I really don´t get the whole "transformer" / enhanced description of the Convert 2. It does in no way sound that coloured in my opinion

LOL!

I agree though, another set of ears—GSOUND—on the Solaris would be very helpful. Unless I'm mistaken, each person who has heard both has opted for the Solaris.

I am really tempted to order one from Vintage King right now just so I can stop posting in this thread... :P

That's one person, the other said they wanted both (C-2 for transfer, Solaris for monitoring). :P

Do it! Nothing to lose, easy return policy. Here we go...

Crane Song Solaris Quantum D/A Converter - Vintage King Audio



(I'd buy that in a heartbeat if in the States. Have to wait until January in the UK.)

I was indeed mistaken then

the Solaris is in the mastering chain, monitoring on a 2192 for now, we're done buying gear for awhile

_sh

How to measure such things....
This big (he holds his hands six inches apart).

I don't mean to wind people up. As a fellow GearSlut I understand the anxiety that a new contender for the throne can create.

If I had never heard the Solaris, I would have been happy with the Convert-2. The only reason I brought in the Solaris was because I wanted to be sure that I was not missing something. There were no reviews, but I heard Dave Hill at NAAM (on YouTube) discussing it. It sounded interesting. I was still within the return window on the Convert.

The longer the Solaris burned in, the more it just walked away from the Convert-2, and the more addicted I got to it. It is not just about detail. There is a sweetness and a delicacy to fine transients. Everything seems cleaner. The midbass and midrange especially. There is an effortless quality to it. When things get really busy in the music, the Solaris just dances with it. With the Convert-2, which is better than any other converter I had tried, fine transients sounded a little thick but only in comparison to the Solaris and only a little. I would not have called it thick before hearing the Solaris. Could it be a touch of that transformer style liquidity thing?

Here I am, waxing poetical, but people are just going to have to try it for themselves. It will either work for you, or not.

As others have said, the Convert-2 will not stand in the way of delivering a mix. People have delivered mixes profitably on lesser equipment for years.

I got mine from Vintage King Audio as well. They seem like a good bunch of folks.

Your waxing was actually more helpful than you think because your comment about small transients sounding a smidge thick on the Convert-2 actually gave me a pretty accurate idea of what the overall difference actually is, so thank you for that!

same here
_sh

I usually like your posts DigitalGrease, but my BS meter lit up a smooch when reading this.

You're saying you had to turn up the Convert2 THAT much louder to match the details you were hearing on the Solaris at far lower volumes?

Regardless, early next year I will try out the Solaris and compare it to the Convert2 and my new Merging Hapi DAC which is quite lovely as well.

It is VERY hard to determine which DAC represents the truth in regards to the source. The only way I can think of testing this is by lining up, say, 6 of the best super high end DACs, all fed the exact same signal and with perfectly level matched outputs, and then while A/B with a quick switcher, begin throwing out the ones that sound different from the herd, until finally you get to one that best represents the most beautiful 'average' of all high end DACs. And even that sounds like a ridiculous outcome...

If you think about, there is absolutely NO WAY of knowing what DAC is best presenting the source audio with utmost purity. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise right?

Agree with this bit entirely.

The only way would be to perform a null test against a live source. Even then you'd get distortion with the tracking/input chain; no matter how small. Nothing will ever be 100% transparent (yet).

My lack of language skills is causing a bit of misunderstanding, I will give it another go:

My ears are overly sensitive to SPL. I use hearing protection while driving. When the maintenance guy is vacuuming in the room, I use hearing protection, otherwise it is painful to me. Weird, I know.

I was trying to see if the Convert could match the transparency and detail of the Solaris by turning up the volume. It helped a little, but even when I brought the volume up to my discomfort zone (which is admittedly rather low), the Convert-2 could not match the Solaris for fine resolution and transparency. The Solaris is just that next level. How much of a level will be up to the individual to decide. For some, mojo will outweigh transparency.

That is the only way to be certain if it works for you. We have incredible equipment these days, we just can't stop seeking that next level, which makes us Slutz....

