Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    dCS Paganini DAC, Paganini Upsampler, and Puccini U-Clock Review

    prodphto_dcs093-25-thumb.jpgAh, the life of an audio writer. Receive the best components money can buy. Use the components for a couple months. Send aforementioned components back to manufacturer. Hang head low for a week while getting used to the real world again. I'm in the sulking phase right now as the <i>d</i>CS stack is in boxes awaiting pickup. The last several weeks were pure sonic bliss, as evidenced by my Twitter post from 11:22 PM November 12, 2009. <i>"I've never had better sound in my listening room. Ever. I believe I've found a winning combination of components. Articles to follow :~)"</i> It's finally time to spill the beans and let Computer Audiophile readers in on the best sound I've ever heard in my listening room. Here is my review of the <i>d</i>CS Paganini DAC, Paganini Upsampler, and Puccini U-Clock.

    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]

     

     

     

    <b>Intro</b>

     

    Most CA readers know I sold my last CD Player years ago and never looked back. While working with <i>d</i>CS and its U.S. distributor we toyed with the idea of throwing a transport into this mix of components, but decided against that as it's really not my cup of tea. It would have been nice to play some SACDs, but in my book physical media is to be ripped and stored incase of an emergency. We settled on a review of the Paganini DAC, Paganini Upsampler, and Puccini U-Clock. This combination offers so many input, output, and clocking options I highly recommend working with a local <i>d</i>CS dealer until one has an understanding of everything these components can accomplish. Luckily David Steven Jr. and Andy McHarg from <i>d</i>CS headquarters in the United Kingdom, and John Quick the U.S. distributor where an easy phone call away during this review period. I liken this <i>d</i>CS stack to a high performance Formula 1 race car. An F1 car is capable of incredible performance but a pit crew is needed to get the car to the starting line. Fortunately the <i>d</i>CS stack does not need intermittent pit stops. Most users will set it and forget it.

     

     

     

     

    <b>The Three Amigos</b>

     

     

    <i>Paganini DAC</i>

     

    <img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs065-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left">The Paganini DAC is unique among its competitors in the industry. According to <i>d</i>CS, <i>"Our products use both discrete and software configurable approach to digital signal processing. While most audiophile DACs are based on standard DAC chips from one of approximately six manufacturers, our patented <i>d</i>CS Ring DAC circuit uses around 40 chips, none of which are DAC chips. Our digital processing circuitry is based around Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) chips, Digital Signal Processing (DSP) chips and a microcontroller system, all of which runs code developed and maintained by <i>d</i>CS. Our PCM interface and Phase Locked Loop (PLL) circuitry are essentially discrete. This means our hardware is completely controlled and reconfigurable by software."</i> In addition to the <i>d</i>CS Rind DAC there are a few R2R Ladder DACs available today but most DACs are the Delta-Sigma type. Manufacturers often use ?? (Delta-Sigma) DACs because they are very linear and inexpensive. Attaining the highest levels of quality in digital to analog conversion is not easy. Few manufacturers have the ability to develop something as high performance and complex as the <i>d</i>CS Ring DAC. The Paganini DAC has four digital inputs that accept a range of sample rates. Two AES/EBU inputs accept from 32 to 192 kHz. Note that dual wire AES is required for sample rates of 176.4 and 192 kHz. Readers with a Lynx AES16 card need to connect outputs one and two from the card to the corresponding Paganini AES inputs and enable dual wire in the Lynx Mixer software for these higher sample rates. Currently the Lynx / <i>d</i>CS combination does not support external clocking at sample rates of 176.4 and 192 kHz. I've been told Lynx may offer an easy solution to this incompatibility via software or firmware upgrade at some point it the future. The reason for the incompatibility is that <i>d</i>CS components send what is called a base-rate clock signal of 44.1 or 48k to external devices. The Lynx internal digital I/O audio cards do not currently have the capability to multiply that base rate by 4x to achieve higher sampling rates. My understanding is that external lynx devices such as the Aurora line do support multiplying a base-rate word clock and would work perfect with the <i>d</i>CS components. The Paganini has two coaxial S/PDIF inputs that accept from 32 to 96 kHz digital audio. An IEEE 1394 (FireWire) interface is used only for an encrypted DSD signal. Users will not be able to connect a computer to this port via FireWire cable to play music. Analog outputs are single-ended RCA and electronically balanced XLR connections. The analog output stage is discrete Class A. The output levels can be adjusted from 2v rms to 6v rms via the Paganini's menu system. During this review I used the Paganini DAC set at 6v rms output directly into to my McIntosh MC275 tube amplifier driving a pair of Verity Fidelio loudspeakers. 2v rms just was not enough "juice" for my liking because I did not use any preamplifier during the review. The Paganini DAC's digital volume control is implemented extremely well and, to my ears, has no sonic degradation. As I eluded to previously the Paganini DAC also has word clock in and out allowing it to be a slave or master clock.

