Yes, that’s right. But JVSerinus uses upsampler plus and upsampler all along the review for I hope the same box
More memory ?
I think the “Upsampler Plus” bit is an editing mistake, and that what went to press:
“This limitation was now removed, as John Giolas, dCS’s vice president of sales and marketing, sent me the Vivaldi Upsampler Plus. I would finally be able to hear files at the same resolution via the Rossini Apex and the Vivaldi Apex system.”
…should have been:
“This limitation was now removed, as John Giolas, dCS’s vice president of sales and marketing, sent me the Vivaldi Upsampler. Plus, I would finally be able to hear files at the same resolution via the Rossini Apex and the Vivaldi Apex system.”
My thinking being that the previous paragraph he says he couldn’t compare the Rossini and Vivaldi with upsampling on both.
I don’t think there’s an Upsampler Plus on your horizon (yet?), Greg 
Edited to add: Maybe there are other instances of the Plus. Haven’t read further yet. Here goes nothing!
Edited edit to add: “Upsampler Plus” does appear elsewhere in the article. And in the Dutch distributor’s price list posted elsewhere: https://www.moremusic.nl/prijslijsten/dcs.pdf
2 Likes
The only time that I am aware of dCS using the Pus suffix was back around 2000/2001 when Elgar and Purcell were upgraded to process DSD from SACD with IEEE1394 ports and became Elgar+ and Purcell+.
Yep, if it was just the one instance, I think your editing correction would be spot on. But it is also listed as the “Upsampler Plus” in the equipment inventory for the article. My guess is that somewhere, someone informally used “Plus” to identify the hardware upgrade that I believe the Upsampler received a while back. Interesting about that Dutch price list. Anyway, not a big deal I guess. I just found that paragraph a little hard to lock down mentally. Not enough coffee yet at 5am maybe. It’s also interesting to note that it appears as though they had the Innuos connected both via USB and Ethernet, but thereafter made no reference to listening to both.
The Vivaldi Upsampler went Plus with the Vivaldi 2.0 launch - it was the only unit that got a hardware upgrade during the 2.0 launch (to the network board). Curious that dCS has “removed” the Plus moniker on the website now. 
2 Likes
Ah, interesting, Anup. I’d never noticed a Plus before — anywhere. Before my time with dCS. Back when I didn’t agonise over the Rossini/Apex differences 
1 Like
Most folks don’t remember (or even know) prior to the 2.0 Plus upgrade the Upsampler could only accept 192kS/s tops on all interfaces, including on USB and network. 
1 Like
Going through the review again now — an enjoyable read. The Roberta Flack is lovely, too.
Must confess a minor disappointment to have another comparison where the improvements contributed by the Vivaldi Clock vs. Rossini Clock aren’t explored though. Perhaps it’s just my pet hypothesis that a decent portion of what some people love about a Vivaldi stack vs. a Rossini stack is the clock. I’ve said before that I preferred the Bartok (1.0 mappers no less!) with the Vivaldi Clock to the Rossini with 2.0 mappers and no Clock.
Maybe I should shut up before I sound even more like a broken record, but p’raps one last time: if you have a Rossini and Rossini Clock pairing and don’t try the Vivaldi Clock at the same as other prospective upgrades we can’t be friends 
2 Likes
Well…I guess you won’t be coming around my house anymore🤪
It’s generally hard to find proper reviews on Clocks, let alone comparative ones (other than from over-imaginative Audiophiles and Clock vendors themselves I mean 
).
There was one good review done by Sound on Sound with Studio grade Clocks - it’s a very good read, but you won’t like their conclusions.
The only dCS Clock review & measurement anywhere was from way back in 2005 when Stereophile/JA measured the dCS Verona Master Clock (parent to the Scarlatti and Vivaldi Master Clocks). It’s also a very good read (if you’re into that sort of thing).
First bit that my own experiences have snagged on:
“As I’ve explained above — and will prove below — today’s converter designs generally work best on their own internal clocks, and most will deliver a slightly poorer performance when clocked externally.”
On I go! (Just not to @glevethan’s 
)
Interesting reads, Anup. I’m not sure what to take from them other than:
“This Vivaldi Clock could be like a good preamp — adds some mellifluous distortion.”
or
“Measurements: PAH! Take my $20k all over again if you must.”
Either way, thank you 
Yup, pretty much 
I guess the one big take-away of course is that 20% lowered Jitter performance when the Verona Master Clock was added to the system; the sonic benefits most of us seem to hear is likely a consequence of those kinds of lowered jitter performance to begin with (albeit, turning on Dither on the Clock seemed to have a contrary result, so, inclusively on that).
But to your original question whether the Vivaldi Master Clock out-performs the Rossini Clock on the same system, there’s only your subjective views to go by I’m affraid (unless you can convince JA or someone else to go measure it some day).
“Most folks don’t remember (or even know) prior to the 2.0 Plus upgrade the Upsampler could only accept 192kS/s tops on all interfaces, including on USB and network.”
Tank you Anup
1 Like
I remember reading that 2010 Sound on Sound piece before venturing down the clock rabbit hole, and discussing it with someone perhaps over at Computer Audiophile (now Audiophile Style). That someone made several salient points about the differences between the studio use case and the audiophile case, as well as some of the technology changes in the intervening years. That piece did cool my jets for a while. But only for a while. Like Ben, I would love to see a top-notch listening review and measurement piece on the dCS clocks, and even a comparison with the CH and Esoteric approaches to clocking.
I also enjoyed reading this review of the SRS Perf10, though I think the reviewer in that piece was technically overmatched and did not fully understand what he was doing.
Anyway, fun stuff. If there is a hardware successor to Vivaldi, I sure hope it has an external clock, or at least a 10mHz input for an external reference. I’d hate to sell the Novus; I’m rather fond of it.
3 Likes
Thanks Greg, interesting. I hadn’t seen that SRS Review before I think.
Speaking of CH Precision, Stereophile measured their flagship stack in January’s cover, but apparently the Clock was not available for measurements. Strange.
1 Like
That’s a shame about the CH Precision not being measured. A comparison I’d like to do one day is the T1 vs. the SRS Perf 10.
If I understand the specs correctly the T1 might even be more stable than the Perf 10 once locked on with GPS:
CH T1: 0.1 ppm = 100,000 ppt (from manual)
CH T1: 20 ppb = 20,000 ppt (“internal mode”)
CH T1: 1 ppb = 1000 ppt (GPS lock for one hour)
Perf 10: +/-0.5ppb = 100 ppt (accuracy)*
Perf 10: 5 ppb = 5000 ppt (10-year aging)
And it looks better 
(All readings from company websites or manuals. All unsalted in other words, which is why some impartial reviews and measurements would be lovely.)
*Edited to add: found another rating given on the SRS site that suggests that the Perf 10 might be more accurate after all. Perhaps I need to maintain the services of that brown paper bag after all.
2 Likes
Yeah, she ain’t purdy, but she is stable.
In actual fact there aren’t that many suppliers who manufacture the core of these Rubidium (and Cerium) Clocks, so, it’s all mostly minor variations on overall Clock system architecture that makes the difference, rather than Clock stability solely.
That said, recently I engaged with an outfit (who shall remain nameless) claiming Clock stability figures in the 0.X-ppt range - you read that right, Parts-Per-Trillion - I asked for independently verified measurements, and they went silent
1 Like