DCS Debussy Upgrade Rumours, Competition at the $12-$17K DAC Range??

radioactive

radioactive

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
393
Location
N. VA
Hi Everyone, word has it that DCS is going to release a new software/firmware for their FPGA's in the Debussy. I can't find any details on what the changes are, but they have released details on the Vivaldi 2.0 already. I assume at some point they're going to release details on the Debussy update, but I'm eager to hear what they've got up their sleeves. My Debussy is great, but now with Boulder 2000 series gear and Alexia's I wonder if it's holding back my system sonically.

My dealer of course is pushing an upgrade to the Rossini, but frankly there are so many DAC's out there and for that kind of money I have a lot of options (plus, I don't see spending more than $20K for a DAC as a good use of my hard earned money investment-wise). I'm not saying never, but I may want to try something else. Meridian just released their MQA (let the flame wars begin) spinner/DAC and it's under $20K and is cheaper than the Rossini with upsampler.

As a side note, perhaps relevant to this, DCS just rolled out an update to the Vivaldi, but it's hard to imagine any of those trickling into the Debussy. The Vivaldi 2.0 details are available at http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/uncategorized/dcs-launches-new-flagship-vivaldi-2-0-system/, with details in the press release at http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/dCS-Vivaldi-2-0-PR-31032016.pdf. In summary, the 2.0 Vivaldi is 2xDSD support, a new DSD filter, hardware galvanically isolated network and USB interface board, support for TIDAL, Airplay, Spotify, a new app, plus sonic improvements to the mapper functions.

Any insights on the update to the Debussy? I'd welcome thoughts on DACs in the $12-$17K price range.

--- Bryan
 
You've got a great system and looks like your dCS is your main source. The Vivaldi 2.0 is a serious upgrade so if they do that for your Debussy soon you might as well see how it sounds. That said, used dCS Scarlatti Dacs are another option for you, great pricing right now. Lot's of great dacs, but very hard to stray from dCS in my opinion...you'll likely be back one day down the road...
 
The dCS Debussy is more likely to be phased out. It is the last dCS component to use the old architecture (main board and DAC / analog output board), which first appeared in the Scarlatti DAC in 2005, and then trickled down to Puccini / Paganini / Debussy models (all of those DACs use the EXACT SAME mother boards and DAC / analog output boards).
 
I thought the Vivaldi and the Debussy share one common board (even though the Vivaldi has several other boards, that they're essentially the same FPGA configuration just different software). I guess I haven't been reading all the technical literature as much as I should have.

I'm going to be attending an event this week with John Quick. I'm going to ask him about that specifically to see his thoughts. I'm also interested in whether or not MQA is part of this update. I saw the MQA supporters wall of logos and it has DCS on it. I would assume they're going to roll out support via a FGPA software/FW update at some point to some of their DAC's -- certainly the Vivaldi and the Rossini -- the jury is out on if the Debussy will get that update. I understood that getting DSD into the Scarlatti was a very difficult thing to do and that it barely had sufficient horsepower -- not sure there's room for more, but I'm not an expert on their stuff by any means, just likely misstating what they told me in my brief discussion with them (DCS folks) at various times ;)
 
You can take the DAC/analog board from the Scarlatti to repair a broken Debussy, and vice versa.

Same for the MoBo. The only difference is that the Scarlatti has two power transformers, and Debussy has just one. Debussy also has a small daughter board for the USB, where Scarlatti has one for Firewire.

There are some software changes, but those are related to features (display, IP/OPs), not sound quality.

This is the first hand info - I have toured the dCS factory and had talked to their engineers.

On this pic you can see both boards:

1f104%20p06.jpg


The very same MoBo is used in: Debussy, Puccini, Paganini (DAC/transport/clock/upsampler) and Scarlatti (DAC/transport/clock/upsampler). The only dCS product that didn't use it, was the U-Clock.

The DAC/analog board (this is the smaller one with red caps) is used in Debussy, Puccini, Paganini DAC and Scarlatti DAC.
 
Nice picture and info. Thanks for the insight. As a side note, I've heard anecdotally that adding a clock to the Debussy greatly improves sound. Any insight on that and what kind of clock would work in this situation?



P
Elberoth said:
You can take the DAC/analog board from the Scarlatti to repair a broken Debussy, and vice versa.

