Article: dCS Bartok Review

[Account Closed]

This is one of the best reviews that I have ever read in my 50+ years in this hobby.

[Account Closed]

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.

I have been thinking about his comment and your response. To be clear, I use HQP and I think it is a very good program. But, I also think it is very easy to be seduced by the power of big numbers. The idea that a 1.4 Mbps stream (44.1/16) raised to 90 Mbps via filters and dither will automatically sound better may not necessarily be true. I have experimented with my Spring 2 DAC and have found that many times using up-sampling does not improve the sound and sometimes as you found it makes it worse. On some material it does improve the sound. I now use no up-sampling (NOS) as my standard and I apply up-sampling selectively. At my age, my ears are acting as a filter as I no longer hear much above 10,000 Hz. I don't want to start an argument about all the ins and outs of up-sampling but I do want to make it clear that blanket assumptions about it may be wrong and case by case comparison is the appropriate method. Thanks again for a great review.

[Account Closed]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

If only you can find someone like that with the motivation to make the effort.  

You are a retired scientist if memory serves and you write for an organization with the resources to do it.

[Account Closed]

8 hours ago, tapatrick said:

Thanks Rajiv for a very informative and enjoyable read. I found this interesting as I'm exploring ladder DACs again as an antidote to harshness.

 

“...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.”

 

I do wish I hadn't heard about the Rossini tho'  

If you are interested in a ladder DAC, check out the Holo Spring 2. I love mine.