     

     

     

    <i>Paganini Upsampler</i>

     

    <img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_img023-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left">The Paganini Upsampler is really a digital to digital converter that accepts sample rates from 32 to 96 kHz. The device can output this digital signal at an equivalent or higher sample rate than the incoming data. A standard 16/44.1 audio signal can be output to the Paganini DAC at 16/44.1, 24/88.2, 24/176.4, or DSD. 24/96 material from sites like HDtracks and Blue Coast Records can be output at 24/96, 24/192, or DSD. This Upsampler has three types of digital inputs and three types of digital outputs. The outputs are standard coaxial S/PDIF, AES/EBU single and dual wire, and IEEE 1394. Dual wire is required to output a digital signal at 24/176.4 and 24/192 kHz. The digital inputs are two coaxial S/PDIF RCA connections, one single wire AES/EBU XLR connection, and one asynchronous USB connection. Yes, this is the highly desirable asynchronous USB technology like Wavelength and Ayre use. Note this is not to be confused with asynchronous sample rate conversion. ASRC is completely different and does not play any part in the <i>d</i>CS USB implementation or in the Paganini Upsampler. <i>d</i>CS is not licensing anything from anyone for its USB interface. Its asynchronous implementation was created completely in-house by its highly skilled team of engineers. Using the Paganini asynchronous USB input will be a popular option for those who want to set it and forget it. Using a Mac Mini or MacBook with Amarra outputting via USB to the Upsampler allows one to play anything up to 24/96 and take advantage of the upsampling settings of their choice. Upsamplers have a fair share of skeptics and "purists" who don't believe in the technology. During the review period I used every possible configuration with the Paganini Upsampler. I will share my preferred Upsampler settings a bit later in this review.

     

     

     

    <i>Puccini U-Clock</i>

     

    <img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_026-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left">The Puccini U-Clock is perhaps my favorite component in the <i>d</i>CS line. This "favored component status" stems from my experience using external word clocks and realizing the benefits such clocking can have in a high performance audio system. Plus the Puccini U-Clock contains an asynchronous USB to coaxial S/PDIF converter. Again, the same highly sought asynchronous USB implementation that's contained in the Paganini Upsampler using the TAS1020B chip. The U-Clock's USB board layout was designed with an eye on the future. When the inevitable higher sampling rates are available via USB the U-Clock's USB board is designed to be swapped out by a local dealer saving the expense of over seas shipping back to <i>d</i>CS in the UK. <i>d</i>CS had no comment on the availability of a 24/192 USB interface for its components. As its name suggests the U-Clock is an external master clock for any component that accepts an industry standard word clock signal via 75 ohm BNC connection. The Puccini U-Clock has four word clock outputs. During the review period I clocked everything with the U-Clock when possible. When using a Lynx AES16 card connected to the Paganini Upsampler I used the U-Clock to send word clock signals to the Lynx, the DAC, and the Upsampler. Thus all components had the same clock source. According to the <i>d</i>CS product manuals the best sound quality comes from a configuration where the U-Clock is the single clock source for the complete digital front end. After weeks of listening to many different clocking schemes I agree with <i>d</i>CS. In its system sending word clock from the U-Clock to all components pushes performance to another level. There are other schools of thought when it comes to external clocking. One common clock scheme is using the clock source that is as close to the DAC chip as possible. This would mean sending clock from the DAC to the front end components. On other systems that may work best, but with the <i>d</i>CS stack in my listening room the best performance came when word clock was sourced from the Puccini U-Clock.

     

     

     

    <b>Music Servers</b>

     

    Music servers used during this review include the following.

