Jump to content


Super Dealer
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Juancho

  1. Bought my Bart** blind just so I could participate in a certain thread here
  2. Thanks for posting the photo Speedracer, I hadn't realised 'Joolz' was the lovely Jules who graced my workshop and lounge quite frequently. I repaired his Mastersound 845 amp-amazing what 1,000v does to a fuse rated at 250v! Answer: it vaporises it and plates the inside of the glass so conduction continues....... I also repaired his Herron preamp, and an LDR preamp. In turn he brought along his PS DAC and other bits of gear and we spent many an hour comparing these to my DACs and Satchmo. The LDR was very interesting-a passive preamp Voodoo Box that really seemed to improve the sound when used between source and amp....... But enough about the boxes. Jules was a true gent and a lovely guy as others have said and it's tragic for all his friends and family that his listening time was cut short so abruptly. May he enjoy the great bake off in the sky! All condolences to his family and many friends David
  3. This has got bugger all to do with do with designing DACs or even the Bartok. It's just become a thread for those with personal axes to grind. For the record and those without the luxury of limitless time to trawl through this tedium I only said 'I think ....' about it's architecture when I was in a car last Sunday while remembering a dcs paper I'd read two years previously. So the issue was never in dispute by me. The only other point I've made as simply as possible and by analogy is that I think to describe it simply as a Delta Sigma DAC is misleading and doesn't do the more complex architecture justice as per my car example. If you differ in opinion who cares, it really is only of pedantic interest. As to the original review the extract below is the best summary I've seen from someone who spent time watching it (Pete Rogers DCS Community): 'He seems not not to fully understand the Bartok e.g. his reference to the ability to connect a 10mHz clock (you can’t) and manages to contradict himself here and there e.g. at one point effectively saying that DACs are not reliant upon partnering equipment to reveal their characteristics then saying how he had tried to find synergy with the Bartok by trying it in various set ups. He also uses odd terminology as if headphones are somehow not 2 channel devices by using the term as a synonym for speaker setups ( I never heard it used it that sense, only in order to distinguish stereo from MCH set ups). However, these minor quibbles apart, I think he is honestly expressing what he found. So why? I note that he seemed only to use one genre of music - electronic based pop. Of course being artificially created sound it is difficult for anyone to judge how it should sound. Those of us with a lot of experience using dCS equipment will know that it actually has little sound of its own ( dCS are proud of the fact that they do not “voice” their products) and it is possible to produce all sorts of end results according to both its configuration and its partnering equipment. It can be capable of revealing issues elsewhere in the chain of reproduction that other equipment either masks or artificially enhances. It is easy to attribute such issues to what you are testing ( as that is where your attention is) instead of their real source. I have done it myself . As you say he seems to be a young man and perhaps further experience may make him a little less confident about such things. Ultimately though he heard what he heard which I accept although, as a view, it is certainly an outlier.' Once again, you may agree or disagree with this. I would simply hope that if you are interested in a Bartok you would go and dem one before splashing out that much cash and not take the many glowing reviews or the one negative view as gospel. And you're certainly not going to get the slightest bit of enlightenment or help from this thread. Written whilst listening to my Bartok
  4. Sad part is you don't understand analogies-or simple English...... But it IS all about you being right isn't it?
  5. Will someone please tell this guy I never disagreed?
  6. You're not going to let this go are you? But after this post you'll have to go and play elsewhere. DCS state: The centerpiece of all dCS DACs, from the entry-level Bartók to the flagship Vivaldi, is the Ring DAC™ platform. This platform is both proprietary and unique, so what follows is just a high-level overview. The platform comprises a Control Board and an Analog Board. The input stream first traverses the Control Board, which applies the user’s selection of upsampling and digital filters to it, followed by noise shaping to render to an intermediate format for D/A conversion in the Analog board. This intermediate RingDAC format is a 5-bit, 2.8224 or 3.072 MHz stream, based on the sample rate family of the input. The Analog Board contains a pool of 48 equally (unitary)-weighted current sources per channel that are switched at a rate corresponding to the incoming data. The key component in the Analog Board, and a critical element of the entire architecture, is the RingDAC mapper. For each 5-bit sample, the mapper selects a different subset of the 48 unitary current sources, with the number of sources corresponding to the sample value. dCS stress that this is more than just a pseudo-random selector, incorporating additional selection criteria to minimize noise and distortion. Indeed, on the upper-range Rossini and Vivaldi, users can select between multiple mappers. The outputs of these current sources are summed and filtered by discrete analog components, and this signal is then amplified by an electronically floating, discrete, fully-differential Class-A transistor output stage. dCS developed the RingDAC mapper as a way to overcome the deficiencies of conventional DACs. According to dCS’ Chris Hales: “...ladder DACs are inherently prone to non-linearity, but Delta-Sigma types are prone to problems caused by timing errors and switching noise. The Ring DAC occupies the “sweet spot” where the benefits of high speed and multi-bit intersects. Note that even with the tightest practical tolerances, a ladder DAC cannot come close to the linearity of the RingDAC.” With ladder DACs, resistance values can drift over time. This leads to nonlinearities that produce harmonic distortion. While unitary current sources can also drift from their specification over time, this is what the Mapper mitigates. Since a different subset is chosen for every sample, the noise caused by drift is uncorrelated to the signal, resulting in much lower distortion. Whether you accept that or not it's not your bog standard delta sigma dac. So apart from your desperate need to be right I'm really not sure what your point is......
