PS Audio PerfectWave DAC Upgrade

Edorr:

Texas asked the same question after you already answered him...LOL!!

Very cool indeed, but I hate waiting. I hope this "early announcement" isn't too early. I'll be disappointed if I can't get the upgrade by the end of the year...

I ordered my Mark II upgrade this morning!

The $800 upgrade price tag is a real bargain if you consider what it would cost you to trade the MARK I version in for a new MARK II version. With depreciation, you’d be lucky to get off for $1,500 (plus the trade) and likely even closer to $2,000.

I’m very excited about the upgradability of this unit. Since we will necessarily need to open up the hood to do the upgrade, are there any recommendations for additional tweaking? I know the upgrade comes with a new HiFi Tuning fuse, but I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about further “upgrades?” (there are two fuses in the PWD; does the upgrade include one or two fuses?)...

You're invisible Edorr!!

Mr T, you raise some good points and from your perspective, we will have to wait and see.

The MK II upgrade does add an asynchronous USB path capable of handling up to 24/192. That, while interesting to the computer audiophile, doesn’t mean as much to the dedicated Bridge user, but it is certainly interesting just the same. What is of most interest, is the addition of a new Digital Lens with the “Native X” feature, which will purportedly reduce jitter levels to below 1 pico second.

While reducing (with the goal of eliminating) jitter can never be a bad thing (and in itself, if implemented properly, should not result in a more “digital” sound – as I believe you have some concerns), my concern is that this new lens will have more impact (benefit) on the inputs other than the Bridge (since the Bridge also incorporates a Digital lens). According to Paul McGowan, the new Digital Lens will also benefit the Bridge input (again, we’ll have to wait and see).

According to PS-Audio, additional upgrades and attention have been given to the analog path, with new high speed analog switches replacing the previous saturated logic switches. Additionally, 11 new spot regulators have been added to the circuit layout. Again, according to Paul McGowan, all this new design work is purportedly said to result in a much more analog-like sound than what the MK I version currently provides. And since this would by definition mean “less digital-sounding,” it is here that we PS-A fans and converts put our money – literally.

Well, I hope in the case of the MK II upgrade, that your hypothesis, Mr. T, is not correct. I understand what you are suggesting, but my understanding of jitter is that it typically causes an etched and "tinny-sounding" treble that is often fatiguing due to upper-frequency harshness and often sited as the primary cause of "that digital sound." To me, this has nothing to do with resolution and clarity.

One thing for certain, is that Paul McGowan is an admitted analog guy who still considers good vinyl playback as the standard. He has also said that he prefers the warm "tube-like" sound (when done properly) over even today's typical digital sound. So one can hope that his idea of analog-sounding digital playback is on par with what most audiophiles seek.

It may be marketing hype. Again, we'll have to wait to find out. Certainly though, $800.00 isn't a lot to spend in this hobby and if the outcome is close to what the claims are being made by Mr. McGowan, then it will be money well spent.

I too have the MKII installed. I would, however, classify the differences that I am hearing as subtle, so I want to get a better idea of what to listen for. I would be interested to hear about some specifics regarding what you guys, Levi, Grobec...others, are hearing. What specifically are the immediate and obvious differences that you are referring to?

Thanks,

_Ben

I have the B version. I would love to hear an A/B comparison between the A and the B versions. The A version has a direct "dedicated" interface protocol for the I2S clock cables, while the B version requires an "adapter-type" approach which, from a layman perspective, looks like a more complicated circuit, longer cables and all.

My PWD has never sounded better. I already had exceptional sound-staging, imaging and openness (airiness) with the MKI version. The MKII version does all that in spades, I just don't have the ability to say just how much better the MKII version is since there's no way for me to compare the two.

Some MKII owners (many...most...maybe all but me) are hearing what they call very obvious and immediately noticeable difference. Again, my PWD with MKII upgrade sounds ridiculously good...excellent...I just can't honestly say that I can discern such an obvious and immediate difference. I really want to.

I haven't done any real serious listening since everything should by now be "properly broke-in." I'll do that real soon.

Bottom line, some folks easily shell out $800.00 (easily) for one power cable. At $800 the MKII upgrade is such a no-brainer...

MKII PWD owners, aside from the overall improvements provided by the complete MKII upgrade, more specifically, what is your impression of the difference between Native and NativeX? In doing an A/B between the two (by using the original remote and the new remote controllers) do you hear subtle differences or do you hear a really noticeable difference?

Levy:

I absolutely love the sound of my system. I am getting a marvelous sound-stage with lots of air around individual instruments. I am not getting any sense of fatigue, even after long listening sessions. As I have reported on the PSA forum, I believe that I can hear subtle differences between the MKI and MKII versions - especially in the areas of "space" and imaging.

The only thing is, I just don't hear an immediately recognizable difference when I do an A/B comparison between Native and NativeX. It doesn't jump out at me. If there is a difference, it is the kind of difference that I will need to discern over time. My point in asking the question is because I keep reading the reports from others that they hear this very noticeable difference between the two...?? When I read these comments, I can't help but wonder if there is something wrong with my MKII board. Maybe it's just me...!!!

Lewhite.

Native is indeed a bypass of the SRC. NativeX indeed benefits from the new "Digital Lens" built into the new MKII board. I'm not sure of the exact protocol.

I assume that NativeX also bypasses the SRC. What I don't know for sure, but what I also assume to be true, is that the new digital lens is an active component in the signal path (i.e.: that you don't necessarily bypass it when NativeX is not activated - what would be the point of bypassing such an integral component of the new board...?). So my guess is - someone correct me if I'm wrong - that the signal is always routed through the new "Digital Lens," while NativeX bypasses the SRC (as does Native)...??

I'm not sure about my aforementioned assumptions as stated in the above post. I have posed over at PS Audio to confirm/verify...

Well, the posts over at the PS forum indicate that the new Digital Lens is only engaged when NativeX is activated. My assumptions were therefore incorrect.

Lewhite:

Native - or NativeX - does not affect/impact the bit rate or the sample rate. Trans-coding only impacts the CODEC (FLAC to WAV).

So, yes it does matter what "rez" you stream from the SS. The higher rez will (should) sound better than lower rez material (24/192 vs 16/44.1). Native/NativeX does not alter the bit/sample rates - it simply bypasses any filters or SRC...

MrTennis:

Based on what I have read of your posts/threads, I truly believe that you would be thrilled with the improvement the MKII upgrade provides compared to the MKI version. Bass control may indeed be improved - as suggested by Mcondon, but what I notice most is the increased sense of air and the openness of the overall sound stage (a better definition of the combined total - i.e.: a more spacious, more involving overall presentation offering better tonal balance and timbre).

The MKII is clearly better than the MKI, but it is not a night and day difference for most people. Since you can discern clear differences between digital cables, the MKII upgrade will be a very noticeable improvement for you. It's smoother if anything. Definitely not more clinical.