    <ul>

    <li>Mac Pro, OS X Snow Leopard, Dual 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon Quad core CPUs, 10GB RAM, 64GB SSD, iTunes & Amarra, Lynx AES16e digital I/O</li>

    <li>Mac Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit, Dual 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon Quad core CPUs, 10GB RAM, 64GB SSD, MediaMonkey, Lynx AES16e digital I/O</li>

    <li>Mac G5, OS X Tiger, Dual 2.0 GHz PowerPC CPUs, 3GB RAM, 64GB SSD, iTunes & Amarra, Lynx AES16 digital I/O</li>

    <li>Custom Linux server - Details withheld at this time.</li>

    <li>Thecus N5200B Pro NAS</li>

    <li>MacBook Air Remote Control</li>

    <ul>

     

     

     

     

     

    <b>High Performance</b>

     

    <img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs162-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left">This <i>d</i>CS stack unequivocally gave me the best sound I've ever heard in my listening room. Period. It produced the most refined and natural sound I've heard in recent memory. This natural sound was most apparent with acoustic music. I've been on a Jack Johnson kick for a while. I listened to his albums a few times each through the <i>d</i>CS components and through other components I currently have available here. No other components gave me goose bumps like the <i>d</i>CS stack. I certainly was not in the studio for a Jack Johnson recording and do not know what his guitar is "supposed" to sound like, but the sound in my room had to be pretty close. The resonance of his guitar was so real the musical illusion was incredible. As I stated earlier, I used the Paganini Upsampler in every conceivable configuration and with many different types of music. After tens of hours comparing all the Upsampling options I wound up preferring no Upsampling at all. Oddly enough this doesn't mean I prefer no Upsampler at all. Over the last few days I discovered that I like the sound of the Upsampler via USB better than the U-Clock via USB. I was very surprised that I heard any difference whatsoever. I sent an email to <i>d</i>CS detailing the configuration and my preference for the Upsampler USB input. I received a response from Andy McHarg, one of the brilliant digital engineers at <i>d</i>CS, stating, <i>"...the two *should* sound identical with the same settings..."</i> It's entirely possible my preference for the Upsampler's USB input over the U-Clock's USB input could be based on psychoacoustics. Right now I don't think that's the case. When I switched USB inputs I was not looking to compare the sound quality rather I was going to test a different clocking configuration. The sonic difference was immediately noticeable to me. I had been using the Upsampler's USB input exclusively for a couple weeks so I was intimately familiar with the sound. It was like placing a new component into one's system after years of listening to one set of components. Differences are easily noticed. A possible explanation for this sonic difference could involve cabling. Using the U-Clock's USB input I used a WireWorld USB cable and a Kimber Select coaxial S/PDIF digital cable for the output to the DAC. Using the Upsampler's USB input is used the same WireWorld USB cable, but I used a pair of Tera Labs AES/EBU digital cable from the Upsampler to the DAC. I don't want to make a mound out of a mole hill. This USB sonic difference was such a tiny part of the whole review period and overall experience I really could have written it in a side-note. Anyway, my preference for no upsampling was readily apparent after an evening listening to Frank Sinatra's <i>Only The Lonely</i> (<a href="http://www.mofi.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=140&idcategory=0">Mobile Fidelity UDCD 792</a>). The last track on the album, One For My Baby (And One More For The Road) sounded vastly different when I passed the 16/44.1 signal straight through the Upsampler at 16/44.1 versus when I upsampled from 16/44.1 to DSD. This difference in sonics was expected, but the outcome was unexpected. Without upsampling Sinatra's voice had wonderful reverb and space surrounding it. When I upsampled to DSD I lost the reverb trail. His voice sounded a bit tighter, but thinner and less full. The following day I talked to the US Distributor about what I heard. He relayed his honest opinion to me that detailed vastly different results. He'd heard increased reverb with the Upsampler and much better sound on a wide array of audio systems. Granted this was with different albums and much different audio equipment, but it's another data point for CA readers to consider. Back to overall performance. I punched up one of my favorite, Grammy nominated, Classical albums more than a few times throughout this review period. The Minnesota Orchestra's <i>Bolero! Orchestral Fireworks</i> (<a href="https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=030911109226">Reference Recordings RR-92 HDCD</a>). I'm no classical aficionado but I was immediately sucked into the concert hall with the awesome power of the transients on this album. I've never heard this album sound better anywhere. The highest highs and the lowest lows were reproduced faithfully and the critical midrange was the most realistic I've heard to date. I can't complete this review without mentioning Shelby Lynne's album <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Lynne-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all"><i>Just A Little Lovin'</i></a>. This album was recorded by world-class engineer Al Schmitt on a two inch Studer tape machine. Like the previous albums mentioned above, I've never heard this recording sound so real. I must have played it over and over about twenty times this month alone. Through the <i>d</i>CS stack Shelby's voice didn't emanate from the speakers. It was right between the speakers, not to far back or forward. Her voice just hung there transparently in space. On the title track the sparse cymbals were so realistic it was hard to believe a 16/44.1 recording could sound so good. The decay of the cymbals from the left speaker to the right was dead-on. There are many more superlatives to describe what this album sounded like thought the <i>d</i>CS stack but I'm sure CA readers get the point without dragging this one out any further.

