[Jon L]

I listen mainly to classical music, jazz and leave – say – 20% to eclectic explorations. My priorities are tonal balance, timbre realism, spatial presentation, transparency. As I use to attend live classical concerts on a regular basis, the recollection of the real thing is haunting all my listening sessions

I have come to realize that my brain is especially sensitive to spatial cues, at least as much as to timbre naturalness. In fact, the illusion of out-of-the-head sound is a major source of relaxation and abandonment during my listening sessions.

The way I come close to this kind of presentation with my present gear is by using the cross-feed (CF) feature of the DAVE

I really enjoyed reading your description of the demo; I wish many audio reviewers out there were so succinct and descriptive.

Given the type of music you listen to and your spatial sensitivity, I would think money would be better spent on a speaker system. But you probably have your reasons.

 

[Andrewteee]

Do you run 6v into the Oor for the Elites as well? I feel like 2v sounds better since you don't have to attenuate the signal as much.

Good question. It’s been a while since I’ve listened (too busy) but I might switch from 2v to 6v depending. I prefer to keep the Oor gain in the middle standard position.

 

[crmiller]

Background and Bias

One year ago, I initiated an evolutionary cycle of my system, and – as a source-first believer – I went all-in (happily exceeding the allocated budget as usual) on a Taiko Extreme server. In retrospect, I am very happy about my choice, as it has immediately brought a significant bump across the whole board of how the system performed, and it keeps steadily getting better as Taiko guys release hardware and software upgrades.

Next in line comes my DAC. I don’t feel my uber-complex DAVE / M-Scaler daisychained mess is lacking sonically on some specific areas, so I am not looking for something to fix in particular, rather an overall improvement, and possibly a significant one. Not interested in a change of flavor, side-grade or trade-off.

Since I am not the type of audiophile that likes to change gear often, also in the DAC case I would ideally keep my next one for several years, as I move forward to improving on other elements of the setup.

I listen mainly to classical music, jazz and leave – say – 20% to eclectic explorations. My priorities are tonal balance, timbre realism, spatial presentation, transparency. As I use to attend live classical concerts on a regular basis, the recollection of the real thing is haunting all my listening sessions and all – inevitable – deviations from the memory of live experiences are detracting from the enjoyment and emotional engagement I achieve through my rig.

I have come to realize that my brain is especially sensitive to spatial cues, at least as much as to timbre naturalness. In fact, the illusion of out-of-the-head sound is a major source of relaxation and abandonment during my listening sessions.

The way I come close to this kind of presentation with my present gear is by using the cross-feed (CF) feature of the DAVE, which I find utterly enjoyable with several recordings, especially older jazz albums that used to be mixed in a hard panned fashion.

Unfortunately, CF is not implemented in any of the upper echelon DACs I am considering (Lampizator, TotalDAC, EMM Labs, T+A HV Series, MSB, NAGRA, dCS).

My dCS DAC Audition: Targets and Expectations

I decided to ask my dealer to arrange a private presentation of the dCS Rossini and the Lina / Bartok with the main objective of answering the following questions: “Is a superior DAC without CF better (for me) than a lesser DAC with CF?” and “how is the CF – or Expanse – from dCS compared to DAVE’s implementation?”, where the former was by far my main focus.

What I was NOT aiming for was to compare dCS DACs to Chord DAVE + M Scaler, as the only way to achieve this in a meaningful DAVE – in my case – would have been to ask for a proper home demo. First, because I don’t trust my aural memory and secondly because my setup is very different to what I can get at the dealer’s.

My dCS DAC Audition: Setup and Methodology

The dealer was kind enough to prepare a dedicated room for me for the whole afternoon, equipped with Rossini Apex + Clock and the full Lina stack. In order to reduce the variables and to allow quick switching between the two systems, the Lina amplifier was used in both setups.

First-rate interconnects and power cables were in place.

I prepared a playlist on an USB stick, and, as most of the tracks were available on Qobuz, I tried both reading the files via USB and streaming them by using the respective streamer modules of the Rossini and Lina. As streamed content sounded often better than the USB stick. I ended up using Qobuz for most of my audition.

I did not play with filters / mappers and upscaling, sticking to F2 (recommended by dCS for orchestral), Mapper 1, no upscaling. All my tracks were PCM, so no need to fiddle with DSD filters.

I alternated quick A/B comparisons and longer sessions (one or two full tracks on a setup then on the other one and back etc.).

