A recent official dCS post celebrates the Varèse for winning the prestigious Grand Prix 2025 Golden Sound Award, from the Japanese publication Stereo Sound. Having heard the amazing Varèse I am sure this honor is well-deserved, and congratulations again to the dCS Team!
In further researching the award, I learned that in fact there were two shared winners, and the second product was the Esoteric Grandioso N1 Streamer/DAC.
I mention this only because the configuration of the Esoteric is dual mono single chassis. It is basically a dual mono Rossini.
While of course I can only speculate, I expect this configuration to make it into the new dCS line, probably as two tiers of products:
Offering #1 (Vivaldi replacement): Dual mono core DAC, new Upsampler, external clock, optional transport
Offering #2 (Rossini replacement): direct Esoteric N1 competitor: single box, dual mono DAC, external clock (probably no transport option)
What you suggest is quite credible. However dCS has a long history of not imitating competitors, so what Teac Esoteric are doing may not provide motivation to them.
We do not know what technical developments they may have. A major stimulus will also be what their worldwide distributors are requesting them to make , again unknown to us.
When this may happen anyway is related to the above and ( being a small company - 40 plus employees) what resources they can devote to one or two new product lines. World and market economic conditions play their part too.Of course the design or even its aim aim may be amended before a new product is let loose upon the world.
Speculating about Vivaldi replacement is fun but not much more. dCS do not always do what is expected. Who forecast Apex or Varese?
I will just remain happy enjoying the existing model.
I think dCS’s breakthrough with the mono Ring DAC, as well as the Actus cabling, will need to be leveraged/amortized across more products…. Even more so because of dCS’s size, as you mention Pete.
Also of note: the new top of the line from MSB, the Sentinel, is also dual mono single chasis. Just sayin’….
I think we have been here already and probably more than once by now.
But the dual mono ring dac would basically be the Varese, can’t see how using the ring dac could be anything else as the Varese is basically 2 Vivaldi dac’s with a new clocking system.
But I can see new box design as in milled rather than plate, plus using the much simpler new wiring being used on all new products.
But I think dCS has done such a great job with the Vivaldi, keeping it up to date over the years that actual inpovement means you go Varese as I can’t see how they can inpove it much without it becoming a serious contender for the Varese at a much cheaper price point. Basically the Vivaldi is already far to good.
But really only dCS know and they seem to know what they are doing.
But I think DCS was looking at the possibility of using the 2 Varese dacs with the Vivaldi upsampler and maybe clock (not sure about the clock as dont think it was compatible) sort off hybrid and stepping stone to a full Varese, but obviously not sure if it’s a thing or even in the pipe line, but it would still be quite expensive to jump too.
I’d imagine dCS might take a very similar approach as in the past; 2012 Vivaldi launched. 2015 Rossini launched. Given the Varèse’s launch in 2024, it may be reasonable to expect a new mid-tier platform of that architecture in some form by 2027?
Anyone’s guess whether it’ll be a single-chassis dual-mono design like Esoteric’s Grandioso or MBS’ Sentinel. However, distilling the full Varèse architecture down to just 2 box (a la Rossini+Clock) might be physically challenging if there’s board re-use from the Varèse (like with Vivaldi/Rossini) so, it’d have to be completely new.
Agreed. I would guess definitely in 2027, if not by Q4:26.
While Vivaldi is a great product, it was introduced in 2012, and from a business perspective, dCS needs to make money from selling DACs.
I’m guessing at least one dual mono single chassis product, but as you note @Anupc, the Varèse design may not fit in that smaller space.
Two of the industry leaders–dCS and MSB–are now both aligned architecturally with separating digital inputs and upsampling from the DAC. The only main difference is clocking and power architecture: dCS separate clock, onboard power; MSB: onboard clock, separate power.
Could dCS engineer a dual mono dac-ish with new clocking, control and UI in a single box the size of a Vivaldi? Perhaps - if the Dacs are placed on flex boards and isolated in compartments.
I have to wonder if we are hitting a ceiling with what’s possible with sound quality. Would the above sound so much better than a current Vivaldi APEX system that users would be willing to part with old gear for a new solution?
