chrille

Hello and interesting to read that you have used a recording I can both relate to and which although not exactly being purist simply mic´d, at least can serve as some kind of reference point to how large scale acoustic music tends to sound in a real hall one of the most challenging tasks for any HIFI system to cope with. I have never been to Disney Hall where DGG recorded this album with the LAPO and Esa Pekka Salonen conducting, but it happened to be the very last recording that DGG released as an SACD disc. And I happended to be covering some rehearsals and live concerts in Stockholm as photographer at that time and heard the same music live and interviewed Esa Pekka about this recording which he quite enthusiastically recommended as an example of how he generally hears things from his conductor´s podium. But I think you may have quoted a few tech fact things wrong about it in your review? And also possibly got a couple of technical facts regarding the T&A wrong? There is as far as I know no such format as 24/28? The native recording like most of DGG´s recordings in recent times is a native 24/96 pcm recording. I have never auditioned the "effect" of converting native pcm to high rate DSD as HQ Player does ,but thanks to Rajiv aka Austinpop who very kindly PGGB´d it from the cd layer of my SACD copy I also find it quite impressive upscaled to 24/705khz PCM especially by DGG standards, via my humble Chord Qutest and both via my electrostatic speakers and via headphones. I do not strongly belong in any particular camp : PCM versus DSD but according to Rob Watts DSD as a digital format is "fundamentally flawed". Anyway, if and when opportunity to audition the T&A arise I will "lend it an ear" . Cheers Chrille

Hello Austin,Nice review again and honestly, although I have not yet auditioned the SR-X9000 I would have been a bit surprised if you would have preferred the 009 over it. I am not surprised that they have tamed the slight brightness/thinness of the 009 and quite possibly pushed the electrostatic principle to SOTA level where the electrostatic principle really shines ie RESOLUTION Direct comparisons with the RAAL would have been interesting too.But you did not hang on to that one right? But to me it remains together with my old Jecklin Float electrostats possibly the most open and unfettered sounding headphone on the market. And although I also realize that you also need to reach out to many tastes, I personally basically only would have needed that ONE VERY important sentence about Classical Music. There is imo NO more demanding task for any link in a HIFI chain than to try to reproduce the tonal and timbral complexity of a full Symphony orchestra which in works as Mahler´s 8th also contains some of the largest Dynamic Range in all of Music, ranging from a mere whisper to VERY VERY LOUD indeed. But with electrostatic speakers like my MLs the Achilles heel is dynamics or rather loudness. Does it really cope with Mahler climaxes without breaking a sweat? My speakers do not. But sound sublime with Indian Classical. And I would NOT at all recommend electrostatic headphones or speakers to people who mainly listen to Electronica or generally loud Rock and POP music. But for those who know how unamplifed acoustic instruments and the human voice actually sound live and strive for that imo ultimate HIFI reference point also in their HIFI system ,again imo, the electrostatic principle is one of, and possibly even THE most transparent way to reproduce live acoustic music. PS. I take it for granted that your praise of the SR-X9000 also equally well extends to other genres we have in common like Indian /Asian Classical and World Music. Cheers Chrille

Interesting post. I use an Mscaler with my Qutest dac and to me with it sounds better and more relaxed and less "digitally sharp" than without the Mscaler. But I have questions regarding the Mscaler and Qutest which I am running via older macs with standard usb 2 ports. Is Mscaler also easily compabile with the newer Macbook Airs M1 and M2 which only have two thunderbolt connection ports but no older standard USB 2 in? Are there a cables that have standard USB 2 out from the dac and Mscaler but thunderbolt in at the laptop end? Or would I have to get some kind of adapter/ docking box to make things work as on my older very soon to be retired mbp 2011 with Snowleopard? This is one of the few online sites that still works via Snowleopard so I desperately need to upgrade to a newer more modern computer both for the Web in general and possibly for PGGB or HQP. Grateful for informed responses to my queries.