     

    Comparing the <i>d</i>CS stack to other components is a bit difficult because it includes an external clock, DAC, and Upsampler. Nonetheless I did swap the Paganini DAC with a few DACs I had on hand. Most of the comparisons weren't very useful as the cost of the sales tax for the <i>d</i>CS stack is more than the total price of some of these DACs. The comparison I was most interested in was the <i>d</i>CS Paganini DAC and the Alpha DAC. The Alpha DAC is still my reference DAC because it's relatively inexpensive and I own an Alpha. In my listening room the <i>d</i>CS Paganini was sonically superior and would be my DAC of choice could I afford the purchase price. Compared to the Paganini the Alpha sounded a bit forward, a tad less natural and a tad less coherent. Don't get me wrong, the Alpha is still one of the best DACs on the market and has received many accolades to that affect. It's just not quite up to the level of the <i>d</i>CS Paganini DAC.

     

     

     

     

     

    <b>Conclusion</b>

     

     

    The <i>d</i>CS Paganini DAC, Upsampler, and Puccini U-Clock is the best digital front end I've ever heard in my listening room. Since the <i>d</i>CS components are boxed up Jack Johnson, Shelby Lynne, and the Minnesota Orchestra have left the building. The <i>d</i>CS stack not only made the Computer Audiophile Suggested Hardware List, these components are exactly why the CASH List was created. Well done <i>d</i>CS.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    <div style=" border-top : 1px solid #E9EFF3; border-right : 1px solid #E9EFF3; border-bottom : 1px solid #E9EFF3; border-left : 1px solid #E9EFF3">

    Manufacturer: <a href="http://www.dcsltd.co.uk"><i>d</i>CS (Data Converson Systems)</a>

    Prices:

    <li>Paganini DAC (PDC) - $17,999</li>

    <li>Paganini Upsampler (PUP) - $10,499</li>

    <li>Puccini uClock (PUU) - $4,999</li>

    Availability: <a href="http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/page/dealerlocator">Dealers and Distributors</a>

    Documents:

    <li><a href="http://files.computeraudiophile.com/2009/1208/Paganini_DAC_Manual_v1_0x.pdf">Paganini DAC Manual</a></li>

    <li><a href="http://files.computeraudiophile.com/2009/1208/Puccini_U-Clock_Manual_v1_0x.pdf">Puccini U-Clock Manual</a></li>

    </div>

     

     

     

     

    Associated Equipment: Kimber USB cable v1 & v2, Benchmark DAC1 PRE, Kimber Select cabling, Verity Audio Fidelio loudspeakers, McIntosh MC275 amplification, Richard Gray's Power Company cables, Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC, Wavelength Audio Proton & Cosecant, Ayre AX-7e Integrated Amp, Windows XP "Music Server for a Song," Focal Diablo Utopia loudspeakers, Bel Canto USB Link, Antelope Audio Isochrone OCX Master Clock.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Click to enlarge

     

    <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_img029.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_img029-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_img023.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_img023-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_img013.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_img013-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_img010.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_img010-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_img007.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_img007-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_048.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_048-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_043.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_043-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_037.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_037-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_031.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_031-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_026.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_026-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_022.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_022-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_016.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_016-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_010.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_IMG_010-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs162.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs162-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs160.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs160-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs159.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs159-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs148.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs148-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs135.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs135-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs133.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs133-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs093.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs093-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs079.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs079-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs075.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs075-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs065.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs065-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left" alt="dCS 01"></a>   <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs063.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="dCS"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1208/prodphto_dcs063-25.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" alt="dCS 01"></a>

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    <br />

    "I was quite surprised to see the post talking all about the MH product...." <br />