Same for the MoBo. The only difference is that the Scarlatti has two power transformers, and Debussy has just one. Debussy also has a small daughter board for the USB, where Scarlatti has one for Firewire.

There are some software changes, but those are related to features (display, IP/OPs), not sound quality.

This is the first hand info - I have toured the dCS factory and had talked to their engineers.

On this pic you can see both boards:

1f104%20p06.jpg


The very same MoBo is used in: Debussy, Puccini, Paganini (DAC/transport/clock/upsampler) and Scarlatti (DAC/transport/clock/upsampler). The only dCS product that didn't use it, was the U-Clock.

The DAC/analog board (this is the smaller one with red caps) is used in Debussy, Puccini, Paganini DAC and Scarlatti DAC.
Click to expand...
 
radioactive said:
Nice picture and info. Thanks for the insight. As a side note, I've heard anecdotally that adding a clock to the Debussy greatly improves sound. Any insight on that and what kind of clock would work in this situation?

P
Click to expand...

I suspect the dCS U Clock is a common add on. But any of the dCS clocks will help. I've owned the U Clock, Scarlatti clock and now the Vivaldi Clock. And yes each of them are better (at a cost). If you haven't tried a clock...I'd start with a U clock...
 
So computer audiophile has a thread on this topic that I found and they say that for those using USB it doesn't make sense to change the clock to an external one since the clocking is done by the source (i.e. A computer). The claim is also made that the internal clock would have to be pretty bad for it to improve sound quality and DCS makes good clocks.

Still, that doesn't explain why DCS markets the Rossini with an external clock. I suppose it makes sense if you're spinning discs with a separate unit.
 
radioactive said:
So computer audiophile has a thread on this topic that I found and they say that for those using USB it doesn't make sense to change the clock to an external one since the clocking is done by the source (i.e. A computer). The claim is also made that the internal clock would have to be pretty bad for it to improve sound quality and DCS makes good clocks.

Still, that doesn't explain why DCS markets the Rossini with an external clock. I suppose it makes sense if you're spinning discs with a separate unit.
Click to expand...

I can tell you why they do this. They purposely use a mediocre clock in the unit so they can sell you an external clock and notice better sound when it's hooked up. If it was designed purely for best performance at the lowest price point, it's far superior to use the better clock internally in the DAC as the end jitter performance is far greater because of the shorter path.

The only reason external clocks came about in the first place was for pro sound applications. This allows syncing multiple devices to the same clock. The drawback is the dramatic jitter increase from the long path and connections. Ideally the master clock should be within an inch or 2 of the DAC chip.
 
Interesting thought. Well, if they are using a mediocre clock their DACs still sound SOTA at the time they're released. When the Debussy came out it received a ton of accolades, product of the year, etc. and was considered SOTA. I compared it to a lot of other DACs and for the price it was my preference; it sounds great still but as with all things it's easy to want for more. Clocks are obviously very complicated and expensive the more precise they get so I can see it as a cost decision at some point. It's also notable that a lot of DAC manufacturers tend to market based on their chip and power supply and put details on the clock as a sidenote. But I certainly don't like the idea of having to buy a separate clock for my DAC -- I tend to agree that it seems to be more about profit and marketing albeit they probably made it as just passable in quality and not the utmost perfection in a clock. Consider that the DAC itself costs about $12K and the clock about $2,500. It seems like a lot of those costs for the clock could have been made to the DAC for a fraction of the cost -- if it sounded that much better I'm sure an extra $800 would be easily justified in price.

Mivera Audio said:
I can tell you why they do this. They purposely use a mediocre clock in the unit so they can sell you an external clock and notice better sound when it's hooked up. If it was designed purely for best performance at the lowest price point, it's far superior to use the better clock internally in the DAC as the end jitter performance is far greater because of the shorter path.

