hi mcondon:
i appreciate the distinction between the two versions of the mark 2 upgrade.
the question is will i prefer the 2.02 upgrade to not upgrading at all ??
i know that question cannot be answered definitively, but i notice significant changes accruing from varying digital cable.
the cost of the upgrade may be better allocated to another area in the stereo system. |
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. |
Mrtennis, for some the funds of the upgrade may be better applied towards a state of the art tennis racket. For the rest of us the upgrade is a no brainier. We are enjoying our upgrade every day, some of the best bang for the buck ever in high end audio. Cheers! |
well worth the $$ on every front -- easy to hear, easy to justify |
Mrtennis: I am very sensitive about anything that sounds overly analytical or fatiguing...so I am in the same camp as you. I think the MK2 is a significant improvement over the MK1, so long as you install firmware version 2.0.2 in the MK2. The MK2 DAC using 2.0.2 firmware is more musically involving than the MK1 with better defined bass and better soundstage. In no way is the MK2 worse sounding, fatiguing, or overly analytical. The improvement is very obvious with the PW Transport in my system, although not quite "mind blowing", just substantially better. Mind you, I still think the SQ from the Perfect Wave Transport far exceeds the SQ from other inputs and from the Bridge. The Bridge has not lived up to the hype yet, which may explain why so many PW DACs are for sale. |
hi mcondon:
are you suggesting that the only benefits from the 2.02 board are bass definition and an improvement in staging??
i use either i2s or coax as my input from the pwt to the pwd. |
Question for Jiminia and anyone else: What sonic differences have you heard with the PWD between these input options:
1. Ethernet into the bridge
2. Computer USB to OR5 to PWD via I2S
3. Computer directly to PWD via USB
My main interest is the comparison between 1 and 2 and why they would be meaningfully different, if they are. |
Drubin - here is Jiminias post:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1320430393&openflup&74&4#74
As for why, its simply differences in jitter magnitude and spectrum. Jitter is the #1 performance limiter in digital audio.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Thanks Steve, I had read that but somehow forgot that he covered all that ground. The one missing piece is Ethernet to the bridge. What's the jitter profile of that? |
Drubin - one would have to open-up the PWD and measure this with much care. I have not done this. Even if I did and gave you the spectrum of jitter, what could you glean from that????
Noone has even correlated this kind of measurement with sound quality yet.
IMO, our best measurement tool is our ears. This is after all what we end-up using in this application. Its kind of like designing a software simulator for a car tire design. Helpful of course, but there is nothing like driving on the tires on an obstacle course and wet and snowy roads to find out if they are any good or not.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
I don't really care about the jitter profile, Steve, I was just using your terminology. What I am curious about is the sound of Ethernet into the bridge compared to OR5 into I2S. |
I own an OR5 and a PWD MKII with bridge, so I could do a shoot out. Problem is my system is configured to run through a processor using AEs/EBU so this would be a bit of a hassle. May be I'll get around to it some day. |
Would certainly be interested in the results, if you get around to it. |
Mrtennis: The most noticeable improvements of the MK2 board are bass and soundstage. That is what I noticed in a before/after comparison, not side by side. I will say that I find well-recorded CDs to sound more dialed in, immediate, and absorbing. So, it is likely that more changed than bass and soundstage. Even my wife, who takes little interest in audio, has commented on how the sound quality has improved. (I use the Transport with an HDMI cable, and haven't experimented with other digital connections.) |
What has been really striking to me is how the sound quality of the MK2 Perfect Wave DAC depends so substantially on the firmware used. With an SD card reader, it is quite easy to demo the three versions of the DAC firmware that PS Audio has made available on its forum. Buy a $5 SD card reader at Radio Shack and you can try each version very easily.
Today, I installed and listened to all three firmware versions in succession for about 45 minutes each (with the PW Transport as my sourcee), starting with firmware version 2.1.0. This is the firmware that is shipping with the latest upgrade kits and is factory installed on new MK2 DACs. With 2.1.0, the sound quality is very dynamic and very extended. However, the upper frequencies seem much too forward for my tastes, making the DAC seem somewhat artificial and ultimately fatiguing. The best aspect of 2.1.0 is that bass is really impressive. It is very deep, very resolved, and moves a lot of air. If downstream equipment is fairly warm and you are looking for better bass, this firmware might be a good choice.