Hmm, interesting development and big change to your system, but if I understand this article correctly you are now saying that a conventional dac chip based NOS? dac with a chip that is out of production? is what you now prefer over Dave with PGGB? And also that PGGB that both you and Romaz used to rave about is not as important as the sum of the parts in this equation? Confusing to me. And when you say this, do you or Romaz or Vinnie? also have any reference recordings where you have direct reference to live sound in the hall versus recorded ? Then again, with all the hazzle involved with using PGGB I have still not bought into that, mainly because of the weird track length limitations involved. The Mahler 5 first movement you so kindly helped my process breaking into two parts around the 12 minute mark was VERY annoying. The last thing I want is a break in a symphonic movement with an audible glitch via my players. And all the hazzle to stitch things together correctly with most of the music I listen to. But that M5 is one of several other large scale symphonic music recordings in my masterfiles collection where I was actually there during the recording sessions both in the hall and control room. And although I still think that upscaling or maybe even better actually record at 32/768khz can be beneficial to the end result in a good enough system I am also waiting to get to hear what Rob Watts has "up his sleeve" with the upcoming X Mscaler later this year,so I would absolutely not count out his tech solutions quite yet. Or have dac chips really become THAT good? Brama? You should have informed him how to spell it correctly before release? Cheers Chrille

Hmm I guess I did miss your point a bit, but since you mentioned that you do work with live classical music recordings I thought you might want to use as reference point how close to live PGGB or any other upsampling or recording method can get rather than using an LP as starting point and adding yet another ADC into the equation? To me your test reminds me a bit of " crossing the brook to fetch water". I am of course ,like you fully aware that the sound varies a LOT depending on both where you are and how you record things: But at the end of the day and in my book the goal of HIFI should be to get as close as possible to how real acoustic unamplifed instruments and the human voice generally/normally sound in a good hall. Lots of variables involved absolutely, but still a violin should ideally sound as close to a real violin as possible shouldn´t it? Ok different violins sound different depending on a lot of things, make, player, steel or gut strings,repertoire hall and what not, and some modern composers even seem to compose against the instrument instead of for it! "Qoute Isabelle Faust" but they also all sound like violins not violas or cellos. Until SACD and hi res digital entered the scene digital often made it difficult to distinguish between them in densely scored passages. Regarding LP versus digital, violin is certainly one of the instruments digital has struggled most to reproduce close to how it really sounds under shall we say reasonably natural live circumstances is the violin imho. And yes although Mscaler and now PGGB have improved things considerably compared to cd ,I can sometimes also feel that a good old LP played on a good system captures violin sound maybe even better in some respects than our digital toys can. No sampling rates or bit numbers involved, no added digital artifacts or digital filtering, just what a good tape recorder or even better imho, a direct cut LP captured. PS Sorry for asking once again but what LP did you use in your comparison ? I am genuinely curious. Finally when you mention that the LP sounded better than BOTH digital versions I still assume your reference point, when saying so relates to how as a "trained listener" you consciously or not, know live instruments sound compared to recorded? Or what else could make you prefer the LP? Mit Freundlichen Grüssen Chrille

Very interesting review and thanks for alerting me to Kivy. It seems he has even dared to write a book titled "De Gustibus" among many other interesting titles. I´ll definitely have to find some of his works once my nearest Univerity library is fully open again. Meanwhile I carry within two quotes from Beethoven: "Vom Herzen möge es wieder zu Herzen gehen" and, "Musik ist höhere Offenbahrung als alle Weisheit und Philosophie." Cheers Chrille

Hmm, I suspect you still consider LP a better reference point than the actual live sound in the hall? What recording did you use? If it was a classical LP, there is a chance I may have it in my still over 10 shelf meters LP collection now mainly collecting dust since I got my Mscaler. Cheers Chrille

Hi I agree regarding macrodynamics, very loud big dynamic peaks are not what electrostats thrive at. And yes I too used to own a pair of huge HORN coffins which could play much louder than my current electrostats can. But like all horns I have heard including the truly big Avantgarde Trios,they are just a bit too colored for my "acoustic music only please" ears. One of the best speakers I have heard with really large scale acoustic music where the Gryphon Pendragons,but they are way beyond both my wallet and room capacities. My compromise electrostats both economically and dynamically sound quite nice with PGGB and I can play my PGGB test tracks a bit louder than normal hi res. And at 1 metre 85 centimetres, taller than me I can stand at my listening position and conduct along without having to be a "couch potato" all day. Cheers Chrille