Personally, I would be a bit more pragmatic. If what you hear makes your life better or easier or more enjoyable, go with it. Life is too short to worry too much about which illusion is closer to reality. I was curious, I made a low-risk investment to scratch that itch, and I was frankly surprised at the outcome. The Convert-2 is a wonderful box, I liked it so much that I regretted ordering the Solaris the next morning, thinking that I was just being my usual obsessive self. (And I was) In the end, I got lucky and found something that fit my needs even better.

Exactly right! Pick the flavor that gives you your favorite illusion, and have fun!

It sounds like you have hyperacusis. I don't know how well I can trust your opinions in light of this, since you're not hearing the world the way most of us are hearing it. Especially if your hyperacusis is frequency-specific.

Fair enough. That's why we all listen for ourselves.

Other people seem to be hearing the same things, so time will tell if I am completely out of whack.

Being overly sensitive does not mean that I can't hear. The hypothesis on Wikipedia was that this condition was possibly due to damage and is possibly frequency specific. That's a lot of possibly.

Feel free to ignore me, you won't hurt my feelings. Really, it's ok.

To be clear, it's not my intent to insult or demean you. I am simply making an observation based on what you decided to share with us here. This is Gearslutz, after all, so skepticism is always high. We're all trying to get down to the bottom of a very subjective topic with very little data to go on (two opinions so far).

I am personally going to order the Solaris when I free up some credit on my credit card because I want to experience it myself and add to the little information we have about it.

I took no offense at all. Your position is entirely reasonable and prudent! No worries, friend!

I'm glad. I admit that I was initially a bit miffed because I just bought the Convert-2 and then found this thread, but I'm going to spend some time getting to know the Convert-2 so that when I compare it against the Solaris, I'll have a good idea of its sonic personality.

Your plan is an excellent one. Try lots of different material, get fully familiar and comfortable with it. Work with it. Then when the new kid comes to town, let it cook for a week while you continue with the Convert-2. If curiosity gets the better of you, just remember that the Solaris opens up day by day. I have the feeling that it continues to improve for about two weeks, perhaps longer in a slowly decreasing degree. That may simply be illusion or my ears adapting, since the Convert went back after a week of side by side comparison. I had the Convert-2 for several weeks before the Solaris arrived.

It is entirely possible that you may prefer the Convert-2, it is a wonderful DAC.

Hey, if beauty were an absolute, measurable thing, then museums would only have one piece of art in each particular category.

In my opinion, the problem with the pursuit of audio nirvana is our own brains - each one is wired a bit differently and through that, plus life experiences, prefers something different from the next one. For example, I grew up on mostly electronic music made in the 80s and 90s, when conversion was crap, and for the longest I thought my mixes were fine, until I started listening more to beautifully captured and crafted acoustic recordings of classical and jazz music. My perception changed and my perspective was adjusted.

The good thing out of all this is that you've convinced me that I need to hear the Solaris, even if to confirm that the Convert-2 is still my preference, as endless back-and-forth on a forum will never substitute an actual listening experience.

As a side note, it could be that the Solaris won't make sense in my setup because my speakers (BM15As) and controller (MC2.1) will obstruct its clarity - your monitoring chain is much pricier than mine. (BTW, what controller are you using?) The journey continues! I enjoy these discussions, and hope you do, too.

I just read the Pink Noise Magazine's Pink Paper on clocking and their conclusion on the Convert-2 and the HEDD192 used as master clocks to improve the sound of the famously jittery Digi 192 interface was kind of consistent with your comments on the difference between the Convert-2 and the Solaris - the Convert-2 was not as detailed as the HEDD192, but it had a pleasant "analog" quality to it and good reverb depth.

Perhaps the main difference between the sound of the Convert-2 and the sound of the Solaris could be their internal clocks - after all, the Solaris' boast 0.54ps jitter while the Convert-2 has 16ps jitter (both published specifications) - that's almost 30 times more jitter on the Convert-2 than on the Solaris. What sonic differences this translates to exactly? Perhaps what you heard in your comparisons of the two.