Of course, all the above is far from an ideal way to fully exploit the absolute potential of both Rossini and Lina, but I thought it was sufficient to my main objectives (see previous section) and anyway it was the best I could access to.

My playlist was mainly made of acoustic music, which is what I actually listen the most. Ranging from solo instruments (violin, cello, piano) and vocals, to small ensemble (quartets, baroque, jazz), to full blown orchestral tracks.

I used my Spirit Torino Valkyria throughout the audition, being my daily driver and my all-time favorite for classical music / acoustic content in general.

My dCS DAC Audition: Sound – Part 1: dCS Lina crossfeed options

In order to establish a baseline which I thought it would be closer to what I am used to at home, I started from the Lina, and tried its various CF options.

I started from Expanse, and both E1 and E2 filters sounded very wrong to me, especially E2, where I felt an additional reverb that – while helping with creating a sense of ambience – seemed somewhat artificial. I also felt that both timbre and transient response was a deviation from the unprocessed sound, which I did not like (softer, more diffuse).

Traditional crossfeed (CF setting) instead was much more to my liking. As with the DAVE, I preferred the CF on in most cases, and some hard panned tracks (e.g. Mari Nakamoto “Georgia on my mind”, or Coltrane “Out of this world”) – which were basically unlistenable without CF for me – became enjoyable again.

Although I liked the CF setting, I felt that the implementation is not top-notch IMO. The soundstage collapse is more apparent than on the DAVE, the harmonics richness is somewhat diminished, and the transients were a bit smeared, at the expense of some listening excitement. Music sounds flatter both emotionally and spatially as a result.

A test track that I use for assessing soundstage depth is the Introduction of the B.B. King “Live at county jail” album. With the DAVE, when I use CF I get the sense of a very layered and deep soundstage, where ambient sounds, the voice of the announcement and the “boo!” from the crowd are coming from very different locations in a large 3D environment. This was not the case with the Lina.


That said, I still believe the CF option is a strong asset of the Lina or Bartok for headphones users.

My dCS DAC Audition: Sound – Part 2: dCS Lina vs Rossini, no CF

When comparing the Lina (w/o CF) to the Rossini, the superiority of the Rossini was clear, while not as staggering as I would have expected.

The Rossini produces larger sonic images, a more dramatic macro-dynamic swing, while exhibiting more nuances and detail retrieval at the same time. It seems just able to extract more information from the same base material.

In direct comparison, the Lina seems almost too smooth and polished, bordering a blurred presentation, whereas the Rossini retains an extremely smooth and natural timbre, a rich and detailed midrange, yet more articulated and more resolving of micro-dynamics content.

On small ensembles, localization was more precise with the Rossini, without any sense of an overly analytical delivery.

Solo cello extracted a denser, more masculine and harmonically rich sound.

On large orchestral music, the hall ambience was more obvious, and in the massed passages, the readability of the various (multiple) elements of the music were more stable and clear.

The Lina was no slouch, and the voicing of both DACs is very aligned to a smooth, relaxed and big sounding signature.

A track that I use for PRaT (Pace, Rhythm and Timing) is “That’s amore” from Ray Gelato (Linn Recordings). I must say that with both Rossini and Lina I did not get the toe-tapping, spine chilling excitement I am used to. The Lina with CF was borderline sleepy compared to my expectations.

My dCS DAC Audition: Sound – Part 3: dCS Lina with CF vs Rossini (no CF)

Given the – while not dramatic – significant performance improvement on the Rossini, I actually felt that I was able to enjoy many tracks with it more vs. the Lina, even accounting for a less realistic soundstage due to the lack of CF.

For example, “La campanella” from the Reference Recordings Nojima Plays Liszt album, which I normally prefer with CF on, was actually more involving and overall realistic on the Rossini, thanks to a better sense of harmonics decay and a more dramatic macro dynamics.

However, with all its goodness, there were still many cases with the Rossini where I painfully regretted the effect of CF. The Mari Nakamoto track I already mentioned remained unlistenable for me, as it was John Coltrane sax on “Acknowledgement” (from Love Supreme), and the loss of focus and depth on most classical concert recordings.





My dCS DAC Audition: Conclusion

I have enjoyed my dCS afternoon tremendously. It was clear that I was exposed to very fine pieces of gear. Although I don’t feel confident in commenting in detail how these compare to my system, I generally sensed a smoother, denser (in a good way) presentation, with a magnificent balance of sheer technicalities and holistic listening pleasure / naturalness. Vocals and strings timbre and nuances in particular were very impressive.