I have a lingering question about whether there is room to improve sound quality through software updates to VRB given how much FGPA capacity these solutions have onboard already.
I think dCS and the industry as a whole have learned a lot about usability and user preferences, so there could be gains on the UX side in future solutions. Then again, there is a path for UX improvement with VRBL through software and mosaic… So who knows.
Yes, but that “alignment” took a quarter of a Century! MSB introduced their Digital Director in 2022. dCS has been shipping standalone Upsamplers since 1997! (dCS 972)
I think that’s a key question! It wouldn’t make sense to develop a new platform unless it provides tangible improvement in both measured and audible sound quality. The Varèse does on both counts; can a new mid-tier platform following it’s architecture do the same?
@Anupc and @keiserrg I hear you both! The ceiling I was referring to is Varese!
Thankfully we’ve seen Varese trickle down with Apex already and through Lina with flex boards. We’ve seen many dual DAC architectures based on commercial chips. Key question for dCS engineers is can they do the same with a ring DAC utilizing what was learned with Lina (flex) and Varese (Apex, clocking, architecture etc) in a box or two. Time will tell.
Still, as I noted above, I wonder if there is headroom for improvement in our current VRB Apex with all that FGPA compute…
I’m not sure we’ve actually hit the sonic ceiling yet, but we’re clearly approaching significant “diminishing returns”.
That said, Apex demonstrated that even if the design remains exactly the same, generational component improvements alone can bring about substantial sonic improvements.
And it’s not just dCS going down that path, the Esoteric guys with the Grandioso referenced in this thread did the same sort of thing with their DAC board (except I don’t think they offered a retrofit);
When coupled with improvements in other areas such as channel separation, power supply, streaming compute isolation, etc. etc., I think there’s definitely room for a new mid-tier integrated platform.
As for improvements on the firmware/software UX/UI side to existing platforms, I do agree there’s probably DSP headroom available, I guess time will tell.
This is one of the reasons I specifically mentioned the Grandioso.
It is almost exactly the same physical size as the Rossini, but it is a dual mono DAC, has that company’s next Gen network board, and five (!) separate transformers. As a result of the transformers, despite having the same volume, the Grandioso weighs almost 2x the Rossini (16kg v 28kg)!
That company also offers external clocking as an “upgrade.”
In short, IMHO, it seems like an architecture that one could easily envision for a Rossini successor…
(While not as interesting as the Lina’s internals), the N1 has quite a unique dual-layer design in order to cram all that into a single chassis - the chassis has a horizontal mid-plane, and all discrete circuit boards/transformers are mounted/bolted on top and bottom of that mid-plane. So, one has to flip the N1 unit upside-down just to access the streaming circuit board for example.
I think the difficult decision is does dcs introduce something that moves the bar much closer to the varese at an “economical” price before varese has had the chance to sell for a while. Something by dcs taking a significant bite out of varese market at a lower price seems self defeating and unwise for dcs. Imho
Those willing to invest on a Varèse are looking for the absolute best and don’t lack financial resources. I don’t think they would change their mind and stick to something cheaper and worse, even if just 5% worse. And not sure how many potential Vivaldi owners would agree to shell out more cash, we’re in a quite niche territory already.
just a guess but I have to wonder if those in the market for statement hi fi solutions like Varese would even consider something further down in a manufactures product line.
Yes. I totally agree that many Varese buyers aren’t going to settle for something less because it’s cheaper (because price isn’t an issue), but there are those who will try to stretch to get the Varese in some way and if there is an interim step above Vivaldi it may rob sales from the top. Maybe not.
There is a guy on fb that constantly flaunts his Wilson setup (also has dcs) who obviously has the dough and likes to show. He’s easily a customer for Varese. There are also guys like me who could spend the money but use a reality check and say it’s not reasonable (but the thought is still there). You never know when the line may shift and the new equipment is purchased. If there were an interim step that got you substantially between vivaldi and Varese, it could likely scoop up those aspirational owners. It could be the number of interim buyers are so small an interim number isn’t viable.
.