    <br />

    As was I.<br />

    <br />

    "I did make a comment a week ago about the intensity of posts or number of posts not being equivalent to the quality of a piece of equipment. That was in a post referencing MH gear."<br />

    <br />

    This was the previous instance I was imagining had been a fanboy reference. Thanks for clarifying my mistake. And in retrospect, your use of fanboy above probably also surprised me given that it doesn't seem like the type of thing 'Chris' would say.<br />

    <br />

    <br />

    "Again, no harm was meant."<br />

    <br />

    And none taken. I was just 'surprised' that's all.<br />

    <br />

    cheers,<br />

    clay<br />

    <br />

    PS, don't hesitate to expunge these posts from the dCS review thread.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chris, not sure if your saw my earlier post so am reposting....it might have gotten lost amidst the banter on the ULN-8.... :-)<br />

    <br />

    Based on your review of the DCS components and naming the clock as perhaps your favorite of the bunch, raised in my mind again the importance of optimal clocking to obtaining the optimal SQ in one's system.<br />

    <br />

    You noted some time ago that you had a Antelope Isochrone OCX which you were testing. Can you comment on these tests, particularly if you had a chance to use the OCX with the Alpha DAC or any of the other DACs you have on hand? I would think that if the DCS gear is at its best when used with its master word clock, other DAC's, particularly synchronous DAC's, might also be at their best with such a clock in the system.<br />

    <br />

    I have a Isochrone DA coming tomorrow which I'll be inserting into my Lynx AES16/BADAC system and will report back on the results. I hope to realize similar improvements to what Happy reported in another thread.<br />

    <br />

    Thanks,<br />

    <br />

    David

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Clay,<br />

    <br />

    > it is considered rather poor form here to throw in a comment<br />

    > about a completely different product, esp. along with the acknowledgement<br />

    > that you'd never heard the product under review.<br />

    <br />

    I was merely using one box that I personally know to relate with regards to functionality & pricing of the DAC under discussion. Since I have not heard the Paganini I quite obviously can't compare it's sound with what I know.<br />

    <br />

    Regards,<br />

    <br />

    blumlein records - Andrew Levine

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Ridiculous. The main point of getting into computer audio is a very modest outlay that blows most £10k cd machines out of the water. This set-up misses the point entirely. I really don't want to see £35k computer audio solutions...when you can get amazing results at a fraction of that. Of course it sounds great.. But personally I think this is not what this site is about and I don't like the commercial angles creeping in here. What's next £10k USB cables?<br />

    <br />

    Keep it real chris

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I get to hear a dCS stack regularly. I agree with Chris. I have heard no finer digital playback - not that I have heard as much as he has. But it is bloody good. No question.<br />

    Good on Chris reviewing it. <br />

    <br />

    It's abit like Kondo amps (that I also get to hear fairly regularly). They have a magic about them which transcends the every day experience and seems to justify their very large price tags.<br />

    <br />

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Opusover21, I take your point, but not all are purely motivated to pursue computer audio for cost reasons and what's the harm in showcasing the entire spectrum of available DAC options in the market anyway?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chris-<br />

    What is the reason that the review sample included the U-clock instead of the Paganini master clock? Is it because the U-cock is adequate in the absence of a transport?<br />

    <br />

    Thanks,<br />

    <br />

    Alan

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "I have not had the chance to try out any gear by dCS. Also my budget is limited to the price of top pro audio gear--which strangely enough is less expensive than a lot of high-end audio equipment."<br />

    <br />

    Didn't dCS (still does?)make Pro Audio gear that was extremely expensive as well? I don't think this thread should turn into a pro audio vs. consumer audio. Perhaps the comments on the ULN-8 could be moved to the endless threads we already have on the Metric Halo. So far only one comment in 30+ other than Chris' on the dCs trio. Yes, its over the top expensive but its also over the top great from the 2 or 3 accounts I've heard. Anyone?<br />

    <br />

    Forget the sound, on looks alone I wouldn't want the MH ULN-8 or Sonic Studio's version in my living room. I guess you could try to hide it but for $6 - 8,000 I'd rather show it off. It belongs in a studio IMO. But then again I'm just a misled consumer! ;^)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    you're confusing us, James...<br />

    <br />

    "I don't think this thread should turn into a pro audio vs. consumer audio. Perhaps the comments on the ULN-8 could be moved to the endless threads we already have on the Metric Halo."<br />