While the Lina is – given my priorities – perhaps better tailored for headphones listening thanks to the CF, the Rossini is on another level of completeness and realism. I guess the difference would have been starker on a 2-channel system (as I experienced in the past).

I was genuinely hoping to be totally blown away from the Rossini, as I was prepared to make the investment on the spot if that happened. I would have liked to carry the Rossini at home for a while for a more thorough assessment, but that was not an option unfortunately, and, honestly, I suspect that my addiction to CF would have brought to a similar outcome. I still have not backed off from that possibility, if I will be able to get the chance from the dealer.



For now, it seems that my quest for a major DAC upgrade for my headphones rig must remain open.

To echo others — thank you for the detailed thoughts and impressions. Many elements you stated ring with me. I made the transition to a Rossini and clock (from a Bartók) last summer and it’s been an amazing rollercoaster. I’m hoping to hear the APEX soon. I’ve not heard the Lina yet, but in going from Bartók to Rossini much of what you said is similar to my impressions. There’s definitely a family line between the pieces. dCS seems to be in the same ethos that I believe I want in my gear — don’t color the sound, reproduce the music “accurately” and completely. But then I just spent a week with a current generation Linn Klimax DSM. It’s making me question what I want. I won’t go so far as to say one is truly better than the other, they’re different. It’s staggering how different they are. There are empirical ways I think the Rossini is better and others that the Linn Klimax DSM is, but the Linn is more emotionally connecting for me and I don’t know what to do with that. I spent roughly 20 hours listening to it and I was literally in tears listening to some tracks (and I’m fairly stoic, occasionally teased for how deadpan I am). The Rossini doesn’t do that. I can’t figure out why this is. I’m questioning everything. If I can figure out how to keep the Rossini and also get the Linn, maybe that solves my dilemma. To tie that back to your impressions and what you’ve stated are your desires—see if you can try a Linn Klimax DSM as well. On the empirical qualities I found better than the Rossini:

• Better texture in the lower octaves. Percussive instruments (including piano, as it is hammers striking strings) I could hear more texture in the time between the strike and the decay relative to my Rossini. Particularly, I hear this in the lower octaves, say a tympani, kick drum, or the lower notes in a piano. Cellos… oh the sweet sweet sound of the cellos. I simply didn’t think there was more detail to be found over the Rossini, but there it was. I could really get more of a sense of the instruments.
• Faster transients. Again, relative to the Rossini, drum strikes have more punch or initial bite, string plucks as well. No added harshness, and I wouldn’t say the Rossini is slow (until trying the Linn, the Rossini has had the fastest transients I had heard).
• Rounder instruments and performers. I get a more 3D sense of the instrument or performer in the space than the Rossini.
• Imaging/Placement. See below about sound stage being better with the Rossini, but the imaging within the sound stage is better on the Linn. Placement is easier to distinguish.

In contrast, the empirical qualities I found the Rossini has over the Linn Klimax DSM:

• Sound stage. The Rossini’s sound stage is more forward, and maybe deeper. On some recordings it was wider too, but not all recordings, so I’m less confident in just stating it’s wider overall.
• More air. The Rossini seems more airy. I like that. This is a little different than the sense of space. I feel both do a great job of transporting the listener to the space where the recording is, but there seems to be more of an air around instruments and performers with the Rossini.
• Sharper instruments and performers. Despite the Linn imaging better, the instruments and performers seem more etched out. They have a sharper delineation in the space.

Generally, though, I believe the Rossini is trying to be absolutely neutral, and not add any particular coloration. Good recordings are good. Great recordings are phenomenal. Bad recordings are painful. The Linn must be doing some coloration because suddenly bad recordings are less painful, in many cases very listenable. They weren’t magically great, but I had less tendency to skip to the next track.

