[jwes]

Hi all,

I'm trying to figure out which way to go with a couple of promising but different approaches.  Has anyone been able to compare the PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC/Bridge with Clayton Shaw's spatial systems approach?

It may be too early for this, but just thought I'd check it out.  In lieu of direct comparisons, has anyone experienced either of these directly and/or have thoughts on the benefits of the two approaches?  Very different as the Spatial approach uses correction on the source file, etc...

Jim

[ted_b]

Jim,
They are somewhat apples and oranges, in that the PWD is a DAC, and Clayton's system set is more about a holistic approach to room correction (with associated necessary DAC, picking from a list).  The Orpheus, by the way, one of Claytons options, is an amazing DAC and up there with Metric Halo LIO-8 (my fave under $5k), etc...but it's significantly more cash than a PWD.  The Bridge, although a nice idea, is still not released, a year later than Paul hoped and basically pre-announced it would.  It's hard to compete with ideas on paper.  Also, I'm not sure if any customer feedback has come out of the Spatial camp yet either.

[jwes]

Right,  it's too early for this I guess.  Also I get that Claytons approach is a wider system. I just was thinking about what all that delivers in the end relative to the PS approach. They are both centered on a dac, and since Spatial uses a dac/pre approach, there are some cost tradeoffs. I wonder also if whether the power amps can be somewhat deemphasised as an investment since the correction takes the whole chain into account...

Jim

[ted_b]

It's a noble approach that Clayton is taking, but it is once again all about the implementation.  And no one has really gotten it right (yet), regarding room correction.  Some try to fill in nulls electronically and end up putting huge stresses on the system and eating up valuable processing and/or amplification resources...for what?  The null is still there in almost all cases.  Others try to be too broad and want to smooth the room for average good listening in every seat.  Others end up dealing with only 200hz and below, and still don't affect the ringing and other time domain issues inherent in rooms.  And others try to correct for speaker distortion and end up creating monsters in the crossover region, etc.   

I'd love for Clayton or others to figure out a few things: 1) make it easier for non-acousticians to measure and react; 2)  combine physical treatment ideas with electronic correction (so neither has to tackle world hunger by itself); 3) provide a plug and play approach where we don't have to literally buy in to an all-Clayton system. 

And yes, I think the amplifier quality is still paramount in the signal chain, regardless of what frequency bands it is responsible for...and it makes buying today's amps difficult, cuz most are built for 20-20k.  My $.02

[saisunil]

I'd love for Clayton or others to figure out a few things: 1) make it easier for non-acousticians to measure and react; 2)  combine physical treatment ideas with electronic correction (so neither has to tackle world hunger by itself); 3) provide a plug and play approach where we don't have to literally buy in to an all-Clayton system. 

Could not have said it any better ...
 
DAC / digital technology changes too fast - you blink - there is better, cheaper and faster version ... the DAC module(s) should be separate from EQ, Pre-amp functions for reaching out to wider audiences.
 
Personally I'd like a Room EQ solution that does no harm, is not expensive and is upgradable (after all it is a software) and is separate from other components ...
 
Since we are getting into computer as a transport ... could it also not be used for dsp functions from a software perspective? Obviously I have a lot of reading to do on this subject
 
Cheers
Sunil.

[jwes]

Sunil, yes that's how I understand it. He sets mic's in the room and then attacks phase and room corrections right on the Mac server using software on the music file itself. So it comes out of the (usually Mac mini) already "corrected"...

Jim
 

[jhm731]

Spatial System-
You need a Mac computer
Prism Orpheus is limited to 24/96 and you have to deal with it's TRS connectors

PS Audio PWD System-
Doesn't need a computer
The PWD was designed to directly drive power amps.
Unlike the Orpheus, it has linear PSUs for digital and analog section, and there are no opamps in
the output stage.

The Bridge will start shipping at the end of this month.
The PS Audio control app for the iPhone/iTouch/iPad is already posted on iTunes. It controls the music library and all of the control functions on the PWD.

The PWD can be had new or used for under $2K.
The PS Audio Trade up program is back, see:
http://www.psaudio.com/ps/newsletters/august-2010-ps-audio-newsletter/

[jwes]

Thanks jhm,

So the PWD can attenuate in the analog domain?  I know I will need attenuation as my amps are very powerful...

[ted_b]

JHM731,
Several errors corrected:
The Prism is full 24/192k via both firewire and SPDIF
The Prism can be setup via a MAC or PC.
The Prism is also a line level preamp that can drive amps directly...and it has 8 channels of D/A and A/D (i.e can be an RIAA equalized phono input too, etc)

The internals of the two are irrelevant if you've ever heard them both.    It's all about the implementation. 

