chebby said:
Chebby, criticism accepted. I was trying to make a serious point in a lighthearted manner, but I appreciate it didn't come across too well.
-
CES Hands On - Samsung HW-Q990F review
Chebby, criticism accepted. I was trying to make a serious point in a lighthearted manner, but I appreciate it didn't come across too well.
BigH
Well-known member
insider9
Well-known member
BigH
Well-known member
Reading an american forum it seems the Direct Stream has a rather mixed reviews from users, a few love it but many were disappointed and sold them, seems it was a hyped up product and there was a glut on the used market. Some say you need to run it in for 500 hours. The original version was not that good but have been upgraded. One user who like his says you need to have everything else in the chain right, including room treatment to get the real benefit.
Yes the NuWAve is different but maybe better than the Chord?
Yes the NuWAve is different but maybe better than the Chord?
BigH
Well-known member
ellisdj said:
Yes US$6k. £5.5k from a dealer not ebay.
BS, this is not a new product it's been around for about 4 years.
yes I no it’s not new on the market I was just interested in the technology being used that’s allBigH said:
doesn't matter if it's not new it had a firmware upgrade a few months ago so essentially owners got a new dac for free
BigH
Well-known member
ellisdj said:
Yes I think this is one of the best features.
Have you tried a Lampizator Dac yet?
BigH
Well-known member
ellisdj said:
I don't know but some users switched from PS Audio Direct stream to them apparently.
BigH
Well-known member
newlash09
Well-known member
For posting your listening experience of the ps direct stream dac. Just wanted to clarify my post, as it may appear that I was undermining the sound quality of the dac in my earlier posts. But that was not my intention.
I just wanted to mention why the ps audio's tech was cutting edge in 2014. And how same can implemented in today's market with a 2 box solution at a lesser price . Albeit the results being an unknown entity in comparison to the ps audio's stellar sound quality.
And the main reason for the above reply, was to show how dac tech is moving so fast. And how the tech and features of a break through product today at a prohibitive price, can be imitated in the near future at a lesser cost. Just so people don't spend insane amount of money on a dac.
For me personally, the chord qutest is the upper cut off limit for a dac.
That said, iam still not convinced that present dac's are deliberately omitting digital bits from cd's , due to jitter issues, that the ps direct stream dac processes. Maybe iam wrong, and might need to be educated further
I just wanted to mention why the ps audio's tech was cutting edge in 2014. And how same can implemented in today's market with a 2 box solution at a lesser price . Albeit the results being an unknown entity in comparison to the ps audio's stellar sound quality.
And the main reason for the above reply, was to show how dac tech is moving so fast. And how the tech and features of a break through product today at a prohibitive price, can be imitated in the near future at a lesser cost. Just so people don't spend insane amount of money on a dac.
For me personally, the chord qutest is the upper cut off limit for a dac.
That said, iam still not convinced that present dac's are deliberately omitting digital bits from cd's , due to jitter issues, that the ps direct stream dac processes. Maybe iam wrong, and might need to be educated further
newlash09 said:That said, iam still not convinced that present dac's are deliberately omitting digital bits from cd's , due to jitter issues, that the ps direct stream dac processes. Maybe iam wrong, and might need to be educated further
There are two ways jitter can effect the output of a DAC.
The first is to cause bit errors in the input data stream - this is particulary the case in self-clocking protocols such as S/PDIF. CD datarate is very low by modern standards, and no device I know of is so poor that bits are omitted or read in error.
The second is to cause the DAC to replay samples at slightly the wrong time. This is key, as the regular tick of the clock is implicit in the whole way digitisation and replay works. Decent, modern DACs don't rely on the input signal for the clock, but generate their own clock close to the D2A chip. This has upstream implications regarding data flow control, but is the gold standard. This is what PS do.
PS are making claims that their low jitter implementation allows a listener to hear more of the original music ('extract more data from the CD'), not because bits are captured that would otherwise be missed, but because there is less distortion in the DAC output masking the music caused by clock phase jitter.