Thanks for your input Nick, the problem I have experienced with the only over 4GB track split into two parts is occuring seemingly at random, and it is not because I have not engaged gapless play. As a mainly classical music listener that was one of the first things I did years ago with both players on my MBP. I have now also figured out how to play both 24/705 and 32/768 PGGB via Pure Music. But I can´t figure out why that player insists on playing PGGB from disk instead of memory/ram as Audirvana does. My normal hi re files load into ram. Both my players are early versions but I have kept them for one reason, both allow me to load only proxy files not the full file size in my iTunes library. Audirvana dropped that VERY smart and useful function long ago, a very stupid move on their part imho. With only Proxy files in iTunes I can keep most of my hi res files on two 2TB each portable harddrives and play those files loaded into ram without having my internal harddrive filled. Cheers Chrille

Thanks again, while I do wish the answer was 42! if we are still "talking cents" here, I am happy to hear that there is not an 11 minute time limit involved. And if you could work out a reasonable cost alternative that sounds even better to me for the time being that would be great. But the random weird glitches with the only bigger than 4 gig limit testfile I have are still a problem with my players. Why does there have to be a 4 GB track limit with PGGB? And if so, could you recommend a player/solution that works around this problem with my current music players still using my old MBP. I definitely want to be able to listen through a whole symphonic movement without any such glitches disturbing my musical enjoyment. Cheers Chrille

Hello Romaz, just a quick question after all these discussion around digital room correction . Why did you sell your elctrostatics and go for speakers with 4? problematic crossover points over just one crossover point? The only real problem I heard with the 15s you had was the built-in class D bass- amp and the crossover point there. With classical music I prefer electrostatic panels line-source over most conventional speakers I have heard even the most expensive. Ok if someone would give me a pair of Gryphon Pendragons or similar giants for free, I would not say no, but I might prefer ML XL Art elctrotats with a good subwoofer for the deep underworld Bach organpoints or Zarathustra 33khs bass even over those? Cheers Chrille

Hello again ZB, I have some questions about the PGGGB IO you have started. First of all why only 11 minutes per track? And how much would those 11 minutes actually cost to process? Please do the actual calculation for me. As a classical music listener I have big problems finding classical music tracks THAT SHORT! I normally listen to whole works,not short snippets. Snippets and intros only, are "me" at the piano. With real competent musicians at the helm, I want the full Monty! Most symphonies consist of at least four movements each lasting at least 12-15 minutes, and even if one movement is shorter like in Sibelius´2nd where the 3rd movement is relatively short the last movement is supposed to be played attacca ie without any break. But the M5 Austinpop kindly helped me with the first movement lasting 12.48 minutes was split in two with the last 27 seconds ending up as a separate PGGB file which I can only play via one of my music players without a very annoying glitch. To be able to play whole symphonies without such annoying problems it seems I will need to upgrade ram in my mbp to its max capacity 16GB at least! But what happens if 16GB ram is not even enough with really long symphonic works played from ram? Happy Bob and other classical music listeners please also chime in. Cheers Chrille

Like you obviously I also used to have problems with classical and digital and classical muisc both Western and Eastern is the music I truly love but Mscaler improved things quite considerably for me even to the point of enjoying many cds, which I could not do before Mscaler. So far I have only one cd rip/ PGGBd but it takes cd one noticable notch higher than even Mscaler in my humble Qutest /Mscaler based digital systems. But I have only compared Mscaler/PGGB via usb so far and would like to hear from another classical music listener if the SRC-DX might be the way to go? I am a bit puzzled how going from 32 bits to 24 bits can improve things, but I keep an open mind.