 

[chesebert]

To echo others — thank you for the detailed thoughts and impressions. Many elements you stated ring with me. I made the transition to a Rossini and clock (from a Bartók) last summer and it’s been an amazing rollercoaster. I’m hoping to hear the APEX soon. I’ve not heard the Lina yet, but in going from Bartók to Rossini much of what you said is similar to my impressions. There’s definitely a family line between the pieces. dCS seems to be in the same ethos that I believe I want in my gear — don’t color the sound, reproduce the music “accurately” and completely. But then I just spent a week with a current generation Linn Klimax DSM. It’s making me question what I want. I won’t go so far as to say one is truly better than the other, they’re different. It’s staggering how different they are. There are empirical ways I think the Rossini is better and others that the Linn Klimax DSM is, but the Linn is more emotionally connecting for me and I don’t know what to do with that. I spent roughly 20 hours listening to it and I was literally in tears listening to some tracks (and I’m fairly stoic, occasionally teased for how deadpan I am). The Rossini doesn’t do that. I can’t figure out why this is. I’m questioning everything. If I can figure out how to keep the Rossini and also get the Linn, maybe that solves my dilemma. To tie that back to your impressions and what you’ve stated are your desires—see if you can try a Linn Klimax DSM as well. On the empirical qualities I found better than the Rossini:

• Better texture in the lower octaves. Percussive instruments (including piano, as it is hammers striking strings) I could hear more texture in the time between the strike and the decay relative to my Rossini. Particularly, I hear this in the lower octaves, say a tympani, kick drum, or the lower notes in a piano. Cellos… oh the sweet sweet sound of the cellos. I simply didn’t think there was more detail to be found over the Rossini, but there it was. I could really get more of a sense of the instruments.
• Faster transients. Again, relative to the Rossini, drum strikes have more punch or initial bite, string plucks as well. No added harshness, and I wouldn’t say the Rossini is slow (until trying the Linn, the Rossini has had the fastest transients I had heard).
• Rounder instruments and performers. I get a more 3D sense of the instrument or performer in the space than the Rossini.
• Imaging/Placement. See below about sound stage being better with the Rossini, but the imaging within the sound stage is better on the Linn. Placement is easier to distinguish.

In contrast, the empirical qualities I found the Rossini has over the Linn Klimax DSM:

• Sound stage. The Rossini’s sound stage is more forward, and maybe deeper. On some recordings it was wider too, but not all recordings, so I’m less confident in just stating it’s wider overall.
• More air. The Rossini seems more airy. I like that. This is a little different than the sense of space. I feel both do a great job of transporting the listener to the space where the recording is, but there seems to be more of an air around instruments and performers with the Rossini.
• Sharper instruments and performers. Despite the Linn imaging better, the instruments and performers seem more etched out. They have a sharper delineation in the space.

Generally, though, I believe the Rossini is trying to be absolutely neutral, and not add any particular coloration. Good recordings are good. Great recordings are phenomenal. Bad recordings are painful. The Linn must be doing some coloration because suddenly bad recordings are less painful, in many cases very listenable. They weren’t magically great, but I had less tendency to skip to the next track.

Good write up. Your observation sums up the difference between dCS and Linn for the past 10 or so years - same difference gen after gen. I made my choice in 2011 to go with Linn after comparing then current Klimax with Puccini and have never looked back.

Edit: I note that Linn measures as well as any SOTA dac. Ruler flat frequency response, very high SINAD, very low linearity error, etc. Linn proves that you can have musical sounding dac that is well engineered and measures SOTA.

 

[simorag]

But then I just spent a week with a current generation Linn Klimax DSM. It’s making me question what I want. I won’t go so far as to say one is truly better than the other, they’re different. It’s staggering how different they are. There are empirical ways I think the Rossini is better and others that the Linn Klimax DSM is, but the Linn is more emotionally connecting for me and I don’t know what to do with that. I spent roughly 20 hours listening to it and I was literally in tears listening to some tracks (and I’m fairly stoic, occasionally teased for how deadpan I am). The Rossini doesn’t do that. I can’t figure out why this is. I’m questioning everything. If I can figure out how to keep the Rossini and also get the Linn, maybe that solves my dilemma. To tie that back to your impressions and what you’ve stated are your desires—see if you can try a Linn Klimax DSM as well.

Thanks for sharing these impressions, the dilemma between two equally compelling sound signatures is a crux of the audiophile. Personally, when forced to choose, I always based my choice on emotional connection. The Valkyria is the most recent example of a case where emotional attachment overcame ultimate technical prowess.

The Klimax DSM was on my radar when I was shopping for the server / streamer upgrade, as it would have killed two birds with one stone (streamer + DAC). I decided to pass because I was not able to demo it, and - again - for the lack of crossfeed options. Nevertheless, I am very fascinated by the brand since I was a teenager, and the DSM is one of the very finest looking pieces of hifi gear IMHO. At this point - as for you with your Rossini - it would be difficult for me to justify keeping both the Extreme and the Klimax.