    <br />

    followed by:<br />

    <br />

    "Forget the sound, on looks alone I wouldn't want the MH ULN-8 or Sonic Studio's version in my living room. I guess you could try to hide it but for $6 - 8,000 I'd rather show it off. It belongs in a studio IMO. But then again I'm just a misled consumer! ;^)"<br />

    <br />

    you comment on both the Metric Halo gear, and the studio versus living room (pro vs. audiophile) aspect of gear, after suggesting that neither belonged here.<br />

    <br />

    <br />

    ;0<br />

    <br />

    clay<br />

    <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    <i>"PS. Were you able to compare the single and balanced outputs as I've read they have independent paths and one may be better than the other?"</i><br />

    <br />

    <br />

    Hi Eloise - I liked the balanced outputs best in my system.<br />

    <br />

     <br />

    <br />

     <br />

    <br />

    <i>"Chris, you noted some time ago that you had a Antelope Isochrone OCX which you were testing. Can you comment on these tests, particularly if you had a chance to use the OCX with the Alpha DAC or any of the other DACs you have on hand? Also, you noted some time back that you preferred the Alpha DAC to the ULN-8....can you comment a bit further on that comparison."</i><br />

    <br />

    Hi David - I put the OCX clock into the dCS system and the sound deteriorated a bit. I prefer the dCS U-Clock as the master, even clocking the Lynx. Using the BADA I've had very system dependent results. In some systems I love using the OCX while in others, mine included, it doesn't do it for me.<br />

    <br />

     <br />

    <br />

     <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    <i>"Ridiculous. The main point of getting into computer audio is a very modest outlay that blows most £10k cd machines out of the water. This set-up misses the point entirely. I really don't want to see £35k computer audio solutions...when you can get amazing results at a fraction of that. Of course it sounds great.. But personally I think this is not what this site is about and I don't like the commercial angles creeping in here. What's next £10k USB cables?<br />

    Keep it real chris"</i><br />

    <br />

    <br />

    Hi Opusover21 - As previous reader(s) have said, not all of us are into computer based audio because it allows us to save money. That said, I think your comments seems a bit misplaced. The computers I used in this setup are thousands of dollars cheaper than the best disc spinners available. Computer based sources are not supposed to replaces DACs and the associated components. They replace the disc spinning source. I'm out to obtain the best sound possible at every price level. I welcome the forums posts that seek the best solution for under $200 and I welcome the personal emails from people seeking to upgrade their complete Esoteric front end. It's all relative and it's all about recreating the musical illusion in our homes. I a bit lost when it comes to your comments stating, <i>"I don't like the commercial angles creeping in here."</i> Not sure what you mean so I can really respond.<br />

    <br />

     <br />

    <br />

     <br />

    <br />

    ?<i>"What is the reason that the review sample included the U-clock instead of the Paganini master clock? Is it because the U-cock is adequate in the absence of a transport?"</i><br />

    <br />

    Hi Alan - The U-Clock made more sense to me as it can also be used as a stand-alone asynchronous USB to S/PDIF converter. Some readers contacted me with questions about the U-Clock and it's value as a converter to go between their laptop the DAC they already own. These readers had been using TosLink from their laptops. I compared this TosLink output to the U-Clock's USB to S/PDIF conversion and the difference was wonderful. The U-Clock increased every sonic quality that audiophiles are looking for.<br />

    <br />

     <br />

    <br />

     <br />

    <br />

    <i>"Didn't dCS (still does?)make Pro Audio gear that was extremely expensive as well?"</i><br />

    <br />

    Hi James - dCS was in the pro market, I'm not sure how its prices or performance compared to the other pro audio components.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chris, thanks for the response. As I commented in the thread which Happy initiated, since I asked you about the OCX, I took delivery of an Isochrone DA unit on Friday and it made a very significant improvement in my sound quality which was not at all subtle. As you know, the DA is different from the OCX as it offers benefits both in terms of noise isolation and lower jitter via a reclocked signal from an excellent clock.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    hi chris,<br />

    <br />

    Did you have a chance to compare the u-clock and the lynx as a computer interface. It would be great to get an idea how a 1000usd interface compares to a 4000usd device. <br />

    <br />

    In general, there are more and more interesting computer interfaces coming out (pci to spdif, usb to spdif, firewire to spdif) and these are a very significant part of a computer audio chain. Would be great to have more input on this topic.<br />

