock and see how it does.
Well, it did pretty darn well.
I’m not going to list the brands and models of the other DACs in the comparison, since the purpose of the exercise wasn’t to call out winners and losers. But rest assured, there were several well-known and highly regarded names represented at the upper end of the price spectrum. So the Rossini certainly wasn’t competing in a vacuum.
In short, the Rossini emerged as the clear favorite among the participants. (There really wasn’t a “winner” per se, that wasn’t the purpose of the exercise but I’m characterizing it that way for simplicity’s sake.)
When the group was polled, most raised their hands in favor of the dCS unit. The general view was that it provided the most complete, musical and listenable presentation, while at the same time offering the best-resolved view into the music and a compelling sense of realism.
I’m sharing this not because a single blind comparison proves that one DAC is definitively “better” than another. It doesn’t. But it’s not often that we get the opportunity to hear something we hold in very high regard – namely, our dCS components – and how it is received by a group of experienced listeners who have no idea what DAC they’re listening to and no brand or price information to influence their impressions.
For me, that was the most interesting part of the afternoon. I already knew how much I enjoy my Rossini APEX in my own system. Hearing a room full of experienced listeners, under blind conditions, respond so positively to the same qualities I hear in it was both gratifying and reassuring.
Mostly, though, it reminded me how fortunate I am to own a Rossini APEX and to have it as part of my stereo system.
And yes, when I got home, I hooked the Master Clock back up.