Given the type of music you listen to and your spatial sensitivity, I would think money would be better spent on a speaker system. But you probably have your reasons.

Yes, this is very true, and it is where I come from. Unfortunately in my current home (apartment) I don't have the luxury of a dedicated listening room, and I like to listen at realistic concert-level SPL, so...

Which devices do you aim for next?

Given my spatial sensitivity, I have decided to arrange a trip to Stockholm (audiophile madness, I know ) at the end of January to try the BACCH-SP system (https://hifiplus.com/articles/bacch-sp-review-what-is-a-stereo-purifier/). That would potentially / allegedly bring spatial presentation - for both speakers and headphones - to the next level.
Although I must admit I am very skeptical, I am also irresistibly curious to hear whether that is true (don't want gimmicky special effects whose wow! lasts for minutes) and whether it comes at the expense of other aspects of music reproduction (e.g. timbre alteration).

By the way, I have also booked a listening session of the Warwick Aperio.

Will duly report back of course

 

[adrianm]

To echo others — thank you for the detailed thoughts and impressions. Many elements you stated ring with me. I made the transition to a Rossini and clock (from a Bartók) last summer and it’s been an amazing rollercoaster. I’m hoping to hear the APEX soon. I’ve not heard the Lina yet, but in going from Bartók to Rossini much of what you said is similar to my impressions. There’s definitely a family line between the pieces. dCS seems to be in the same ethos that I believe I want in my gear — don’t color the sound, reproduce the music “accurately” and completely. But then I just spent a week with a current generation Linn Klimax DSM. It’s making me question what I want. I won’t go so far as to say one is truly better than the other, they’re different. It’s staggering how different they are. There are empirical ways I think the Rossini is better and others that the Linn Klimax DSM is, but the Linn is more emotionally connecting for me and I don’t know what to do with that. I spent roughly 20 hours listening to it and I was literally in tears listening to some tracks (and I’m fairly stoic, occasionally teased for how deadpan I am). The Rossini doesn’t do that. I can’t figure out why this is. I’m questioning everything. If I can figure out how to keep the Rossini and also get the Linn, maybe that solves my dilemma. To tie that back to your impressions and what you’ve stated are your desires—see if you can try a Linn Klimax DSM as well. On the empirical qualities I found better than the Rossini:

• Better texture in the lower octaves. Percussive instruments (including piano, as it is hammers striking strings) I could hear more texture in the time between the strike and the decay relative to my Rossini. Particularly, I hear this in the lower octaves, say a tympani, kick drum, or the lower notes in a piano. Cellos… oh the sweet sweet sound of the cellos. I simply didn’t think there was more detail to be found over the Rossini, but there it was. I could really get more of a sense of the instruments.
• Faster transients. Again, relative to the Rossini, drum strikes have more punch or initial bite, string plucks as well. No added harshness, and I wouldn’t say the Rossini is slow (until trying the Linn, the Rossini has had the fastest transients I had heard).
• Rounder instruments and performers. I get a more 3D sense of the instrument or performer in the space than the Rossini.
• Imaging/Placement. See below about sound stage being better with the Rossini, but the imaging within the sound stage is better on the Linn. Placement is easier to distinguish.

In contrast, the empirical qualities I found the Rossini has over the Linn Klimax DSM:

• Sound stage. The Rossini’s sound stage is more forward, and maybe deeper. On some recordings it was wider too, but not all recordings, so I’m less confident in just stating it’s wider overall.
• More air. The Rossini seems more airy. I like that. This is a little different than the sense of space. I feel both do a great job of transporting the listener to the space where the recording is, but there seems to be more of an air around instruments and performers with the Rossini.
• Sharper instruments and performers. Despite the Linn imaging better, the instruments and performers seem more etched out. They have a sharper delineation in the space.

Generally, though, I believe the Rossini is trying to be absolutely neutral, and not add any particular coloration. Good recordings are good. Great recordings are phenomenal. Bad recordings are painful. The Linn must be doing some coloration because suddenly bad recordings are less painful, in many cases very listenable. They weren’t magically great, but I had less tendency to skip to the next track.

