In use. Because Sonnet's Pasithea packs non-lossy volume with 16Ω Zout (8Ω with internal -10dB gain jumper set), my main system no longer uses a preamp. Should review loaners need one, I have an autoformer icOn 4Pro or Vinnie Rossi which can be set to buffered passive or DHT mode. With Cen.Grand's Deluxe integrating its own non-lossy volume, my preamp fallbacks obviously stayed benched. Hello suggestion. Cen.Grand already have their alternate display for analog-only preamp mode. Why not exploit it in variable DAC mode? Once we set resampling frequency, digital filter and source, the most important display element is the volume readout. In preamp mode that's far bigger so nicely legible from the seat. Depending on sight and distance, in DAC mode it's too small. In fixed DAC mode called 'direct', the current display is perfect. I suggest that variable DAC mode could default to preamp view after a few seconds. If one made changes to sample rate or filter, that screen would briefly activate before resetting to big volume. Also, a display dim/off function is always lovely for those who prefer minimum light pollution particularly during evening sessions. With those requests off my chest, into the downstairs listening seat facing Kinki Studio EX-B7 monos driving Qualio IQ 3-ways while a dual 15" cardioid sub off a Goldmund/Job 225 cemented the first two octaves. The Deluxe's RCA/XLR do 2.5/5Vrms max. It's just slightly more than the industry standard so nothing crazy like the 12V I've seen on an exotic fixed DAC.

Use mouse-over loupe function; or open in new tab for full size.

Without switching back to my resident converter, listening to the Cen.Grand on its own suggested nothing fundamentally different. That smarted. Previous DSD trials had latched onto a softer more billowy gestalt, sweeter treble, warmer bass and gentler focus. So I'd thought those to be the format's giveaway tells. A year ago the Sonnet Pasithea had sent Denafrips' Terminator Plus packing to move into the upstairs system. That was due to appreciably higher resolution of recorded ambience, micro detail and finer timbre differentiation for more filigree. Eliminating a preamp was mere bonus. Without direct A/B, JianHui Deng's machine which technically did it all very different now didn't let on. As far as sitting in my chair went, the usual sound had merely changed looks. Drabber Dutch chic had turned more Dubai full-size darling. Surely the sound couldn't be identical. What ever is? 'twas simply close enough to trigger no internal notifications that my carefully curated balance had up and left. A DSD DAC which could hang with Cees Ruijtenberg's finest multi-paralleled R2R ladders on res and RPM? What was my world coming to? It's key to kick off lighthearted. It drives home how despite any minor offsets I fully expected to show during subsequent swaps, the core flavor, quality or pedigree hadn't changed. Because whenever it does change, we notice it right away when our sense of difference is sharpest. In this case, these two machines felt interchangeable as far as my enjoyment went. Famous last words?

First some final words on general usage. At the lowest volume setting of -65dB, there is very faint sound just as it should be to let us know we're live. No attenuation steps are wasted in our ambient noise. If we want full mute, we press 'mute'. That word blinks to let us know at a glance why there's no sound. Stepping up resampling shows why with it bypassed, Cen.Grand still enforce PCM at DSD256. Available in rising mode, DSD128 plainly lacks top-end air to sound matte and overcast. Air and gloss restore instantly in DSD256. From there to DSD512 is a far smaller step. To my ears, DSD1'024 was mostly bragging rights. Likewise for the eight digital filters. I couldn't tell them apart but perhaps in certain conditions, a lower stop band registers superior? If my experience is anything to go by, I'd set the resampler to at least x 8, the digital filter to 1 then forget all about it. Just as I do with my own DAC, I angled the Deluxe toward my chair to better see the display. In this orientation the remote was most responsive and exactly what you'd want for couch-potato thrills. Again, my 1962-vintage eyes at the above distance would prefer the volume to show in bigger preamp mode. Those now really were my final words on interacting with the machine.

Use mouse-over loupe function; or open in new tab for full size.

Onto sonic parsing. You already know how despite catholic/protestant design ideas—or Judaic/Hindu?—initial heaven felt the same. Fruit ripe for the picking everywhere. Apples predominant, no snakes in sight. Harps on clouds. Cows in garlands, dreadlocked sadhus on ganja. Virgins lined up to the horizon. Oops. Wrong religions. But as far as my spontaneous reaction went, these very different decks were interchangeable. A complete bust then for difference? In direct A/B, the primary offset was of image focus and related sizing. Pasithea rendered virtual sound sources smaller so more clear-cut and defined. The Deluxe applied softer focus. That frayed the edges. Images became larger yet looser. That looser aspect suggested more tone/space interaction; what I call billowing. It translates to feeling more relaxed as well. Marginally softer bass and treble factored too but nothing like how DSD128 truncated the top end. It showed how at least in this implementation, 2 x DSD lacks treble resolution. That blatant shortcoming disappears at x 4, 8 and 16 multipliers. Another small difference favored Pasithea. It had to do with the depth domain. That was more specific. I suspect that on raw S/NR, the extreme Dutch probably outclassed the Deluxe. Back to more casual than craned-neck listening, we take things at face value not curry constant conflict by contrast to something else. Now this whole difference gap was surprisingly narrow. Outside of head-to-head comparisons, not going exactly toe to toe becomes irrelevant. It's too little to care about the following day when you forgot all about it overnight. With Pasithea long paid for, the Deluxe couldn't reasonably hope to replace it. But standing in close enough, I knew how upstairs the same observations would outclass the Terminator Plus. It's why that had vacated the main system in the first place.

Oy reviewer's curse. Constant exposure to new stuff includes things that outdo ours. One minimizes the risk by not reviewing beyond a budget. When dealing with direct-selling or otherwise high-value brands, mishaps might still occur against even costlier challengers already in one's possession. Now one issues quick pick-up requests; or pays up. After my first serious rounds I felt vindicated in my private DSD elevator pitch. Prior observations of the breed held, albeit much diluted. Perhaps high-rate upsampling of DSD is more important than for PCM to wash out the fingerprint to insignificance? Detractors will ask why we should emulate PCM in the first place. Here it's not even about limited software choices as would be true for SACD, DVD-A, MQA and hi-res files. The Deluxe plays all native PCM, DSD and DoP files. What else matters? Perhaps this email from David Hyman. "If interested I can send you a hard drive with hundreds of ripped SACD as well as native DSD files for testing. I often find them to be superior to my high-res PCM files. It's all a crapshoot when you don't know mastering provenance and that PCM conversion issue. When I was Pono's CEO to work with Neil Young each day, A/B testing these was part of my daily routine. Sony own Columbia so Bob Dylan-ripped SACD are often my preferred poison; and he's my North star, too." I accepted this kind offer but suggested that a thumb drive of some of his favorites would be plenty sufficient.