  7. Oh dear, not you again. I've tried to make it as simple as possible for you already. If a reviewer describes my car as powered by an internal combustion engine it's technically accurate but such an economical description it's of little use in providing helpful info to the review reader. Much more accurate and helpful to state its a dual power hybrid power plant with a turbocharged three cylinder petrol engine mated to an electric motor powered by regenerative battery charging
  8. As the man said who beat me to it!
  9. So a cynic might say if you want to build traffic / rep, this has been an amazing success
  10. Per DCS: '“...ladder DACs are inherently prone to non-linearity, but Delta-Sigma types are prone to problems caused by timing errors and switching noise. The Ring DAC occupies the “sweet spot” where the benefits of high speed and multi-bit intersects. Note that even with the tightest practical tolerances, a ladder DAC cannot come close to the linearity of the RingDAC.”
  11. As a 'new owner' of a few days, I promise to write up a totally subjective review in a few weeks' time once back from holidays etc. I have four DACs to compare it to: my reference Oppo Sonica, my own brand ESS9038pro, NOS BB1794 and AD1862 DACs. Much as I love it's functionality and looks, I would of course move it on if it doesn't deliver sonically. In our short acquaintance with limited critical listening I noticed no lack of dynamics or bite. Piano sounded more real than I've ever heard, John McLaughlin's guitar and band Live at Ronnie Scott's certainly had bite, and a recording of Haydn's Cello Concerto showed real bite and fruity attack on the strings.
  12. The point I've made-and won't repeat again-is it's wrong to label it a delta sigma DAC and therefore equally wrong to label it an R2R DAC
  13. +1. As I've said calling it a 'Delta Sigma' DAC is like calling a hybrid tube amp either tube or solid state (irrespective of how it sounds)
  14. Precisely and what is commonly known as 'delta sigma' conversion as used in may modern DACs and the ESS9038pro is one bit not 5 bit..... Anyway, long car journey over! It's been very entertaining
  15. 'I think you'll find.....but either way......' you can probably understand......
  16. I think you'll find its resistor based integrator followed by a conversion process that's analogous to Delta Sigma. But either way you wouldn't describe a hybrid tube amp as either tube or solid state would you? Well, I wouldn't
  17. Reminds me of a tube preamp review where the reviewer waxed lyrical about the push pull output topology (on a preamp......). The twin valves he'd mistaken for output valves were in fact tube voltage regulators.....
  18. Don't disagree but describing it as simply Delta Sigma is disingenuous or very casual at best
  19. Ring DAC technology is a form of current controlled super accurate R2R conversion. If someone gets the basics so wrong I certainly don't trust them with anything more serious.....
  20. Lost any respect for the GoldenSound guy when he describes the Bartok as a delta sigma DAC. It isn't and DCS ring DAC technology is nearer R2R in my understanding.....
  21. I would say one of the strengths of my Bartok is how percussive piano sounds. More than any other DAC I've come across.......
  22. I own a DCS Bartok and also build and sell DACs with tube output stages based on the DDDAC NOS design, and the ESS9038pro chip. I don't believe the differences are half as much as the hype would have you believe. My own top of my range NOS DDDAC version is surprisingly close to the Bartok, and costs around 25% of its price. The ESS9038 pro version is pretty close too. Both the latter ones use the same power supplies and output stages, perhaps explaining a closeness in SQ. My clients use them equally with high quality valve and solid state amplification, and there has never been any sense or reports of aliasing artefacts (or any other indication of strange issues). As my Satchmo preamp is also my demo unit, and is often out on loan, I tended to used the ESS9038pro version because of its built in 'lossless' volume control, before I got the Bartok. The Bartok produces marginally better overall SQ, with much greater convenience and flexibility, at around 4 or 5 times the price. The DDDAC NOS design actually measures very well, see the DDDAC site for measurements. Both Bartok and ESS DACs have multiple filters and the ones that always sound best to my ears are the ones without pre ringing and slow roll off. I modded and played with quite a few AN DACs over the years. One of the best sounding digital rigs I've built was an AN 2.1, whose power supply I improved and installed a super clock with that synched back to a Phillips CDM 4.1 transport. Bliss! The Bartok probably equals that in SQ terms with my DACS getting pretty close. One popular mod for the AN DACs was to remove the passive output filter as this tends to rob the DACs of dynamics. Pleasant and tireless to listen to though!
  23. My Bloody Valentine stretches me.....too far too
  • Create New...