The story of the "stripped to the bare bones" method of achieving accuracy, in the devices made by ECdesigns, provides good material to comment on - the latest ,

So,

Quote

I am used to long break in times (hundreds of hours with a previous Audio-GD DAC f.i.), but for some reason I was not expecting any for the SX. But yes, there was the initial disappointment as usual. Not being able to cope with complex orchestral passages and stridency in the first hour of playing.

No-one really goes into any great depth as to what is happening here, in the general world of audio - yes, the electronics are "new", and need to stabilise; so more obvious, audible distortion. But some rigs never get past the "not being able to cope with complex orchestral passages and stridency" phase! Why? Well, engineering is the short answer ... the equipment, as combined in a certain configuration, always remains operating at a sub-standard level - you could say the break in time is infinite, ... the remaining issues are never resolved, and the listener has to live with whatever number out of 10 the system manages to get to, say "when all the stars align", now and again.

Quote

 

... the sound signature is more aristocratic, pure, and with cleaner bass. I compared it to looking through a just-cleaned window.

Yes. An analogy that easily springs to mind, when a system "gets it right".

Quote

Of course I also tried with pure bitperfect playback. However without convolution both the frequency response and (more importantly) the soundstage lack coherence, and instrument placement becomes less precisely defined. It all just sounds less natural, as if my brain continuously has to decide whether to listen to the left or to the right ('ping pong effect'), whereas with proper convolution the soundstage becomes fully detached from the speakers.

Not a good sign. If the source waveform has to be fiddled with, to get "coherence", "natural" and "the soundstage becomes fully detached from the speakers" presentation, then more cleaning of that window is needed, .

Quote

 

I tried a few Toslink cables and thought I could hear some differences. I chose the one I liked best, even though this was not capable (or only intermittently so) to do PCM192. In the meantime I ordered, based on a positive user review on another forum:

 

 ...

 

Regarding source immunity:

With my Rose RS130 streamer I first tried its internal clock and then with the external clock (Mutec Ref10 SE120). The latter sounded considerably better (blacker, more open and immersive, better bass). Next I tried the stock clocks vs the SC-Pure clocks in my DIY Ian Canada streamer, and again with the latter the SQ was clearly superior. No problem of course: I am reassured -- rather than disappointed -- that the SX is not source immune by a long stretch. (Actually I do know one or two source-immune DACs, but these sound equally bad in most configurations.)

 

Also negatives.

The optical cable should make zero difference, IF the interface is fully sorted, to cope with variations in the nature of the signal feed.

Worse, the SQ is quite dependent on the clocking of the source of the waveform - this is a disappointment. It falls in exactly the same category as my cheap as chips DVD player impacting what I hear on my active speakers, if the inserted CD has not loaded "as nicely" as it could. Good engineering will mean that the outcome is not dependent on the user 'fussing' to optimise an earlier stage - failing that, we're back to the same quagmire that has dogged the audio world, since forever.

Overall, a hmmm ...

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

Not a good sign. If the source waveform has to be fiddled with, to get "coherence", "natural" and "the soundstage becomes fully detached from the speakers" presentation, then more cleaning of that window is needed, .

I do not understand the logic of this blog at all. I apply convolution not to correct the performance of the DAC but to correct the influence of my specific room. No DAC will ever be able to do that, so it has nothing to do with window cleaning. Making "the contents of a recording" (whatever that means) to be the holy grail of audio, is an utter and silly simplification. At the source end, recordings and masterings, almost without exception, are flawed efforts to create illusions of realism. And at the listener's end, a lot happens after the sound waves leave the speakers, for which the DAC cannot be blamed.

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

The optical cable should make zero difference, IF the interface is fully sorted, to cope with variations in the nature of the signal feed.

Think about it. We could easily and objectively agree that some optical cables are able to play PCM192, and others are not. Do we blame the DAC for that? No. We blame the cables. So where did you get the wisdom that these cables should make no difference in the realms of f.i. noise and timing? Another silly simplification from someone for whom cerebral gratification seems to be more important than actual experience.

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

Good engineering will mean that the outcome is not dependent on the user 'fussing' to optimise an earlier stage - failing that, we're back to the same quagmire that has dogged the audio world, since forever.

If I disconnect the source there will be no sound, so the DAC at least requires something. (Pardon the silly example, but it helps me to think about it.) Do you really think that a DAC -- other than an inferior one -- will ever exist that only requires the source to be ON and, for the resulting SQ, is no longer sensitive to any other variations in that source? Dream on...

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

Overall, a hmmm ...

Echo that.

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@bodiebill Frank is in his own world. Just ignore him. 

When you go to a thread that has 20 blocked posts from Frank. That is hard to ignore totally.

Frank has an opinion, but he feels his opinion has more weight than other people's do. Mostly, it is gobbledygook.