Article: dCS Bartok Review

[Le Concombre Masqué]

Rajiv,

 

I wish I could share the general enthusiasm for your reviews. I can certainly praise your dedication but I find them pretty moot for they don't include the leveraging of computer based processing.

 

I can see references to usb usb cables ethernet stuff etc that certainly pertains to computer world but I don't see* leveraging of computer based processing.

 

I'b be interested in comparisons between DACs fed by, say, HQP delivering to the max of the DAC capabilities.

 

You're using a computer anyway, right ? so since you do mention diminishing-returns region and  price-performance curve, what $300 of software can save us in $K of hardware is of interest, IMO.

 

*Roon does not seemed to be used for any heavy processing and you even specify "library management and output to the DAC all in one"

[Le Concombre Masqué]

8 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "leveraging of computer based processing." You seem to be implying that running SW upsampling via HQPlayer is always superior to a DAC's internal upsampling and filters. That is certainly not my experience. It is very DAC-dependent, and as it happens, most of the DACs I have had in my system have sounded best when delivered the recording at its native sample rate. I don't doubt that some DACs in some cases benefit greatly via this approach.

 

Given the context of this thread, let's keep this discussion focused on the Bartok. This article was long enough already that I can't describe all the experiments I tried. Early on in the evaluation, I did a quick test with Roon to see if using Roon upsampling to PCM 352.8/384 or DSD128 (the max sample rates the Bartok will accept) yielded any improvements. Had the results been profound, I would have been motivated to try HQPlayer. But in fact, Roon upsampling sounded no better than no upsampling - in fact, I thought it degraded the sound.

You perfectly understood but for me implying that running SW upsampling via HQPlayer is always superior to a DAC's internal upsampling and filters. I don't imply that but suggested you include an appreciation of computer based upsampling and filtering input into the DACs you test. You now did for Bartok and Roon, that's a start, thank you. 

[Le Concombre Masqué]

On 10/24/2019 at 9:40 AM, austinpop said:

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "leveraging of computer based processing." You seem to be implying that running SW upsampling via HQPlayer is always superior to a DAC's internal upsampling and filters. That is certainly not my experience. It is very DAC-dependent, and as it happens, most of the DACs I have had in my system have sounded best when delivered the recording at its native sample rate. I don't doubt that some DACs in some cases benefit greatly via this approach.

 

Given the context of this thread, let's keep this discussion focused on the Bartok. This article was long enough already that I can't describe all the experiments I tried. Early on in the evaluation, I did a quick test with Roon to see if using Roon upsampling to PCM 352.8/384 or DSD128 (the max sample rates the Bartok will accept) yielded any improvements. Had the results been profound, I would have been motivated to try HQPlayer. But in fact, Roon upsampling sounded no better than no upsampling - in fact, I thought it degraded the sound.

Stereophile's Jim Austin, ROON ROCK feeding the Bartok, doesn't place it (to say the least) in another league than a 2K$ 2 yo Benchmark DAC... I doesn't seem to measure better either https://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-bartok-da-processorheadphone-amplifier

[Le Concombre Masqué]

25 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Exactly. That is why I couldn't see the point for dismissal of one's likes or dislikes, be it audio or anything else.

Maybe there's no point at all, then, in sharing each other's opinions and evaluations...

 

Here it's a 13K$ point. I'd like to see rankings on scales ; ie : if, for free once you have HQP or if you're testing it, you can set your perceived evaluation of differences between,  say, mqa mp and long lp filters to 10, how much is the perceived difference between 2K and 25 K Dacs (3, 8, 9 ; need to set a new range where that difference is 20 while the difference between filters become 7 or what have you...)

 

dCS can send me a Rossini to change my mind ; I'm not convinced that 20 K put in a DAC brings much more than a change of filters

[Le Concombre Masqué]

7 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

Like it or not, a DAC is so much more than "just" its filtering and D/A conversion design. Indeed, if my experience has taught me anything, it's that modern DACs live and die by how well they get the good old-fashioned basics right:

1. analog output stage design
2. power supply design
3. clock architecture
4. design or choice of chipsets used for interfaces like USB, ethernet
5. Electrical isolation strategy - both at input, as well as internally
6. Mechanical isolation via careful chassis design
7. Parts quality, board layout, and quality of connectors
8. And last, but certainly not least - filtering and D/A conversion design.

To focus on #8 alone is to miss all the other factors that distinguish DACs from each other.

Right but never said that only #8 matters ; wrote : "I'm not convinced that 20 K put in a DAC brings much more than a change of filters". OK I get where I could be misunderstood : I did not mean that the 20K are invested in filtering and D/A conversion design ; I meant that a simple change of filters in HQP might yield the perception of changes of the same order of magnitude 

[Le Concombre Masqué]

4 hours ago, Patatorz said:

i assume that your local dealer could help you in having a rossini/bartok to have with you a test feeding these DAC with HQ Player. You are more than welcome to share your experience when it would be done. without that you can argue for hours. Anyway these devices are more than dac with the streaming feature and the efforts put on the software side.

 

BR

thanks. the closest dealer is in f**** Paris, hundreds miles away. Anyway I'm quite happy with what I have