The iPod Touch, iPhone or iPad have apps for PSAudio, itunes and any itunes-based (GUI and library) audio player, like Pure Music or Amarra.   

A decent review of the Orpheus:
http://www.10audio.com/prism_orpheus.htm

[jhm731]

JHM731,
Several errors corrected:
The Prism is full 24/192k via both firewire and SPDIF
The Prism can be setup via a MAC or PC.
The Prism is also a line level preamp that can drive amps directly...and it has 8 channels of D/A and A/D (i.e can be an RIAA equalized phono input too, etc)

The internals of the two are irrelevant if you've ever heard them both.    It's all about the implementtion. 

The iPod Touch, iPhone or iPad have apps for PSAudio, itunes and any itunes-based (GUI and library) audio player, like Pure Music or Amarra.   

A decent review of the Orpheus:
http://www.10audio.com/prism_orpheus.htm

I stand corrected on the 24/192. I read a Orpheus review from 2008, that said it only did 24/96.

jwes asked about Clayton Shaw's spatial systems. It uses a MAC:

http://www.spatialcomputer.com/page6/page6.html

I never said the Orpheus couldn't be directly connected to amps. I said you have to deal with it's TRS connectors.

"The internals of the two are irrelevant if you've ever heard them both.    It's all about the implementtion."

I've heard both types of internals and I'll stick with the PWD.

BTW, If the Orpheus and Metric Halo LIO-8 are such amazing DACs, how come you don't own one?

***
jwes-

The PWD attenuates in the digital domain. I'm using it to drive the balanced inputs on the Bryston amp modules in my PMC AML 1s and it works and sounds great.

[targa02]

I never said the Orpheus couldn't be directly connected to amps. I said you have to deal with it's TRS connectors.

Is the issue with TRS connectors a sound quality issue or not wanting to have to buy/deal with another type connection?  Thanks for your response.

[ted_b]

I've heard both types of internals and I'll stick with the PWD.

BTW, If the Orpheus and Metric Halo LIO-8 are such amazing DACs, how come you don't own one?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you've heard both the PWD and the Orpheus, and that you picked the PWD. 

I own many DACs and eval many more.  The LIO-8 is my favorite.     Once my room acoustic remodel project (second phase, complete with full front wall resonator, ceiling diffusor cloud, etc) is complete this fall I will use the LIO-8 in both 2 channel (disc and MAC) and multichannel roles (with digitally modded Oppo).   

The TRS issue is about connectors...that's all.  I use Neutrik TRS to XLR adapters (to my ASI Liveline XLR's) and the sound is glorious.  Others who use the LIO-8 have had their cables reterm'd in some cases.

[jwes]

Ted,

Well you solved one thing for me.  I have all liveline cables so glad to hear ir was easy to use TRS.  I can't remember if all the cables had the screw on options...  Think that was just the speaker cables.  Mine are actually single ended so hopefully the adapters are available... 

So you've chosen Metric which Clayton doesn't support.  That came out better for you than Orpheus prism?

Jim

[Russtafarian]

Ted, how are you going to interface the Oppo with the LIO-8 for multichannel?  A box or cable that will connect Oppo HDMI to LIO AES I/O 1-8? 

[jhm731]

jwes-

There a good discussion about running DACs directly to power amps at:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Anyone-else-connect-their-DAC-straight-their-amp

[ted_b]

Ted, how are you going to interface the Oppo with the LIO-8 for multichannel?  A box or cable that will connect Oppo HDMI to LIO AES I/O 1-8?

Opp modded 4 SPDIF outputs to Canare impedance transformers (XLR) BCJ-XP-TRB.

[Russtafarian]

Opp modded 4 SPDIF outputs to Canare impedance transformers (XLR) BCJ-XP-TRB.

Interesting.  I wonder if it's possible to do an HDMI to ADAT interface for audio since most of these pro converters have 8 channel ADAT lightpipe I/Os.  Or better yet, an HDMI interface to that AES I/O 1-8 connector on the back of the LIO-8.  If done right, that would rock!

[ted_b]

Interesting.  I wonder if it's possible to do an HDMI to ADAT interface for audio since most of these pro converters have 8 channel ADAT lightpipe I/Os.

Probably soon.   
http://rudd-o.com/en/monopolies-of-the-mind/the-hdcp-master-key

Can't wait for HDMi to DSD DACs.

[JDUBS]

Can't wait for HDMi to DSD DACs.

THIS will make things interesting.  I don't want down converted DSD -> PCM anything.

I can't wait, too.

-Jim