HIFICRITIC audio review magazine
HIFICRITIC FORUMS
Current Issue
HIFICRITIC
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Simon C  
#1 Posted : 22 October 2022 12:16:17(UTC)
Simon C


Rank: HIFI Novice

Joined: 10/05/2013(UTC)
Posts: 39
United Kingdom
Location: Norfolk

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hello Forum, I have some questions for Martin, after reading the Rossini review (anyone
else is welcome to contribute too, of course). My questions are about
the description of the listening tests of the mappers and filter settings. These
choices are not well described by dCS (even less well for the Vivaldi than for the Rossini),
and I was hoping for some illumination from the review. My questions are really
for clarification:

First, the reference for the comparisons is "Straight CD 16/44.1". The review says
that "invoking Map 1 was now marked down at 90%". My understanding is that every
digital signal being processed by the Ring DAC entails the use of a mapper and
a filter. If so, what mapper and filter were used to for this Straight CD audition?

Second, what was the signal source for the DXD and DSD upsampling
auditions items 2-4? Was it the same 16/44.1 input from the CD player?

Third, the choice of mapper: Map 1 is the most highly rated of the three, but
Map 3 was used for all the comparative tests. Why was that? (If it was me, it
would have been because I had left the mapper setting on 3 by mistake...)

Fourth, filters: I also wish dCS didn't provide so many. Am I right in thinking
that you found DXD upsampling generally unconvincing? From the review it appears
that DXD/Map 3/F1 was not favoured, and therefore no further DXD auditions were
carried out.

Last, I don't understand the difference between the filter evaluations in item (4)
"DSD Processing on Map 3" and item (5) "DSD Upsampling", which also used Map 3. In
the latter case the source is 16/44.1 material, but for the former case it isn't stated.
Is it a DSD recording that was streamed to the Rossini? Would you explain, please?
Some of the evaluations under these two headings are very different (for the same filter
settings). Comment on this would be helpful.

Simon.

Edited by user 25 October 2022 08:04:56(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked Simon C for this useful post.
ashandger on 04/11/2022(UTC)
Offline dsyzling  
#2 Posted : 24 October 2022 16:38:04(UTC)
dsyzling


Rank: HIFI Newbie

Joined: 25/04/2021(UTC)
Posts: 1
United Kingdom
Location: London

Simon - I'm glad you raised because I had similar thoughts/questions reading the review, hopefully Martin can clarify the testing process and settings used.
Offline en1omb  
#3 Posted : 30 October 2022 09:10:11(UTC)
en1omb


Rank: HIFI Guru

Joined: 27/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 347
Location: Bristol

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Me too! My only guess on the comparison of straight from cd to mapper 1 was that the mapper 1 comment was related to streaming being the source, rather than a cd transport.
Offline ashandger  
#4 Posted : 04 November 2022 22:20:21(UTC)
ashandger


Rank: HIFI Addict

Joined: 14/04/2011(UTC)
Posts: 110
Location: Ireland

Thanks: 2 times
Simon, many thanks for raising these excellent questions. I am confused as well! Would also like to know which CD transport Martin used and how was it connected to the DAC? Looking forward to Martin's feedback.
Offline Martin Colloms  
#5 Posted : 26 November 2022 16:55:18(UTC)
Martin Colloms


Rank: Moderator

Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 3,077

Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 48 post(s)
>
> Hello Forum, I have some questions for Martin, after reading the Rossini review (anyone
> else is welcome to contribute too, of course). My questions are about
> the description of the listening tests of the mappers and filter settings. These
> choices are not well described by dCS (even less well for the Vivaldi than for the Rossini),
> and I was hoping for some illumination from the review. My questions are really
> for clarification:
>
> First, the reference for the comparisons is "Straight CD 16/44.1". The review says
> that "invoking Map 1 was now marked down at 90%". My understanding is that every
> digital signal being processed by the Ring DAC entails the use of a mapper and
> a filter. If so, what mapper and filter were used to for this Straight CD audition?


>>>the factory default , ie no alternative selection of mapping and filtering
>
> Second, what was the signal source for the DXD and DSD upsampling
> auditions items 2-4? Was it the same 16/44.1 input from the CD player?


>>>> Yes
>
> Third, the choice of mapper: Map 1 is the most highly rated of the three, but
> Map 3 was used for all the comparative tests. Why was that? (If it was me, it
> would have been because I had left the mapper setting on 3 by mistake...)

>>>>As I recall, we explored the available settings in a logical order,

not all Maps had all settings


>
> Fourth, filters: I also wish dCS didn't provide so many.

> agreed ,

> Am I right in thinking
> that you found DXD upsampling generally unconvincing?

> agreed , in the context of a CD original, live feed from a player


> From the review it appears
> that DXD/Map 3/F1 was not favoured, and therefore no further DXD auditions were
> carried out. Is that correct?

> >>>>>Yes , we ran out of time

> Last, I don't understand the difference between the filter evaluations in item (4)
> "DSD Processing on Map 3" and item (5) "DSD Upsampling", which also used Map 3. In
> the latter case the source is 16/44.1 material, but for the former case it isn't stated.
> Is it a DSD recording that was streamed to the Rossini? Would you explain, please?

All were CD

>>> The evaluations were so extensive we began to look for pattens in the processing
> Some of the evaluations under these two headings are very different (for the same filter
> settings). Comment on this would be helpful.


>>>It was surprising how much the sound quality and character changed with settings , but for musical involvement an absence of processing was a preference .


>>>>>How much salt would you like sir ? Actually , none at all.


> Also, and this isn't in the post, I would like to understand the numerical scale used for evaluation.
> Some dCS owners find the filter differences readily discernable, others rather less so. Given that we
> are not talking 'night and day' differences, what does (for example) a 60% score mean? Would it be
> best to interpret the score in terms of a ranking of sound quality rather than an absolute measure?

>>>>>>>>> The measure is approximate but offers some relativity. It helps the testers crystallise their opinion.

Otherwise, reading back the results, they would not as well differentiated.

But 60% of the reference means roughly 40% less musically enjoyable, less involving , poorer timed , sometimes with odd timbre emphases etc.... It was a revelation to hear how some filter combinations really damaged the sense of pace and of syncopated timing on Prince, raw CD format

unexpectedly so...


Martin



Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Follow HIFICRITIC Email HIFICRITIC follow HIFICRITIC on Twitter Follow HIFICRITIC on Facebook