I also tried version 2.0.3 today. This version is supposedly similar to version 2.0.2, although 2.0.3 corrects some minor programming issue that affects the S/PDIF input. (I have used the S/PDIF input with all three firmware versions without any difficulty.) Version 2.0.3 is less fatiguing than version 2.1.0, but bass seems overly lean to me. This firmware might work best if you have a powered sub.
Version 2.0.2 in my system still sounds head and shoulders better than the other versions. The mid-range is simply transfixing and the bass is still really solid -- perhaps not as resolved as with version 2.1.0, but still really dynamic and pleasing. With version 2.0.2, everything falls into place so coherently and musically that I stop thinking about equipment altogether and just listen to the music. Vocals really shine with 2.0.2. Image placement also seems better with this firmware.
So, experimentation with firmware (if possible) is definitely worth the effort.
I dare say that opinions of this Perfect Wave DAC in both reviews and in some DAC shootouts I have read about on other forums are probably not very meaningful. I would not like the DAC very much, especially in light of the price, if it was loaded with version 2.1.0 or even version 2.0.3. With version 2.0.2, my guess is that it would beat all comers in the general price range. (I also question the validity of DAC shootouts and reviews when owners compare the Perfect Wave DAC to Weiss, Berkeley, or AMR, using a computer as a source. The Perfect Wave DAC was not designed as a USB DAC. The Perfect Wave DAC has a special synergy with the Perfect Wave Transport, with sound quality leagues better than from other digital sources, including computers, cheap transports, and even PS Audio's Bridge.) |
Great report, Mcondon. The Perfect Wave DAC has a special synergy with the Perfect Wave Transport, with sound quality leagues better than from other digital sources, including computers, cheap transports, and even PS Audio's Bridge There must be a way to equal that special synergy using a computer as the source. It's the same data, you just have to deliver it to the DAC in the same way, right? Would love to hear Paul McGowan's thoughts on this. |
Mcondon, PS audio is specifically positioning the DAC as a network steaming device. The ultimate goal is to get the bridge interface to sound as good as the PWT, which theoretically it should be capable of. I personally went from using the bridge to the AES/EBU interface (I inserted a Trinnov processor in the chain before the PWD MKII), and found the differences between the bridge (I2S) and AES/EBU minimal after the MKII upgrade.
I never fiddled with firmware versions myself, and I am hugely sceptical of assertions about a DAC you would not like with firmware 2.1.0 turning into an unbeatable giant killer DAC with firmware version 2.0.2, but that's just me. |
does anyone have a theory as to why there are so many pwds, for sale, given the availability of upgrades ?? |
Edorr, no reason to be skeptical or to blindly believe my assertions. You can buy an SD card reader at Radio Shack or Best Buy for under $10 and then try each firmware version yourself.
But I am not the only one who notices substantial differences in sound quality among different versions of the firmware. PS Audio's own community forum has a thread on the subject. The vast majority of owners who contributed to that thread preferred 2.0.2 pretty strongly to version 2.1.0. Similarly, Head-Fi has a massive thread about the Perfect Wave DAC, and toward the end, a number of people stated that they preferred the sound of the original MK1 DAC to the MK2 upgrade, finding the latter to be too bright and fatiguing for headphone listening. These folks were told to try 2.0.2 in place of 2.1.0. They then reported back that they were very happy with the upgrade once they had installed 2.0.2.
Mrtennis, I have no idea why so many Perfect Wave DACs have come up for sale here in the last year or two. The most benign explanation is that the Perfect Wave DAC had a very high market share after it was first introduced, so it naturally represents a large share of used sales now. The other possibility is that a fair number of owners are not happy with sound quality or with the complexity of setting up the Bridge + NAS + eLyric, and want something simpler or cheaper. Unfortunately, Audiogon provides a regular reminder that digital equipment is a lousy investment. |
So what firmware is loaded in the original MK I version of this dac?Is it the 2.0.2 you preferred ,or something else.Also how can you identify what firmware your dac has?Considering pulling the plug on both PS units (dac& trans.).Seems like the Mk I would be be to my liking,but then there's the firmware you prefer that might suit my tastes better.
Thanks,
Den |
Mcondon, as you may know from reading through the PSA forums, the only difference between FW 2.0.2 and 2.0.3 was essentially enabling a flag so that pre-emphasized CDs could be properly decoded. If one tries to play a pre-emphasized CD with 2.0.2 it will not decode properly. Other than that they *supposed* to be identical. :-)
I personally have not noticed any significant differences between these two - unlike either of these and 2.1.0. Having said that, the whole issue of sonic differences between FW versions with the PWD is too tough to call. I would not contradict anyone who felt they heard a difference between 2.0.2 and 2.0.3. Paul McGowan and the PSA development team have been dissecting the sound difference problem for a while. I've tried all of them and actually prefer 2.2.0 (which is what is being shipped with the Mk.II upgrade right now), but my system has a detailed yet warm characteristic that may be a better balance for this version than 2.0.2 or .3.
