fahadm

Hello, Thanks to the OP, I got my 24-bit FLAC copy today and compared it against the 16-bit WAV. Here are my comments: 1. Both 16-bit and 24-bit versions have the SAME analog compression. The Prism Orpheus RMS display was mostly yellow/orange, but never red, indicating high compression. So unfortunately, both are LOUD (albeit tastefully done). 2. Both versions are 44.1 khz. 3. The 24-bit sounds better than the 16-bit. Improvements include added "air" around instruments, especially guitars, cymbals, drums and backing vocals. Also, all sorts of little details "came out", which I previously didn't notice. 4. The image has more depth. I can hear instruments such as drums moving to the rear, and guitars/vocals coming to the front. 5. I didn't expect that adding 8 more bits would have such an impact to the sound on (arguably) the same master. I can conclude that the 16-bit CD format is perpetually flawed no matter how much $$$ or DACs you throw at it. 16 bits don't cut it!!! THERE IS NO SUBSTITUE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Why can't the record labels understand that audiophiles want 24-bit vinyl masters? Can't they get it? How come MFSL (Mofi) gets it and no one else in the pop/rock genre?

Let's hope that the WAV is 24 bit and/or 48/96 khz (or higher). I also hope that the WAV is not too compressed (in the analog domain).

Hello, Just to answer some of your questions: 1) I don't believe that the Prism volume can be integrated with anything at all other that Prism's own software application. I'm using Pure Music on a Mac mini, and I physically get up to adjust the volume every once in a while (which isn't terrible after all). Note that Pure Music has its own software volume control, but I feel that Prism's volume control is superior to Pure Music. Maybe others have a volume control 'solution'. 2) I did a little A/B testing (with linestage and direct into Manley tube monoblocks). My linestage was a Monarchy M24 with 1976 Amprex 6DJ8 tubes. Naturally, there was a difference in sound. The linestage sounded 'warmer/tubier', and direct more 'open/revealing'. The differences are minor and not significant, but I can discern little variations as I'm familiar with the system and specific recordings. In the end I ordered custom cable lengths and connected directly into the monoblocks. I preferred the transparency of direct connection. Difference in quantitative terms? Maybe around 1-2%. 3) No way to hibernate it. The Prism will stay switched on indefinitely and will never to go 'sleep'. You can't configure it to 'sleep' anywhere in settings. FWIW, the Orpheus is a studio appliance, not designed for domestic use, and a bit of a hassle to use without a PC/Mac. For example, you can't change inputs (e.g. CD, Firewire, Phono). All sources will play together (get mixed) if they're outputting simultaneously. The upside that it sounds heavenly; like a live mic-feed rather than a converter. Good luck.

To obtain best sonIc performance, the ethernet cable has to be made with core silver wire that is quadruple shielded and suspended from the ground via marble anti-resonance grips. The termination must be 24 karat gold and you'll find arrows indacting signal flow. This cable comes in various lengths up to 3meters and indivdually signed and certified. Tests indicate better imaging, less digital harshness and real life dynamics. Prices start at usd 1,299 per meter for an introductory period only. So grab em while you can. These are made by us for vvip customers.

Thank you for sharing initial results. IMHO, the Orpheus excels in clocking/jitter management. That's why the sound is so open and natural, especially with properly recorded acoustics/vocals. It gets very involving, even through SPDIF. I tried very hard to fix the Monarchy's jitter blues (even bought 2 generations of Monarchy's DIP), but never succeeded in removing jitter. Shoot-out part 2 FORECAST (only): Orpheus vs Metric Halo = Metric Halo wins Orpheus vs Weiss DAC 2 = Orpheus wins Orpheus vs Naim DAC = Orpheus wins Orpheus vs Weiss DAC 202 = tie Orpheus vs Bryston = Orpheus wins Great stuff

Thank you, in advance, for a dream shoot-out. My bet is on the Prism (i have a cool monarchy M24 with a pair of 20 bit Burr Brown PCM63). Firewire can have an advantage over spdif. Best Fahad