Curious if you've owned/heard a Dave.
While I was looking for an upgrade I compared it to the Lina stack (5 day home demo) and the Klimax Organik (3-4 hours in store with my headphones + Headphone amp and Dave) and honestly came out preferring Dave. Even faster transients and deeper bass, not to mention better depth on headphones and speakers. The Klimax had slightly better clarity, and a slightly wider soundstage ( but flat like a pancake), , but it was marginal. To the point where I think adding the M-scaler would overcome those differences.
From his surprised reaction I got the feeling the dealer owner (who had never heard one) preferred Dave as well, which was quite amusing. I came out of the store frustrated I wasted half a day A/B-ing really small differences, which was not at all the case with dCS.
This is just me, but I would've taken Lina over the Linn, not to mention the Rossini. I liked it more in all areas, especially timbre. A/B-ing with Lina was interesting because they traded blows with Dave, with the Rossini...it felt there wasn't much point.
I wouldn't blame you wanting a different flavor after a while though. Dave's still great value for money, but I wanted something else. It's a shame it's such a fixer-upper.

 

[adrianm]

I have an update on my Rossini clock to Bartók cable comparisons. My verdict is that cable length matters. I do not understand the how/why, but I know what I’m hearing. I’ve compared the stock cable that came with my Rossini clock (I haven’t unrolled it enough to measure length, but I’m going to guess it’s 1.5m, maybe 2m, based on the size coiled up), to a 0.5m Geistnote Apogee Wyde Eye, and then to a 1.5m Geistnote Apogee Wyde Eye.

The TLDR is I prefer the 1.5m Geistnote cables.

Starting with the stock cable, I ordered the 0.5m Geistnote. In comparison, I preferred the stock cable. The Geistnote lost a little of the magic precision of depth. Considering the number of positive opinions on the Geistnote, I was a little surprised and with a little digging I saw enough discussion to make me want to retry with 1.5 or 2m cables. These are positively cheap in comparison to almost anything audio, so I ordered the 1.5m length versions of the same cable.

In comparing the stock cable to the 1.5m Geistnote, I found the Geistnote better. Basically, take all that is good with the stock cable, widen the sound stage just a little and then snap everything in the soundstage into better focus. It’s like looking a a photo or scene and it’s the best you’ve ever seen it. The colors are great, detail amazing and then someone hits a button an it’s all in better focus. You wouldn’t have known it was out of focus before until you see the jump to a better focus. That’s the sensation.

So, then, if the 1.5m Geistnote is better than the stock cable and the stock cable is better than the 0.5m Geistnote, then the 1.5m Geistnote must be better than the 0.5m Geistnote, right? Well, better not to assume, so I did this comparison too. It didn’t last long though. The changes were so in-your-face I couldn’t keep the 0.5m cables in long. After just a handful of tracks they had to come out. I don’t want to say the soundstage collapsed, but it was a little smaller and some of the performers become more nebulous in their positioning. It’s so weird. The details are all there, it’s just how they present which makes the difference.

A good example of all this is with the track “The Curse” by Agnes Obel her “Aventine” album. With my Stellia’s on the Bartok and on the HPA4 fed by my Linn Selekt DSM everything is great, it’s a very nice track. The Stellia’s don’t have a wide soundstage, though. With my 2-channel system, something different comes through. The rendering of the cello(s) came across entirely flat. It’s like you could hear that the cellos were added as a track into the recording and while everything else is 3D in nature, the cello track is a flat plane near the rear of the soundstage slightly right of center. This was before the clock. Adding the clock, and using the stock cables helped tremendously. Suddenly the cellos sounded more integrated and fleshed out. With the 0.5m Geistnotes, that almost collapses back to a flat plane. Again, not the whole soundstage, but the cello track or element. It doesn’t go as flat as without the clock, but definitely less 3D. Going to the 1.5m Geistnote and they’re fully integrated and not any less real than the rest of the performers. It’s magic.

This is interesting, I just got some Van Damme clock cables,1m long, and they are a noticeable upgrade from the stock cables, which I assume are 2m. The sensation is like you described, better focus, and not just soundstage getting bigger, it's a bit like zooming out and everything being more precisely placed in its own space. Not sure if it's worth trying a 1.5m version, but the 1m is definitely tidier.

 

[buzzlulu]

Hardcore British 2 channel user for the past 25 years. I have had a Linn Klimax fronting my Naim 500 system since 2011 and it has been upgraded each time along the way ending with Katalyst 4 or 5 years ago. When the Bartok was introduced I decided to treat myself and I purchased one for use in a headphone only system (OG Utopias and various Stax's). I was so impressed that a Rossini+Clock was purchased and it handily kicked the Linn out of my Naim system. It has been performing headphone only duties ever since. The Rossini had the APEX upgrade last fall and that was simply STAGGERING.