The only reason external clocks came about in the first place was for pro sound applications. This allows syncing multiple devices to the same clock. The drawback is the dramatic jitter increase from the long path and connections. Ideally the master clock should be within an inch or 2 of the DAC chip.
Click to expand...
 
radioactive said:
Interesting thought. Well, if they are using a mediocre clock their DACs still sound SOTA at the time they're released. When the Debussy came out it received a ton of accolades, product of the year, etc. and was considered SOTA. I compared it to a lot of other DACs and for the price it was my preference; it sounds great still but as with all things it's easy to want for more. Clocks are obviously very complicated and expensive the more precise they get so I can see it as a cost decision at some point. It's also notable that a lot of DAC manufacturers tend to market based on their chip and power supply and put details on the clock as a sidenote. But I certainly don't like the idea of having to buy a separate clock for my DAC -- I tend to agree that it seems to be more about profit and marketing albeit they probably made it as just passable in quality and not the utmost perfection in a clock. Consider that the DAC itself costs about $12K and the clock about $2,500. It seems like a lot of those costs for the clock could have been made to the DAC for a fraction of the cost -- if it sounded that much better I'm sure an extra $800 would be easily justified in price.
Click to expand...

If they want to offer clock upgrades, they should do it MSB's way. Upgrade just the clock module directly in the DAC. This way you're not paying for another case, power supply, cables and all of that just to add cost and sacrifice jitter performance.

But at the end of the day most manufacturers use the multiplier of cost model to decide their end price. So the higher the manufacturing costs, the higher the profit. Also many have a hard time taking something seriously unless it has high cost attached to it. So in the end it's a win win.
 
Mivera Audio said:
If they want to offer clock upgrades, they should do it MSB's way. Upgrade just the clock module directly in the DAC. This way you're not paying for another case, power supply, cables and all of that just to add cost and sacrifice jitter performance.

But at the end of the day most manufacturers use the multiplier of cost model to decide their end price. So the higher the manufacturing costs, the higher the profit. Also many have a hard time taking something seriously unless it has high cost attached to it. So in the end it's a win win.
Click to expand...

Except if dCS's way is better in their architecture. They are no dummy's....I've owned a dCS U clock, dCS Scarlatti clock and now a dCS Vivaldi clock...all were significant improvements.
 
jfrech said:
Except if dCS's way is better in their architecture. They are no dummy's....I've owned a dCS U clock, dCS Scarlatti clock and now a dCS Vivaldi clock...all were significant improvements.
Click to expand...

Of course they are improvements over the clocks built in. If they weren't, nobody would buy them. You're right they aren't dummy's. They know how to make money. :)
 
+1
Mivera Audio said:
I can tell you why they do this. They purposely use a mediocre clock in the unit so they can sell you an external clock and notice better sound when it's hooked up. If it was designed purely for best performance at the lowest price point, it's far superior to use the better clock internally in the DAC as the end jitter performance is far greater because of the shorter path.

The only reason external clocks came about in the first place was for pro sound applications. This allows syncing multiple devices to the same clock. The drawback is the dramatic jitter increase from the long path and connections. Ideally the master clock should be within an inch or 2 of the DAC chip.
Click to expand...
 
jfrech said:
Except if dCS's way is better in their architecture. They are no dummy's....I've owned a dCS U clock, dCS Scarlatti clock and now a dCS Vivaldi clock...all were significant improvements.
Click to expand...

What were the changes observed when moving up the line?

For the clock link cable, is a spec compliant cable sufficient or would there be improvements when using better digital cables?
 
Mivera Audio said:
If they want to offer clock upgrades, they should do it MSB's way. Upgrade just the clock module directly in the DAC. This way you're not paying for another case, power supply, cables and all of that just to add cost and sacrifice jitter performance.

But at the end of the day most manufacturers use the multiplier of cost model to decide their end price. So the higher the manufacturing costs, the higher the profit. Also many have a hard time taking something seriously unless it has high cost attached to it. So in the end it's a win win.
Click to expand...

+1
 
For those following the subject of my OP, DCS is apparently working on the Vivaldi and Rossini first. At some yet TBD time (supposedly this year) they will be releasing an update for the Debussy. They are also rolling out a separate unit that will handle network traffic to take advantage of the streaming services so there is a chance that support for things like MQA will be performed in an outboard processor "network unit" which will have some sort of ability to feed other devices -- at least that's the best I can string their story together. I'm sure it will be something different as they don't reveal their hands until the last minute.

That said, DCS has licensed MQA so how they utilize it will be TBD (as in how it gets in other devices). From an engineering and cost perspective, it makes more sense to license an outboard device and sell it separately rather than have to pay a license for every product they currently support and provide the capability as a firmware/software update. But again, this is just speculation and an educated guess on my behalf.
 
My dealer told me that some update of the Debussy is coming. He mentioned something about upsampling capabilities with the next update.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top