I completely ignored the production cost of aspects such as casing. I focused excessively on active components such as DAC chips without consideration to aesethtics/volume/economies of scale. FWIW, while the Linn CD12 is one of the finest CD players I have ever heard, I wish that Linn made a 'plastic' version retaining the same sound quality (minus the gorgeous case/aesthetics) and positioned it for higher production volume. Oh wait, isn't that what pro gear does? Best Fahad

LOL....yes, thanks for the spell check

The audiophile business IMHO has some analogies with the luxury business, albeit at lower margins. Take for example a digital stack like the Esoteric or Linn CD12 and see how much the chips, power supplies, etc cost and you'll realize when adding up that they shouldn't cost as much as being charged. The most expensive Burr Brown chips are about USD20-30 retail. Manufacturers get heavy quantity discounts. As for my expertise, I have a bachelors in computer engineering and designed my first d/a and d/a in 1994 for a university project (which didnt sound too bad as I got advice from the faculty). I know how much electronic componenets cost and know my way with a soldering iron. You really don't need a 2nd mortgage for silicon and copper components. And kindly refrain from attacking every post I make as youve been since i joined this forum. Everyone has a right to express their opinion. So cut it out. If you have something personal against me take lets discuss it in person or over the phone. I own and use daily the stuff I refer to and have a benchmark for the past 20 years. When you do the same lets talk. So what's YOUR experience???

Hello It seems that the audio manufacturers are split into two distinct camps. MARKETING CAMP are those companies that produce different products each at a price point offering 'superior' performance. Linn for example sells budget, middle, premium and super-premium components, each targeting a different buyer segment. I auditioned a number of Linn CD players in one demo, from the USD 1,500 Genki to the USD 20,000 Sondek CD12. While the marginal cost of making a CD12 is slightly higher than a Genki (maybe a few hundred dollars more) but the marketing wizards at Linn ingeniously priced the CD12 at a price point that attracts a certain type of buyer. Luis Vitton is another MARKETING seller that in the words of some of its executives are selling 'dreams' to consumers. Net profit margin on Luis Vitton products is around 95%. The other camp is the ENGINEERING CAMP where companies strive to produce products in the highest quality without attempting to 'cripple' budget lines in order to target different segments or price points. Prism is one of those companies who do not compromise on sound quality and does not differentiate between products. This camp is pragmatic in pricing given that the buyers are sophisticated and more rational than the 'luxury' consumer who base their decisions on emotional needs/wants (e.g. Ladies going after a limited edition LV). Weiss is succumbing to the allure of luxury retail where products are being developed/crippled to fill target price points/consumer segments in the audiophile market. That is, by producing a tweaked product for every budget, segment and market. Weiss is more pragmatic in the pro line where it competes for the minds (and ears) or recording engineers. That's when you see more realistic prices and quality/uncompromised products. So its not fair to judge Weiss through the intentionally crippled, lower-end, audiophile line. A fair comparison would be to listen to Weiss' pro offerings and benchmark against the likes of DAD/Prism. May we wake up one day and find that the world has gotten rid of all marketing hype, inefficiencies, scams and psychacoustic dream-selling. May the ENGINEERING CAMP uncover all those who exploit the unsuspecting consumer. May the demons of marketing cease their deceipt. I know that many will be upset by these words, but use your own ears to judge before you attack and research the cost of components before you defend the hype.