Just this weekend I decided to have an in depth shootout as the new Linn price increases kick in this coming week. I brought everything into the two channel room and compared the Klimax Katalyst to the Rossini APEX utilizing my Stax X9000 and T2 amplifier.

The Rossini still thrashes the Linn however the point of the exercise was to determine if the Stax were uber resolving enough to show off source differences at this extremely high level. End result is the Stax are more than up to the job and I have decided to give the Linn new life and order the Organik upgrade before the price increase kicks in.

@crmiller which KDS did you listen to - the old slimline box or the new double height Next Generation Organik?

 

[crmiller]

The Klimax DSM was on my radar when I was shopping for the server / streamer upgrade, as it would have killed two birds with one stone (streamer + DAC). I decided to pass because I was not able to demo it, and - again - for the lack of crossfeed options.

When potentially spending so much, auditions are necessary. It’s just unfortunate how inaccessible gear can be to do that. I assumed Linn dealers were more accessible in Europe. I actually gave up on Linn due to the closest 2 dealers to me being about 8 hours drive in different directions. That is until 2021, when I found one fairly close, and that’s given me a chance to become reacquainted with the line.

Given my spatial sensitivity, I have decided to arrange a trip to Stockholm (audiophile madness, I know ) at the end of January to try the BACCH-SP system (https://hifiplus.com/articles/bacch-sp-review-what-is-a-stereo-purifier/). That would potentially / allegedly bring spatial presentation - for both speakers and headphones - to the next level.

This peaks my interest. I first heard of this from ”The Audiophile Junkie” YouTube channel and I’m quite curious about it. Looking forward to future posts on your impressions.

Curious if you've owned/heard a Dave.

Heard, yes. But it was maybe 5 minutes at the 2020 NYC CanJam and at that point I barely recognized the Chord name. It was on my list to hear before I bought my Bartók in 2021, but didn’t have an opportunity. The Bartók I bought after a 2 - 3 hour audition with my Focal Stellia’s as I’m fortunate to have a dCS dealer in a reasonable driving distance. Jumping to that level required an audition and I fell in love with the sound.

I came out of the store frustrated I wasted half a day A/B-ing really small differences, which was not at all the case with dCS.

This most recent audition with the Linn Klimax DSM isn’t my first. I actually spent a few hours with one (maybe even the exact same one, I haven’t confirmed), my Benchmark HPA4, and my Focal Stellia’s last summer. My Linn dealer is near where I get my car serviced and I arranged to spend the afternoon with them while I waited for my car. I brought along my headphone gear. From that audition I only picked up on a sense of ease in the timing, but honestly the HPA4 and Stellia combination are a bottleneck. I’ve covered that some previously.

My 2-channel system is much more resolving. My Linn dealer had been wanting to hear my setup and I’d been wanting to hear the Klimax DSM in it so he brought it by for what I thought was just going to be an afternoon and then he said I could keep it for the weekend which turned into 6 days. Most of the sonic impressions I called empirical I determined in that first afternoon. I blasted through a bunch of test tracks and initially I was disappointed. I called it different, because there were some redeeming qualities that the Linn did better, but I still preferred the Rossini. It was on day 2 where I realized there was something different in the emotional connection. And then in day 2 or 3 I pulled up good songs that are bad recordings and found them enjoyable — what a nice surprise. And then really living with it for the rest of the time really swung my opinion. I knew the way my system sounded with the Rossini well enough I didn’t need to try quick A/B switching. I could readily hear the difference. So, my plan changed to intentionally not switch back until the audition was over to try and maximize the impact of hearing the Rossini again. And that just confirmed things. It still has the wow factor. It sounds amazing. But those tracks that brought me to tears — the Rossini didn’t do it. And the bad recordings — mostly cringe and I can’t listen to them. It’s very much a head (Rossini) vs heart (Klimax DSM) battle.

This is interesting, I just got some Van Damme clock cables,1m long, and they are a noticeable upgrade from the stock cables, which I assume are 2m. The sensation is like you described, better focus, and not just soundstage getting bigger, it's a bit like zooming out and everything being more precisely placed in its own space. Not sure if it's worth trying a 1.5m version, but the 1m is definitely tidier.