    <br />

    Thanks!!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "you comment on both the Metric Halo gear, and the studio versus living room (pro vs. audiophile) aspect of gear, after suggesting that neither belonged here."<br />

    <br />

    My comments were to counter Andrews implications/ remarks that Pro Audio gear is superior and cheaper than consumer gear. I meant to point out that there are viable reasons why consumers would prefer consumer gear vis a vis pro audio. And that the thread should have been left to comments on the dCS Paganini et al. and not turned into a MH ULN-8 review. Hopefully, owners of the dCS gear weren't scared off from posting their knowledge and experience because not all of us think they are wasting their money as Mr. Levine did when he implied the MH ULN-8 was as good as it gets. I could see no way around addressing the reasons he tried to turn it into a Pro audio thread even though I wished he had stuck to questions and discussion of Chris' dCS review.<br />

    <br />

    We don't need pro audio guys saving us "unwary" consumers/audiophiles. At least not in this thread. ;^)<br />

    <br />

    Joking aside, my main point for the post was to show that there are those who think the dCS stack is a worthwhile product and are interested enough to invite posts/reviews from owners or those who have heard the product.<br />

    <br />

    Regards,

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi icebreaker,<br />

    <br />

    > Andrews implications/ remarks that Pro Audio gear is superior and cheaper than consumer gear<br />

    <br />

    I said that the box I talked about is less expensive than the Paganini. Obviously, since I have not yet had the chance to audition the latter (double blind), I can not comment on sound quality.<br />

    <br />

    > not all of us think they are wasting their money as Mr. Levine did<br />

    > when he implied the MH ULN-8 was as good as it gets<br />

    <br />

    What I said is that as a recordist I know what the acoustic event I am tracking sounds like live, and that's what I want to hear when I work on my recordings in stereo or surround. I try to recreate the sonics as they were (or could / should have been :-).<br />

    <br />

    > We don't need pro audio guys saving us "unwary" consumers/audiophiles.<br />

    > At least not in this thread. ;^)<br />

    <br />

    I have understood that much ;-)<br />

    <br />

    Regards,<br />

    <br />

    blumlein records - Andrew Levine

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have the 4 box Paganini set up (don't shoot me). I put up some comments under the following link a week or two back - http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Room-Correction-without-downside. Hopefully it is not now heresy too to use room correction with such flash gear!<br />

    <br />

    Chris's review is somewhat of a relief as reading of the wonders of much cheaper dacs, while not having the opportunity to actually hear them, you wonder if it really is a case of the Emperor's new clothes. But apparently not - whew :-) I've owned the early Delius/Purcell which was pretty good and later the P8i (a side wise step really), but I do find the the Paganini in a different league to the earlier ones. BTW I prefer balanced - using quite low cost Apogee Wide Eye cables by preference - eg over an expensive Acrolink and others. I also prefer non-upsampling, and as you will see if you read the link above, I'm sort of in two minds about the Transport vs computer. If the transport and computer both fed via the upsampler (set to output 44.1) they sound pretty similar, but the transport direct to dac sounds cleaner, clearer and more dynamic. If I forget audiophilia and just enjoy the music, the room corrected computer source wins though as it gives a better balanced and more natural sound. None of this is night and day stuff. Another point is that having had this gear for a while you get used to it and take it for granted until you go to a friends house, hear a familiar track and wonder where half the info has gone. It certainly gets more out of cd that I thought was in there. I find media players vastly different in their sound btw - prefer J River, though I haven't had the opportunity to try Mac or Amarra.<br />

    <br />

    Murray<br />

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    @murray,<br />

    <br />

    I am also very much impressed with DCS equipment. I do not have the money for a full stack and only have an older elgar+ dac. I was surprised about the night and day difference between the pc- dcs setup vs. my linn unidisc universal player. an a/b comparison was not necessary, it was like the music came alive, the women vocalists started breathing in my room and the music became extremely realistic. please note, the unidisc is not a bad player - its sacd playback is among the best.<br />

    <br />

    i also made the experience that players make a large difference. i would recommend, you try mediamonkey with the kernel plugin. to my ears it betters jriver!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    <br />

    As always, a well reasoned response<br />

    <br />

    "I meant to point out that there are viable reasons why consumers would prefer consumer gear vis a vis pro audio."<br />