I particularly love this quote from the Pink Paper, which sums up this and many other DAC threads:

"Given the variability of sound that we heard from all the different clocks and converters we’ve tried, we believe it’s time to move away from the tired notion digital audio is evolving toward some ideally transparent system and to embrace that a diverse array of beautifully executed converters – all of which will have “a sound” of some kind – is emerging. Transparency and musicality (this means ‘beauty’ we believe) will always be intertwined in an elaborate and confusing dance between the speakers."

Followed up with this:

"The more we talked about it, the more we realized that our preference would be for digital conversion to continue toward a multiplicity of beautiful sounding digital systems, and for the work of sound manipulation to be left to the tools designed to do so. Others may disagree, but our happiest moments as recordmakers and as listeners has been when a digital system simply sounds beautiful.

The above two quotes sum up my feelings about the whole DAC thing to the tee and the whole paper actually opened my eyes on a lot of things. I am almost of the notion now that different DACs would suit different kinds of music.

Curious where you're located? I would gladly pay for a listening session (and bring some beer). Looks like we're both obsessives who just must know!

We are not alone in suffering from the idea that we may not have "the best" thing. The only cure for each particular episode is to try out the object of desire and see if the dream evaporates.

Indeed, I do enjoy these discussions, especially with the quality of people on these threads. Passionate, genuine and generous with their expertise. I have learned much here.

I have no direct experience of your equipment, I did a little research, and I believe it will be fully capable of telling you what you need to know. The law of diminishing returns applies to studio monitors as it does everywhere.

I am running a minimalist system at the moment, the chain is computer, DAC, amplifier, speakers. I have an Apollo 8p that also connects to the computer for use as mic preamps and line inputs for A/D conversion, as well as DSP for the UAD plugins. No monitor controller here for the time being.

I spent some time skimming through the article, nice find. I would not presume to second guess those experts. So, based upon inductive reasoning, (those who have read the article will get the sly wink) your hypothesis about the jitter levels in the two converters is very plausible.

Indeed. I think it was our friend B Elgin in Taipei City who suggested that the Solaris might be ideal for pitching Acoustic or Classical into the upcoming Interstellar ADC from Crane Song. I confess to having similar thoughts regarding classical music and the Solaris early on in my testing. Our friend AMIEL pointed out, correctly, that my interest in Cinema and Ambient might skew my tastes toward the Solaris.

I'm located in Massachusetts. If you were close enough, you could even bring your monitors over and see what they sound like on the Solaris, although the room would be completely different. No need to pay, but I am in the middle of restructuring my setup, so even if you were close by, it would have to be a little while before it could happen.

Thank you for the listening session offer! I am located in New York state, so it's a 3-hour or so drive to you. Maybe once you finish up your room, you can shoot me a PM? I would appreciate the listening and exchanging experiences! (And I'll bring beer/whatever is your poison. )

I saw the Interstellar mention in the Solaris manual, too (did you notice Dave is naming these boxes after Sci-Fi novels? Solaris was written by my favorite Sci-Fi author, Stanislaw Lem - truly brilliant Polish writer) and I am pondering keeping the Convert-2 until the Interstellar comes out, then get both the Solaris and the Interstellar if it has a word clock output, since the Quantum clock is what the Solaris' sound really seems to be about (and the latest HEDD192 and Avocet).

After reading the Pink Paper, I now fully understand why my Orion 32 might not sound as good on its internal clock as it can on an external 10M clock - because its internal crystal-based clock might be intentionally crippled just a bit so that Antelope can sell us their 10M clocks and claim and increase in fidelity! Right now I'm clocking the Orion 32 from the Convert-2 and the DA does in fact sound a little bit clearer. I wonder how it would sound clocked from the Quantum clock.

There's so much FUD (F'ed Up Disinformation) in pro audio marketing (I caught Antelope lying multiple times about their gear before, confirmed tonight by the Pink Paper), that all we can do is simply go with our ears - the end goal here is not transparency, but happiness!

Will do. It will be well after the holidays before we can even think about it.

Indeed! Interstellar, Solaris, Quantum DAC. This is becoming a massive nerd fest, and I love it!

Companies do this all the time. The good news is that, by doing this, they leave the door wide open for competition and innovation.

Indeed! Now, I'm off to read a little William Gibson "All Tomorrow's Parties", then off to bed!

Gibson is one of my favorites, must have read Neuromancer about 15 times by now. Enjoy!