It’s crazy, right? I have no problem with the concept of cables sounding different. I was skeptical at one point, but it’s an easy thing to test. I simply wasn’t prepared for a clock cable length difference to make a difference. Same series of cables from the same manufacturer, just 1m difference in length and it’s clearly audible. I don’t claim to have golden ears. I would not be surprised if “man on the street” tests showed I was below average in hearing, but I can definitely hear this in my 2-channel rig.

Hardcore British 2 channel user for the past 25 years. I have had a Linn Klimax fronting my Naim 500 system since 2011 and it has been upgraded each time along the way ending with Katalyst 4 or 5 years ago. When the Bartok was introduced I decided to treat myself and I purchased one for use in a headphone only system (OG Utopias and various Stax's). I was so impressed that a Rossini+Clock was purchased and it handily kicked the Linn out of my Naim system. It has been performing headphone only duties ever since.

I recall reading your posts on this and in part you lead me to the Bartók. Before it even arrived I also ordered a Selekt DSM (w/ Katalyst). That’s now getting upgraded to Organik, so I’ll have Organik whether I get the Klimax DSM or not.

@crmiller which KDS did you listen to - the old slimline box or the new double height Next Generation Organik?

The current/new one with the glass dial on top. IIRC introduced in March 2021.

 

[alxw0w]

Given my spatial sensitivity, I have decided to arrange a trip to Stockholm (audiophile madness, I know ) at the end of January to try the BACCH-SP system (https://hifiplus.com/articles/bacch-sp-review-what-is-a-stereo-purifier/). That would potentially / allegedly bring spatial presentation - for both speakers and headphones - to the next level.

Waiting for your impressions. Looks very promising. Have been thinking about it for quite some time.
There is not much information over the net, but I could consider it in the future 2 channel system as it seems to be very good indeed.

ps. there is an interview with the designer on the Steves youtube channel:

 

[crmiller]

It’s very much a head (Rossini) vs heart (Klimax DSM) battle.

And the answer to the battle is to have both. I’m keeping the Rossini and getting the Klimax DSM too. My Linn dealer bent over backwards to try and help me out. He heard it in my system and knew I needed it. He also likes the ‘win’ of converting a customer over from a dCS. He said he’s 3 for 4 converting Rossini owners (not including me), and has one more client that wants to, but needs to sell his Rossini first. I’m still wow’d by the Rossini, so not a complete conversion, but the Klimax DSM will become my primary source on the 2-channel rig. Now I need to figure out what amp and headphones to pair with the Rossini when my wallet recovers. I’m planning to hit the upcoming Chicago and/or Dallas CanJams to see what I might narrow the list to.

 

[SuperBurrito]

And the answer to the battle is to have both. I’m keeping the Rossini and getting the Klimax DSM too. My Linn dealer bent over backwards to try and help me out. He heard it in my system and knew I needed it. He also likes the ‘win’ of converting a customer over from a dCS. He said he’s 3 for 4 converting Rossini owners (not including me), and has one more client that wants to, but needs to sell his Rossini first. I’m still wow’d by the Rossini, so not a complete conversion, but the Klimax DSM will become my primary source on the 2-channel rig. Now I need to figure out what amp and headphones to pair with the Rossini when my wallet recovers. I’m planning to hit the upcoming Chicago and/or Dallas CanJams to see what I might narrow the list to.

That's awesome. I'm really enjoying my Rossini Apex + clock, and have been looking at what kind of amps dCS uses in shows. Consistently it's D'Agostino. IMO, it's going to be hard for many (any?) HP amps to beat that benchmark.

 

[buzzlulu]

And the answer to the battle is to have both. I’m keeping the Rossini and getting the Klimax DSM too.

Congrats - you now have both bases covered!

My Rossini APEX is staying in my Naim 2 channel system however my OG Linn slimline case Klimax DS/Katalyst is being upgraded to Organik (board on the way to me as we speak). The Linn will continue to feed my Kerry T2 amplifier in my Stax system.

Enjoy.... and when you get bored you can switch the Linn and dCS between systems

 

[adrianm]

Consistently it's D'Agostino. IMO, it's going to be hard for many (any?) HP amps to beat that benchmark.

Well it's apples and oranges but my Hm1 should be here in a month or so and I'd bet it measures considerably better than those amps. Same with other Hp amps. So I really don't think we're losing anything objectively.

 

[ufospls2]

I know there was the chatter on the dCS forum about the Bartok Apex, but I came across an actual dealer listing for it. Apologies if this is old news.

https://www.kjwestone.co.uk/product/dcs-bartok-dac/