I would argue that their marketing is not clear in this respect.
BigH
Well-known member
It seems their marketing has a poor reputation the states. Interesting that they talk about cds, how about downloads or streaming?
There are some Stereophile reviews of PS Audio DACs, if you are interested in that sort of thing.
There are some Stereophile reviews of PS Audio DACs, if you are interested in that sort of thing.
Theo
Well-known member
All we have to do is go back to basics, the Shannon-Nyquist theorem lays the mathematical context that establishes (within certain boundaries) how a discrete time signal (as in sampled digital bits) can be converted to a continuous signal (analog) without loss of information as long as it has been sampled above a certain frequency. Generally, this is also what a DAC would do, but the misunderstanding comes when we then go onto blindly assume that this established mathematical theorem is implemented successfully to its entirety in modern chip based DACs which is far from the truth.
Then the question of sampling rate is equally misunderstood because it's not just about the highest frequency that we hear.
If anyone is interested in learning more on this subject, headfi has dedicated threads on Chord Dave or Chord Qutest DACs. Even better, try getting in touch with an owner to hear what the fuss is about.
Then the question of sampling rate is equally misunderstood because it's not just about the highest frequency that we hear.
If anyone is interested in learning more on this subject, headfi has dedicated threads on Chord Dave or Chord Qutest DACs. Even better, try getting in touch with an owner to hear what the fuss is about.
Theo
Well-known member
andyjm said:
The long answer is ...
We learn in school physics/biology that human hearing is limited to 20 - 20kHz. Go to an audiologist, you probably discover that upper limit has fallen to 10kHz with age. But we need to take a step back and think about what this test actually checked (and even more important, what it didn't check). These tests usually involve listening to a continuous waveform of fixed frequency - usually a pure sinusoidal wave in an attempt to find the lower and upper limits of hearing. But this is just ONE aspect of hearing. The test did not consider the accousic properties of test environment or use real instruments to attempt to fully characterise the auditory abilities of the individual - all the way to the brain.
The problem is we then extrapolate this ONE metric of hearing to blindly make a series of assumptions one after the other... Since my DAC can decode 44.1k samples AND I cannot possibly hear sinusoidal frequencies above 20kHz, my DAC should be capable of excercising the absolute limits of my auditory system - can you see the (many) flaws in this conclusion? Can we even assume that the temporal resolution of the brain is dictated (and limited) by the ear itself?
At this point you are probably wondering, what the purpose of this gibberish is, if at the end of the day, one cannot hear a difference? Well - the system, room and material being played must be capable of revealing the differences + helps to know what to listen out for.
BigH
Well-known member
I have read a few reviews on the PS Audio Directstream, the biggest differencce most mention is the soundstage, some mention Holographic Sound Stage. Any comments on this?
nopiano
Well-known member
Have you seen the May 2018 edition of Hi-Fi News? I’ve just got my copy and there’s a four page review by Andrew Everard. It’s rated Outstanding, their top accolade. I don’t see any mention of holographics!BigH said:
BigH
Well-known member
nopiano said:
No I have not seen it. AE he used to write for WHF, actually I think his reviews were pretty good. I will have a look for it.
Theo said:
Theo, I am afraid it does sound like gibberish.
If your ear can't respond to frequencies above 10KHz because you are getting on a bit and the mechanism in your inner ear is wearing out, then your ear can't respond to frequencies above 10KHz.
You can speculate about all sorts of stuff, but if 10KHz is the limit, then thats it.
What aspect of the upper limit of hearing (that is pertinent to sample rate) is not being tested by a single sinusoidal tone?
[/quote]
The only thing that's changing fast is the colour and the smell of the bullsh*t banded around by all the these wonderful designers of 'must haves' *biggrin*
[/quote]
the depth.
The only thing that's changing fast is the colour and the smell of the bullsh*t banded around by all the these wonderful designers of 'must haves' *biggrin*
[/quote]
the depth.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
I'm an AV expert, here are the most exciting TVs I saw at CES 2025- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 2
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram