uncl_nigel
pfm Member
I have heard the Bartok with a Rossini clock. My advice - only listen to the clock if you can afford to buy it
dCS Bartok or MSB Discrete DAC/streamer
- Thread starter seadog7
- Start date
Colin L
High-tech low-life
I couldn’t possibly comment on your subjective opinion. To me the Aries and Vega G2 together sound very musical. FWIW I found the early dCS kit very dry and hi-if but the newer stuff seems better.
Sorry to harp on, but the Vega G2 has true-balanced outputs as well.
And to the OP, I’ve never heard a system that wasn’t better with a good pre-amp installed versus DAC-pre into power amp(s) (and I include the full-bifta 4 box Vivaldi set-up in this). You sure you want to do this?
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Clocks ‘should’ be near the DAC chip,I have heard the Bartok with a Rossini clock. My advice - only listen to the clock if you can afford to buy it
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/auralic-leo-gx-dac-clock-review.11001/
Keith
uncl_nigel
pfm Member
La perfection n'est pas de ce monde (very roughly - nothing is perfect)
What "should" be and what works are not always the same...
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
It is just engineering Nigel, clocks should be close to the DAC chip, an external clock gives the opportunity for the manufacturer to sell you another box, even though it goes against good practise.
Keith
Keith
mikechadwick
pfm Member
I couldn’t possibly comment on your subjective opinion. To me the Aries and Vega G2 together sound very musical. FWIW I found the early dCS kit very dry and hi-if but the newer stuff seems better.
Sorry to harp on, but the Vega G2 has true-balanced outputs as well.
just to add that the Vega G2 has an excellent analogue volume control. If you are only going to use Roon the Vega G2 makes a lot of sense.
seethroughyou
pfm Member
Of course any digital engineer out of the audiophile ring would agree that the clock should be there but then how would the manufacturer justify the extra box and invent a problem that needs a solution? Fear uncertainty and doubt is what these audiobling peddlers rely on. Audiophiles would rather buy a zeptoclock made of unobtabium wrapped in a 20kg milled aluminium box that sparkles and makes other audiophiles weak at knees on forums like this, than buy a sensibly-engineered DAC with a clock sat in the optimum position. In the final analysis, none of this matters in psychoacoustical terms. There is no sonic difference at a double blind level but the 5-digit ‘believers’ want to believe that it makes a ‘night and day veil lifting’ difference let them spend spend spend...it keeps a lot of folk in business.
RossB
Former Member
Show your proof of this statement with the results of a credible double blind trial adopting rigorous protocols on this specific issue or your opinion is worthless.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Tried the two channel version soon after it was released, it is competent, I recollect Kal Rubinson tried the 8 channel version.
Keith
Keith
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Heard this into PSI Audio actives briefly. FWIW I liked the result.
Last edited:
Salamander
pfm Member
I listen to a Rossini and clock but have heard the Merging dac a couple of times at shows and was mightily impressed. When purchasing the dCS we had not heard of the Merging but would love to hear a direct comparison. We initially felt the Merging slightly more detailed.
It’s not that simply in some countries. Like mine for example, there is only one dealer, one, in the whole country I can listen to the MSB range. And I live 2,000 km from it.......... People in the UK are blessed with dealers all over a relatively short distance and home demo. is possible too.
It’s just the way it is unfortunately, yeah, in a perfect world I would be able to home demo everything I am looking at.
seethroughyou
pfm Member
The garden gnomes and fairies at the bottom of my garden make all sorts of RF pollution - you prove the contrary to me first. You’re the one with religious delusional beliefs that are wacky and crazy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You and your chums are the purveyors of FUD-furled expensive boxes that can make fantastical groundbreaking claims. The onus isn’t on me to dispel your magical and delusional framework.
camverton
pfm Member
Why are “objectivists” so aggressive? If you are confident in your assertions than surely a quiet statement of what you consider fact is all that is required. It’s good to have both sides of the debate of course, but suggesting that someone has religious, wacky and crazy beliefs just casts doubt on the veracity of your beliefs.
RossB
Former Member
First, as camverton has said, why so aggressive? Can you not make your point without throwing out insults? Is this what you consider "objective"?
Second, you say I have "delusional beliefs that are wacky and crazy" and that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". What are my claims, exactly? I have actually claimed literally nothing, other than to question your statement. (Leaving aside your logical flaw that extraordinary claims, like any other claims, require only "evidence" not "extraordinary evidence".)
Third, while I have made absolutely no claims, "fantastical groundbreaking" or otherwise, you certainly have. You said "There is no sonic difference at a double blind level". That is a positive claim which clearly suggests that you have evidence that this issue has been subject to a double blind test and that the result was that there was "no sonic difference". So can you please provide a reference to that test? Otherwise, it would appear that you are making up imaginary experiments and then assuming what the outcome of them would be. That is hardly ''objective''. So please provide a reference to this double blind test you have cited otherwise we will have to conclude that your imaginary experiment and its even more imaginary results are part of your ''magical and delusional framework''.