Congratulations on getting the SHL5. I got my pair in 2008 and immediately my search for speakers ended. Very musical and involving, but doesn't have the best imaging in the world. Harbeth state that they've designed the SHL5 for 5th/6th row seating where a 'wash of sound' is presented to the listener. Prior to the SHL5, I had a pair of Acoustic Energy AE1 reference monitors (1999). Those were the domestic version of the studio-designed line and my first taste of pro gear. A hi-fi dealer in London told me that nothing can touch them at the price range (they were heavily discounted at the time). Very transparent sound, but can be too revealing if one wants to relax. At the time I was using Linn solid state components (entry-line though). Also heard various pro Firewire interfaces back in 2006 (not in my system though). I was very impressed with the Apoggee and couldn't believe that a MacBook/Apoggee Firewire combo can trump expensive audiophile CD players (e.g. Meridian). A friend who's a recording engineer tried to convince me in 2006 to get a pro DAC which was on sale at EURO 699 direct (I think it was a DAD). One of the most stupid things I did was NOT to listen to him because I thought that its too 'cheap' to beat an audiophile DAC-Pre. The pro DAC didn't look impressive at all and hated the 'silly' rack-mountable 'ears'. Not to mention that it didn't have a 'remote' nor a 'volume' control. He repeated his point a few times and I was as stubborn as hell. If I knew then what I know now

...on discovering/reaffirming the merits of pro gear. Given that musicians and engineers scrutinize their gear because its their source of income/living, I have more faith in pro-oriented products delivering the goods. I'm not saying that audiophile gear is snake oil, but pro gear has a much higher probability of being far better in performance and value. Best, Fahad

I did a bit of research and found that Forssell makes digital boards for other manufacturers such as Manley. This may well indicate that Forssell is very respected in the design of digital converters.

Two comments: (A) If primary usage will be computer audio, then I'd recommend that you stop using the HiFace (which I already own) and consider Firewire. It seems that Firewire was designed to serve high bandwidth, low-latency multimedia devices (e.g. digital video, digital audio, etc...), while USB was designed for low-bandwidth peripherals (e.g. mice, keyboards, etc...). So Firewire is the interface of choice for video/audio, IMHO. BTW, the HiFace killed the sparkle/excitement in my system. It could be due to this oscillator part change. and; (B) If you can go the Firewire route 'easily' (i.e. using a Mac), then consider the Metric Halo ULN-2 (around $1700). Or get a used Forrsell DAC (which is even better) and let it deal with the jitter.

Hello Barry It seems that you touched upon a very important aspect about how music is captured and recorded. I fully agree with you and Frank that 'live' (i.e. single-take) recording have qualities such as coherence and 'truthfulness' that could be somewhat 'lost' in a 'layered' mix (where each performer/band member records on his/her own later to be mixed). Thats why many listeners prefer a "live and flawed" recording over a studio version. FWIW, I mean by flawed little quirks by performers that are retaken individually. Another important aspect that you're hinting is the 'minimalist' recording technique. It's true that many recording engineers record each instrument on its own track, sometimes, with 'unrealistic' mic placement (e.g. mic under piano lid). All this mixing via consoles introduce additional layers/veils between the listener and the performance. I've had a look at your recording session for "Lift" and what you've is done is absolutely wonderful. That is, a faithful recording of a performance in a 'real' venue (rather than artificial, studio-mixed, overly-complex setup). I'm sure that this technique makes the experience far more involving for the listener. One only hopes that more engineers, record labels and artists agree to record in the 'purist' fashion like what you're doing. Unfortunately, recording quality is deteriorating because 'many' record labels and artists are attempting to maximize sales through 'loud' and seemingly 'perfect' recordings, even if those recordings are mixed, compressed and auto-tuned to death. While we have veered off-topic somewhat, but the posts contributed by everyone are extremely valuable and paint a fuller picture of both the (a) recording and (b) audio reproduction industries. To conclude this thread, maybe there is a 'slight' majority that agrees that dollar for dollar, 'properly' recorded music will sound better on pro gear than audiophile gear. That is, with a budget of say $2,000, pro DACs will sound closer to the original performance than $2,000 audiophile DACs. I'm not insinuating that pro companies are better or worse engineers than audiophile-only companies, but the pro business model is more economically-efficient (i.e. distribution channels, economies of scale, home-trial, level of support, etc...). Thanks to everyone who read, commented, contributed, shared their knowledge/experience. It was very informative for many of us. Best, Fahad