    <br />

    Agreed, there are many: 1) extra 'stuff' that's not needed, esp extra front panel knobs, (which contributes to ->), 2) looks, 3) more complicated to setup and use, and, 4) lack of RCA outs which requires special cables, or use of adapters. And these are just for starters. :)<br />

    <br />

    "We don't need pro audio guys saving us "unwary" consumers/audiophiles. At least not in this thread. ;^)"<br />

    <br />

    I'd say it's probably too late for most of us, in any event. ;-0<br />

    <br />

    clay

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Johniboy,<br />

    <br />

    interesting about the experience vs the Linn player. <br />

    <br />

    Can you point me to the media monkey kernel plugin please. I sure hope it doesn't sound better - I love the ease of the J River theatre interface with remote control ;-)<br />

    <br />

    I've found MM to sound more dynamic and punchy, but give less micro-detail with that. On first listen much more exciting but a few comparisons later I started to realise I was missing something. I was using Asio4all.<br />

    <br />

    Thanks for the hint<br />

    <br />

    Murray

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Here you go: http://www.stevemonks.com/ksplugin/<br />

    You will have to check whether this works for you. Not all soundcards support the kernel streamer plugin and if you are using the usb input of the dcs, maybe only asio4all will do the job.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Andrew- I agree that having a DAC like the MH ULN-8 that can sound like a well set up live performance is undoubtedly a significant measure of the "ultimate" in performance. Enjoy!<br />

    <br />

    Hi Murray - Thanks for the input on the dCS stack and the link. I admit that I passed by the thread when I saw "room correction without a downside" but I will revisit. :)<br />

    <br />

    Regards,

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chris<br />

    <br />

    I may have missed you saying, but when trying the upsampler did you just use Dual-AES link or did you also try iLink / Firewire? The reason I ask is (IIRC) with AES you only have option of 192/176.4 but with iLink you can upsampler to DSD which (according to dCS) is a good thing (for the RingDAC)<br />

    <br />

    Eloise

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Chris,<br />

    <br />

    just wondered if you tried different USB cables at all and if you found any difference (eg between Kimber v1 and V2, Wireworld). One would sort of hope that any usb cable that performs correctly would be fine with asynchronous USB and there could be no sound difference with such a packetised system but ..........................<br />

    <br />

    Also which clock cables did you use?<br />

    <br />

    thanks<br />

    <br />

    murray

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Murray - I've tried many USB cables over the last couple years and I've settled on the Kimber v2 silver cable as my cable of choice. The clock cables used came stock with the U-Clock with the exception of my custom cable clocking the Lynx card.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Taking into account the price of the unit. I'm sorry to state something that seems to go against what everyone else is saying, but I hear what I hear, and I think it's important for others to know. I like most of you am a stereo nut, I guess audiophile is the right term. I have been around this hobby long enough to have learned a few things, one of them being that expensive things are sometimes much better than the inexpensive counterparts, but not always. 20 years ago I hoped that expensive things didn't sound better than cheap things, but a few choice auditions later and having my mind blown showed me that in order to get great sound, sometimes you have to spend some money. And I did!!! I also learned that as my purchasing power went up and I was able to audition ever more expensive gear, I found that sometimes you pay a whole lot more and you don't get anything other than a flashy case and a lot of promises from the manufacturer. This brings me to the dCS gear. It has been greatly reviewed, so they must be doing something right, however I think it is safe to say that it is VERY expensive costing many times more than the competition. Having said that, we are all free to spend our money as we wish, and people who have a lot of money have no qualms about spending 20, 30 or 40 thousand Dollars for a CD player. It's great because they like it and they are happy, so it's money well spent. Coming to this particular setup, I must say I heard it and I was not at all impressed regardless of how much or how little it costs. My concern is that most people auditioning it get caught up in the beauty of the product, the meticulous finish, and the good reviews, and when they hear it they convince themselves it HAS to sound good. I for one think you can get much better sound for much less, it's not bad but there are better things and at lower prices. If you are shopping for something in this price range do yourself a favor and audition a few other components in the $2,000 to $10,000 range and you may find you can save a lot of dough. For those of you who have heard it, make sure you compare it to something worthwhile. I'm sure it sounds better than a $299 add on DAC, or even a $999 DAC, but that ain't saying much is it?<br />

    <br />

    Andrew

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments




×
×
  • Create New...