[DJJEZ]

So after a week of testing with 1266 as well as Susvara, I realized how good I have it with straight out of Bartok.

Viva Egoista 845 is further improvement on the sound, managing to squeeze out the last 10-20%, without changing the tonality whatsoever.

Riviera AIC-10 on the other hand, pretty much transforms 1266 into a different headphone (not necessary better, just fixing those cold and recessed mids).

With how 1266 can cover EDM out of Bartók, and all the other genres via Riviera, I have decided to return Susvara as it wasn't doing anything better anymore (to my ears, even if juiced with powerful Viva).

Furthermore, I have decided to return Viva and instead acquire Riviera, as the last 10-20% of performance using Viva did not warrant the 12.5k price. I would rather keep a complementary Riviera, next to Bartok covering all bases with 1266.

Of you are interested in my brief comparison of the amps, read here.

When is Rossini arriving?

 

[mammal]

When is Rossini arriving?

Clock on Saturday, DAC not yet sure if and when!

 

[mammal]

Rossini Master Clock on top of Bartok, testing it now!

 

[SuperBurrito]

Rossini Master Clock on top of Bartok, testing it now!

Curious to see if your impressions are similar to mine.

 

[mammal]

Curious to see if your impressions are similar to mine.

VERY EARLY impressions: EDM - I cannot tell if the thing is on, seriously. But for recorded music like "Light of the Seven by Ramin Djawadi", having it on makes it "airier", as if high frequencies become a bit more crisp. As for dither, when I have it enabled, it sounds as if the soundstage become a bit less wide.

What I suspect will happen is that in a week or two I will hear a bit more (like I did with Chord Hugo M Scaler), but not enough to warrant its price. So far what I am hearing is really subtle, with very little preference for if the improvement is there or not. I do hear much more significant jump adding Viva to Bartok, than adding Rossini clock to Bartok. And I am absolutely satisfied with Bartok's headphone amp, so much so, that I do not plan to keep Viva.

I think I am not very sensitive to timing accuracy/differences. But I seem to be (self assessment) more sensitive to frequency response, like swapping cables (silver for copper). What were your impressions of Rossini clock?

 

[Pastwa]

Rossini Master Clock on top of Bartok, testing it now!

I have read the clock makes very little difference with Bartok and a very noticeable one with the Rossini DAC.

 

[DJJEZ]

VERY EARLY impressions: EDM - I cannot tell if the thing is on, seriously. But for recorded music like "Light of the Seven by Ramin Djawadi", having it on makes it "airier", as if high frequencies become a bit more crisp. As for dither, when I have it enabled, it sounds as if the soundstage become a bit less wide.

What I suspect will happen is that in a week or two I will hear a bit more (like I did with Chord Hugo M Scaler), but not enough to warrant its price. So far what I am hearing is really subtle, with very little preference for if the improvement is there or not. I do hear much more significant jump adding Viva to Bartok, than adding Rossini clock to Bartok. And I am absolutely satisfied with Bartok's headphone amp, so much so, that I do not plan to keep Viva.

I think I am not very sensitive to timing accuracy/differences. But I seem to be (self assessment) more sensitive to frequency response, like swapping cables (silver for copper). What were your impressions of Rossini clock?

Sounds like it's time to home demo a rossini dac

 

[buzzlulu]

Master clock with Rossini is a mandatory purchase. The Rossini should only be sold this way.
dCS recommends placing the clock on the bottom
Dither should always be on
Do not use the included clock cables. Google Geisnote Apogee Wyde Eye 75 ohm cables. Cheap as chips and "unofficially" recommended by dCS USA

 

[SuperBurrito]

What were your impressions of Rossini clock?

I had a brief demo of the clock with a Rossini in a speaker-based system (Wilson, D'Agostino amp, VTL preamp). I could turn the clock on and off anytime I wanted, and the difference was quite obvious. Above all, the clock made the music much more dynamic. I never thought that the Rossini was deficient in any way until I tried the clock. Now I think that without the clock the Rossini seems a bit muffled. In a way I wish I never heard the clock!
Since you will be using a headphone amp, maybe the Rossini is the next item to test at home.

 

[mammal]

Since you will be using a headphone amp, maybe the Rossini is the next item to test at home.

Need to give it more time, as I liked EDM more on Bartok directly. But the rest sounds much better with the external amp. But if I end up using it more, then I could really upgrade to Rossini and try the clock again. As always, not trying to minimize other people's experiences, just for me and my ears, the clock didn't do much on Bartok.

 

[buzzlulu]

As many have said on the dCS forum at the price of adding a clock to a Bartok one should really consider a Rossini instead. A bare Rossini betters a Bartok with clock.

As good as the Bartok is I preferred mine with an external headphone amp as well (GSX Mini and then GSX MK2). dCS did an amazing job with their first crack at a headphone amp (internally) and for most the all in one will suffice - however agreed an external amplifier is better.

My Bartok only lasted a few months in my headphone only system before being replaced with my Linn Klimax DS as source for my (Stax) Carbon and GSX MK2 amplifier. A new Rossini and clock kicked my Linn out of my two channel room (after 10 years of service). The Rossini is one of the best digital sources out there. It handily beats my Linn Klimax DS Katalyst, a Naim ND555, and a DAVE.

 

[mammal]

As many have said on the dCS forum at the price of adding a clock to a Bartok one should really consider a Rossini instead. A bare Rossini betters a Bartok with clock.

