To be honest, I tend to think of Apex as the replacement given the all new boards.
6 Likes
Yes, big swinging DACs 
2 Likes
6 Likes
Fun but there isnây anything new here. Its a verbal rehash of the promotiomnal bumph plus some extracts pulled rom the early listening report from HiFi+ published some weeks ago.
Nicely and elegantly done but but if you have been following this story then you will need to wait for the full review promised later.
Whatâs nice about Jacob doing the review is he is a long term owner of the Vivaldi stack.
2 Likes
I just wanted to share with the group that it is now clear the new top of the line MSB DAC, currently called âSentinel,â will also be a mono DAC structure.
The architecture will be 4 boxes (unless I am mistaken):
Digital director
2 Mono DACs
Power Supply
It seems like two of the best DAC companies in the world agreed that (a) Mono DAC and (b) proprietary, noise-isolating cabling between the components, Is the best way to exceed the performance of their current state of the art.
1 Like
(Not to derail this dCS Varèse thread)
Not quite. MSBâs Sentinel is being designed for mono DAC modules that fit into a single chassis. Itâs not an actual mono DAC a la Varèse.
You might want to re-read Danâs post;
This is a multi-layered stack up that takes the incoming DC power from the powerbase and delivers it to both the Right and Left Mono DAC modules and the clock circuitry.
1 Like
From what I understood from the webinar breaking the co-dependence of the two channels on the power supply was one of the main points of the dual mono architecture in the Varèse.
In my book If a piece of 2-channel electronics has one power cord it is stereo. Period.
1 Like
Thank you Anup. I read it, but to be honest it wasnât entirely clear to me if it were one or two chasis. Upon further investigation I believe you are correct.
This architecture is one separate power module, driving the two mono DACs via one power cord (center hole), and two separate fiber inputs, from the DD, driving each mono DAC:
Ironically, itâs precisely because MSB designs have always had an integral Femto Clock within their DAC that it wonât be so easy for them to design a true mono DAC; MSB doesnât have the history nor experience of designing proper external Clocking, let alone one that precision synchronises two physically separate DACs 
dCS Tomix is no simple feat.
1 Like
Just playing devilâs advocate:
MSB might reply: âSince we donât make transports, we only need to clock one incoming data stream, and this is best done internally, without clock cables, other noisy components, a separate box, a separate power supply, etc.â
I donât have an opinion on this personally, just sayâIN
; )
They have had Transports in the past!
In any case, such a statement would have been true all the way until they introduced Digital Director; which requires their Femto Clock signal to be fed back out into DD, breaking any such positioning.
By the way, donât you think all this MSB discussion deserves its own separate thread? 
New video of photographing the Varèse
1 Like
Donât forget Esoteric! As far as Iâm aware they were the first to release mono DACs with the D-01 way back in the early 2000s.
1 Like
Interesting! I didnât realise they were mono DACs. Looks like Esotericâs had a few generations of them. Perhaps not a surprise that Esoteric is the one other manufacturer with significant external clocking experience.
I just took a look at their Grandioso D1X Monoblock DACs; separate from the source AES signal links, they have a proprietary L-R âChannel link connectorâ (HDMI interfaced) between the mono DACs, presumably to keep them in sync.
Iâm very happy with the current âstereoâ DAC structure in the V/R/B (and most other manufacturers). If I owned two separate mono DACs I would be constantly worried that things arenât exactly in sync and the imaging would be off (!)
(I am happy if I am the only one with this worry!)
; )
And the reduced box count
3 Likes
Precisely why dCS had to literally invent new patented technology! 
Itâll be interesting to see how Stereophile goes about measuring this; theyâve never had to measure left-right variation. No doubt dCS will advise them on how best to measure this, but I guess the simplest way might be to compare left-right channels have identical jitter spectral component measurements? 
5 Likes
I am not sure about this for the intended purpose. Jitter is concerned with timing accuracy and/or consistency whereas the issue here is synchronicity. It would be possible to have perfect accuracy for both DACs ( jitter = immeasurable) but with each in a different time âzoneâ to the other.
Isnât it more about lowering noise with the mono configuration?