Hello Hans, a couple of things I have wanted to ask you are why you would want to involve analogue tape and now record LPs? when comparing Mscaler with PGGB? In your post you mentioned that you are a trained listener also doing video work with classical music. Did you upload music where you have direct reference to how the music played and recorded actually sounded to you live in the hall? If so I would say that is a MUCH BETTER reference point in real HIFI terms than involving tape or LPs in the comparison. Like you I am also a photographer who has worked with some classical labels as photographer and thanks to Austinpop here I can now compare Mscaler and PGGB with the first movement of Mahler´s 5th as recorded by Jared Sacks in DSD 64 in Budapest a few years ago. I can play this recording in various ways both via headphones and electrostatic speakers, and my pecking order in my systems, would on a rising scale be : cd via a normal cd player not very good. No ordinary cd player or direct cd rip even via expensive Steamers like Innous did this recording justice imho. And the same applied to playing via ROON, which turnedinto quite a muddy a mess out via an otherwise VERY competent system in one of the best showroooms I know. In my own system,SACD disc via my SACD player better than plain cd, but cd layer of the same SACD disc and Mscaler/Qutest clearly better than SACD disc and much better than plain cd. Next up DSD dff via my mbp/usb Mscaler close to cdlayer upscaled with /Mscaler. And finally Qutest direct via usb and PGGBd even more enjoyable and the closest to how I actually heard things live in the hall and a couple of times in the control room during a week of sessions. Not big differences I guess many would not hear most of them unless they where actually in the hall, luckily I WAS and all week. And there are some very telling moments in this recording where PGGB seems to pick up very, very low level details in the scoring a bit better than even Mscaler. Around the 3,5 minutes to 4,25 minutes marks there are some cymbal brushes soooo low in level that they are partly hidden in noise on many systems I have heard this recording via, and trust me they are many ranging from DAPS and headphones to huge MEGABUCK systems. Regarding the perceived brightness you mention I have to say that via headphones I prefer the PGGB version via my old battered HD800 headphones over my HEKV2 via both of my headphone amps.My most neutral headphone amp being the Benchmark DAC2 HGC headphone amp which I bought after hearing it together with HD800 as monitoring tools at some other recording sessions for another label But I suspect the reason HEKV2 makes it sound a bit overbright is not a fault of PGGB but possibly that PGGB makes a certain presence lift in those headphones more audible than my damped HD800 does. Via my electrostatic speakers the PGGB version also sounds a little bit cleaner and more enjoyable and than Mscaled too. To hear my humble Qutest DAC sound this good on its own ,without an Mscaler is a nice surprise. Cheers Chrille

Hello Roy, nice to see a post from you again here,and having seen your very nice and clean looking living room with the comment "I am not allowed..." I just could not resist attaching a close up shot of the equipment end of my own dedicated "Man-cave" living and music room. Warts and all! Sorry about the crappy shot, but this is the way it looks most of the time I am single now, but several of my girlfriends have had to cope with living rooms like this and even worse ones, for many years. One of them used to comment to visiting friends of hers "Oh those two BIG black coffins in the corners are not housing our dead parents, they are my boyfriend´s Horn Speakers". Like you I also wish I had a room like the one Magico has, but better furnished than theirs. I would not like to be seated on those wooden chairs behind or even the old armchair. I have a nice comfy recliner armchair to control things from. One of the best listening rooms I know of and quite similar to Magico´s is AV Intelligence´s very nice room at the Adelphi in Singapore. But in my "Man-cave" living room I also have both a fireplace like you, and a piano. My speakers are positioned about 4 metres apart along the short wall so I can listen to Mahler at full blast from about 5 metres away in my listening chair or even standing when I feel like really conducting along. Both one side wall and the bookshelves behind me are full of LPs, books and more cds. The other wall houses my big fireplace If you are allowed to? You might experiment with placing your speakers at the windowed short wall end of your room. I am sure your wife would not appreciate to have to squeeze into her lviening room with a speaker blocking her way? BUT Bass needs space to breathe. You seem to be quite close to your speakers from that sofa? I tried having mine on either side of my fireplace too, almost identical to yours but I got much better more balanced SQ the other way. Cheers Chrille