If you're referring to my report - I should be clear that I don't mean it sounds like a transformer colored device.

What I said was that the lows had some type of density to them that I hadn't heard a converter represent before, and it's a sound I'm very fond of. If I was trying to get that type of effect on a bass in particular, I'd go experimenting with parallel processing with transformer color or compression.

Anyway the perception of color or enhancement is of course relative - I was going back and forth between the Solaris, Hilo, and Convert-2. Compared to them, it definitely sounded enhanced to me. And I liked it a lot. How can we say which one sounds the most real or faithful?

When being used as a transfer DAC, I'm really not sure how much of the pleasant rendering I heard will make it through the ADC and back out the monitoring DAC. When I get one here, I'll be able to check.

Maybe Mr. Hill will build us a Cyberiad routing box. Lem and Gibson are great, no? And thanks for the link to the pink paper, that was a really nice read.

By the way, thanks DigitalGrease for your contributions. I think a very slightly "thick" transient presentation is better describing what I heard from the Convert.

This is possibly my favourite thread on Slutz. Always reading SF. I'll check out Stanislaw Lem, thanks. While on the subject, do check out the Mistborn (Trilogy) by Brandon Sanderson. One of the best series I've ever read—and I read a lot. Incredible author; plot, characters, world building but most of all, novel ideas.

Back on topic, I always assumed it was the low jitter that yielded the clarity for the Solaris. A 'cleaner' signal is the basis for all of the USB modifiers after all. Knowing how much the Uptone Regen transformed the Prism Lyra is enough to prove this (to me personally).

In my 'audiophile' headphone setup (Simaudio Moon 600i feeding the Abyss AB-1266 directly via custom cable, fed again my the Lumin A1 network player) USB is taken out of the chain, and the difference is substantial. The sound is entirely organic. Realism is off the charts.

If that's what the Solaris has accomplished via USB due to the 0.5ps jitter it'll be my choice of DA, and hats off to Dave. Can't wait to hear it next month. Same with the Convert-2, that's coming today or Monday, and from what I hear it sounds very real.

Tangible, organic and real sound can't be explained or broken down into technical specs. It has to be experienced. The first time I heard that was via an MSB Platinum stack with the custom PSU, run though their network player over ethernet. It's what pushed me to get the Lumin A1 (95% of the performance for 10% of the cost) :¬)

Life would be dull without music, I see it as an investment in happiness. Nothing is more important!

I really, really wish the Solaris had a word clock output. I want it to be the master clock for my system to clock my RME card and my Orion 32. The Orion 32 sounds better being clocked from the Convert-2 already. Maybe the Interstellar will have a word clock output?

This is the problem with language and metaphor as a means of communication.

- Words are a pale reflection of the Thoughts that formed them.

- Thoughts are a pale reflection of Understanding.

- Understanding is a pale reflection of Epiphany.

- Epiphany is a pale reflection of Reality.

Hierarchies of abstraction. It is what we have to work with, at least until we get direct cranial interface and cybernetic enhancements. (Although, direct cranial interface will probably not produce perfect understanding either, but that is waaaay off topic.)

Agreed!

I believe AMIEL has said that the mojo does transfer. I am willing to take his word on it. The effect is not subtle, so it should be able to force its way through even the weakest A/D converter. I am sure there will be some losses, those are unavoidable. I have heard other people talking about that mojo transferring successfully as well.

I am going to have to look up that book, "The Cyberiad".

And thank you for your initial report and this subsequent sanity check for my cognitive processes.

On my list!

Inductive reasoning is a treat!

Agreed. Nice gear, by the way. If I'd had the financial resources at the time, I could easily have wound up in a very similar place.

Nice post, although I'd posit that Reality is a pale reflection of Epiphany.

Our world is subjective—there is no empirical reality—and it's our emotion that gives experience meaning; the primary organising principle of our lives. Without such, Reality is an abstract noumenon.

As you say though, another conversation entirely

Back on subject - DG - are there any specific tracks (and even more specific; times) in which highlight the difference between the Convert-2 and Solaris clearly? Since you've been comparing them for so long, I assume you used some reference material.