The downside of the 2.0.2/2.0.3 verssions is they do not work completely correctly in NativeX mode. So there's a tradeoff there. IMO NativeX provides greater sonic benefit (in my system) than whatever those versions can add to the sound I'm already getting. |
Tonyptony, according to PS Audio, version 2.0.2 only has a problem with de-emphasis flag decoding for the S/PDIF input, not for any other digital input. So, yeah, you would have a problem if your transport is a CD player connected by coaxial cable to the Perfect Wave DAC. In that case, you can switch to version 2.0.3, which fixes the de-emphasis flag decoding for the S/PDIF input. With all other digital inputs (HDMI, AES/EBU, USB, optical), NativeX works fine in version 2.0.2.
A while back, the topic of one of Paul McGowan's daily e-mails was the mystery surrounding the differences in sound quality between different versions of PS Audio's firmware and software. He wrote, "Fact is weve been struggling with trying to figure out why small changes in the code that runs our products have an impact on the sound quality why folks love one version of software and dislike another. There are many great mysteries concerning sound quality and they only become obvious once you figure them out." (Unfortunately, they have not figured out the mystery yet.) He goes on to write that differences in sound quality "might seem obvious to you but not to our designers since the changes we were making had 'nothing' to do with the data stream or the audio itself. Sometimes a change in the front panel display code would cause a major upset in sound quality." So, even Paul McGowan is admitting that a change to 2.0.2 to fix de-emphasis flag decoding for the S/PDIF input may cause 2.0.3 to sound different than 2.0.2.
In any case, PS Audio does seem to want to resolve this mystery. My only concern is that Paul McGowan has said that he likes version 2.1.0 (now 2.2.0, I guess) better than other versions. Mrtennis elsewhere has said that PS Audio's product revisions tend to make them sound more analytical. So it is by no means certain that their programmers are aiming to replicate the sound quality of 2.0.2 as they continue to revise and refine firmware. As long as they make a number of firmware versions available, as is the case now, I am not overly concerned. I do feel sympathy for people who are buying brand new MK2 DACs, find the sound to be a bit ruthless, and cannot switch to version 2.0.2 because that firmware does not work with the new front panel display of their new MK2 DAC. |
QUOTE "I do feel sympathy for people who are buying brand new MK2 DACs, find the sound to be a bit ruthless, and cannot switch to version 2.0.2 because that firmware does not work with the new front panel display of their new MK2 DAC".
Well, let's see if we can do something about that.
Pls stay tuned. |
Im using 2.03 and will NOT be going back to 2.1 |
Hi Guys
Slightly off topic here. Are you getting the same or maybe better sound out of your computer fed system, than from your (good) CDP?
I am struggling to get close. |
Many of the ultra high end guys are demoing their five and six figure speakers at shows with computer based sources. If there was a compromise they would not do this. So if you don't cut any corners, you will get similar or better quality from a computer source than a CD player. This involves using a good CD ripping program, a dedicated music server, a high grade USB converter (unless you have a DAC with very good USB input), and a good USB cable (not without controversy this one). |
Superior sound from Bryston BDP-1 digital music player to PWD MK II dac compared to even the highest end transport, if:
- Good rips from CD's using DBpoweramp; or
- High quality download from good source; needn't be high res;
- Use the right digicable. Don't stint here, it makes an enormous SQ difference.
I was an Unbeliever, now I am not. Still one, though, as to computer itself as the source or streaming sources, as opposed to direct digital like the BDP-1.
One man's opinion.
Neal |
In case anyone's still reading tis thread, I did upgrade my Teta genVIII to the series 3, and it was a significant improvement. Much more open in the upper frequencies, more detail for sure. Also deeper and more resolving bass. I think a lot of the improvement comes from upgrading the preamp, because my turntable (which I run through the analog inputs) exhibits a lot of the same improvements. I am under the impression that Theta intentionally used a "rich" sounding preamp in the original gen8 to mask any digital harshness, and that now that the digital circuitry is more natural sounding, they can use a more neutral and revealing preamp. |