I am very aware of this recommendation and financially, I agree with you. The fact that I hear very little differences (if any) adding a clock to my Bartok, makes the point even stronger. Some have said, that buying Rossini without the clock should not be allowed, on that I cannot comment, as I have not tried that combination yet. However, it sounds to me a bit like an exacerbation, since a whole spectrum of users on dCS forum exists (ranging from ones claiming Bartok does not improve much with a clock, up to folks that have purchased Vivaldi clock to their Bartok).

As good as the Bartok is I preferred mine with an external headphone amp as well (GSX Mini and then GSX MK2). dCS did an amazing job with their first crack at a headphone amp (internally) and for most the all in one will suffice - however agreed an external amplifier is better.

As many Dave owners will say, an external amplifier will not always be desirable, if transparency the goal. I feel that with Bartok, it is somewhat similar. If we could agree that Bartok's solid state headphone amp is worth around 3.5k (the difference between Bartok with and without), I wonder how expensive the external amplifier needs to be, to really sound better (not just different). I have tried 12.5k Viva Egoista 845, which I am returning, as I did not hear enough difference to warrant keeping it. As for Riviera AIC-10 which costs new 15k, that one sounded different to what Bartok sounds on its own. I would not call it "better" in terms of performance (transparency and technicalities), instead better in terms of "adding enough colour to make 1266 sound good with mids". Once more, I am very aware that there are many happy Bartok owners that have added amplifiers like GSX Mini costing 2k new, but I think it is a spectrum where I for one lean on the side "Bartok is underrated and sounds 90% of my 12.5k amplifier, which for certain type of music I prefer to another 15k amplifier". I think it all comes to (as always), to our ears/brains/preferences.

My Bartok only lasted a few months in my headphone only system before being replaced with my Linn Klimax DS as source for my (Stax) Carbon and GSX MK2 amplifier. A new Rossini and clock kicked my Linn out of my two channel room (after 10 years of service). The Rossini is one of the best digital sources out there. It handily beats my Linn Klimax DS Katalyst, a Naim ND555, and a DAVE.

You truly have a wonderful system, cheers to that. I have thought of upgrading Bartok to Rossini, but since (I keep repeating this point, I know) I find Bartok's internal amp so wonderful, I simply do not want to lose it. I have no doubts Rossini DAC sounds better, but unless there is a new version coming up in the future with a similar integrated headphone amplifier, I do not see myself buying one. Demoing the clock added to Bartok (again, many claim it is pointless, while others splurged to Vivaldi clock), I hear very little difference, and I am worried that it is possible that my brain already maxed out its ability to discern differences at these price points and I simply would not benefit from Rossini DAC or DAC+clock. I would never claim there are no differences between steps in the product line, what I am trying to say, is that I am starting to not notice them with my own ears. And I will be honest with you, all of this testing is making me feel better and better, as perhaps I have found my plateau. This being said, I do not wish to diminish anyone else's experiences, I am simply sharing mine.

 

[edwardsean]

As many Dave owners will say, an external amplifier will not always be desirable, if transparency the goal. I feel that with Bartok, it is somewhat similar.

As a Dave owner, I'm not sure if the situation is that similar. The reasoning behind retaining Dave's headphone output is that it is tapped directly into the D/A pulse array. Whatever else this doesn't have, it retains the most transparent output according to its unique design. There is no amp in the traditional sense in the signal path.

The Bartok already has taken the DAC output and connected it to an amp internally. If you bypass the amp and connect the Bartok's outputs to an external amp I don't think you are losing much in transparency, provided you have high quality interconnects.

I agree with you the Bartok as an all-in-one DAC/amp is pretty fabulous. However, I wouldn't be at all squeamish about adding an external amp as I would the Dave.

 

[Articnoise]

As a Dave owner, I'm not sure if the situation is that similar. The reasoning behind retaining Dave's headphone output is that it is tapped directly into the D/A pulse array. Whatever else this doesn't have, it retains the most transparent output according to its unique design. There is no amp in the traditional sense in the signal path.

The Bartok already has taken the DAC output and connected it to an amp internally. If you bypass the amp and connect the Bartok's outputs to an external amp I don't think you are losing much in transparency, provided you have high quality interconnects.

I agree with you the Bartok as an all-in-one DAC/amp is pretty fabulous. However, I wouldn't be at all squeamish about adding an external amp as I would the Dave.

No this is not really correct. The analoge section in all DACs is always on all the time, and without it the audio signal would be way to low to be used with any other gear. The analoge stage will therefore amplify the signal no matter if you connect an external amp or not. So double amplification also with Bartok and a external amp. The difference is that with Dave there is no separate analoge amplifying stage per se.

 

[mammal]

No this is not really correct. The analoge section in all DACs is always on all the time, and without it the audio signal would be way to low to be used with any other gear. The analoge stage will therefore amplify the signal no matter if you connect an external amp or not. So double amplification also with Bartok and a external amp. The difference is that with Dave there is no separate analoge amplifying stage per se.

I like your "separate" analogy. The way I always understood these things is with a black box approach. A DAC device that is meant to convert D to A, is asked to output 2V (just an example) with its RCAs and 4V (oversimplification) with its XLRs. Now, how it is achieved internally, a DAC device user should not care. Some DACs will achieve it with two separate stages, one we call "D/A conversion" and another "output stage". Others, will have a "beefier" D/A conversion implementation, that already outputs those 2V (or 4V), hence no need for a separate output stage. If pre-amplification (volume knob) functionality is implemented, these two could theoretically implement it the same way (in the D/A) or if the output stage is separate, volume control could be done there. Some designers believe the output stage is more important than the D/A (or their technical expertise lies in analoge domain, like XI Audio Sagra DAC that simply uses Soekris R2R dacs), and others will implement more of this in the D/A conversion itself, like Chord does. Do you find my understanding accurate? Want to learn, thanks!