DAC Showdown: AQVOX USB 2 D/A vs. Benchmark DAC1 vs. Lavry Black DA10 - Page 3 - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio

gevorg · 02-02-2006, 01:06 AM

Thank you for another great review!

Did you get a chance to compare how DAC1 and Lavry drives headphones through XLR (unamped)?

Jon L · 02-02-2006, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by TVeye

Very interresting review!

how good is he usb input of the Aqvox (not for an headphone/mic input use but for a standard use with rca or xlr output),did you compare it to your RME pad?

Is the Lavry your first choice for heavy rock too?

I second this question about the quality of USB input for AQVox main DAC output vs. spdif input. I did not get to try the USB input when we compared the DAC's.

BTW, good work on the review, Peter. You obviously put in a lot of thought and effort into it. The most interesting find for me was the AQVox b/c I already expected Lavry to sound as refined and neutral as it did, and I already know the Benchmark well.

I quite agree about the "midrange dynamics" of AQVox. Since my favorite music lives and breathes in the midrange, I am probably more enamored by AQVox than you. It's probably not a coincidence that you favor Sony SA5K and I favor AKG's

I can see playing Emiliana Torrini, Maria Taylor, Feist, Buddy Guy over the AQVox via my tube amp through my speakers and just going, "Ahhhh..."

In addition, AQVox has easier mod potential than Lavry. It looks like it there are some generic-looking ouput coupling caps in there. Something like VH Audio V-Caps there will likely clarify the treble a bit. The PS also appears in need of bigger/better electrolytics, which may improve that bass...

Iron_Dreamer · 02-02-2006, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by Jon L

I second this question about the quality of USB input for AQVox main DAC output vs. spdif input. I did not get to try the USB input when we compared the DAC's.

BTW, good work on the review, Peter. You obviously put in a lot of thought and effort into it. The most interesting find for me was the AQVox b/c I already expected Lavry to sound as refined and neutral as it did, and I already know the Benchmark well.

I quite agree about the "midrange dynamics" of AQVox. Since my favorite music lives and breathes in the midrange, I am probably more enamored by AQVox than you. It's probably not a coincidence that you favor Sony SA5K and I favor AKG's

I can see playing Emiliana Torrini, Maria Taylor, Feist, Buddy Guy over the AQVox via my tube amp through my speakers and just going, "Ahhhh..."

In addition, AQVox has easier mod potential than Lavry. It looks like it there are some generic-looking ouput coupling caps in there. Something like VH Audio V-Caps there will likely clarify the treble a bit. The PS also appears in need of bigger/better electrolytics, which may improve that bass...

You needn't really be too concerned with the USB quality of the Aqvox, it's not the type of solution I know you're seeking. It's basically a good work-around for using on many different PC's (if applicable) or if one can't afford a better PC transport, but for ultimate sound quality, it's not the solution.

The Aqvox's much larger case, and less dense circuit boards certainly make for more of a modding opportunity.

HugoFreire · 02-02-2006, 01:49 AM

Very nice review!!!
Next: Lavry DA10 vs. Bel Canto DAC3

Edwood · 02-02-2006, 01:53 AM

So Dan Lavry is still not going to respond to whether or not a rotary encoder can be swapped out for that sillyd toggle switch?

-Ed

BrianS · 02-02-2006, 02:00 AM

am i correct in saying you said the lavry had more "depth" than the others? Kind of like how i prefer my brother's bose speakers in his car over my harmon kardon. I can feel the music better with the bose, what term would we call this?

Mikenet · 02-02-2006, 02:20 AM

I'm surprised you found the Lavry less jitter resistant than the DAC1. The "Wide Mode" of the Lavry uses the same jitter immunity method as the DAC1(implementations are different, of course, but the same ASRC IC is employed), but Dan Lavry seems to think the "Crystal Lock Mode" is more jitter resistant than wide mode.

Hmmn.

Is the digital output of the iRiver known to be good?

Iron_Dreamer · 02-02-2006, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by BrianS

am i correct in saying you said the lavry had more "depth" than the others? Kind of like how i prefer my brother's bose speakers in his car over my harmon kardon. I can feel the music better with the bose, what term would we call this?

I am not quite sure what characteristic you're getting at with the HK/Bose comparison, but I don't think it is what I meant by depth. The Lavry does have the most depth to the soundstage, in that I could better place instruments in a wide range from very close to me to far ahead of me.

If by "feel the music better" you mean it seems more viceral, you're probably referring to bass impact, which is generally more dependant on your transducers and amplification than the source.

Originally Posted by Mikenet

I'm surprised you found the Lavry less jitter resistant than the DAC1. The "Wide Mode" of the Lavry uses the same jitter immunity method as the DAC1(implementations are different, of course, but the same ASRC IC is employed), but Dan Lavry seems to think the "Crystal Lock Mode" is more jitter resistant than wide mode.

Hmmn.

Is the digital output of the iRiver known to be good?

Well I haven't really tested it in the wide mode much, and the part where I described the jitter resistance part was using Crystal Lock. It's very possible that wide mode quashes jitter as well as the Benchmark does.

As far as I know the digital output of the iRiver is not known to be particularly good, it's just rare that portable players offer a digital optical output, so it has become well known for that feature.

BrianS · 02-02-2006, 03:40 AM

yeah i was probably referring to bass impact

i am still debating between the aqvox and lavry. considering i am a newbie to all these connections, i need clarification. i will be using the dac between my emu 1212m and mpx3 which only has rca out. the emu has all sorts of outputs including midi, analog balanced, spdif optical and adat out. i dont know which is the best in my case. all i know is the lavry has xlr balanced out and that would have to terminate in rca to my amp. the aqvox has both rca and xlr. which is the best? a separate pm from anyone would be great or post here if you feel necessary. i just dont want to hijack this thread. thank you

cosmopragma · 02-02-2006, 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer

The Aqvox was always used with upsampling bypassed, dithering on, pulse filter, phase normal, and oversampling at 32 (lowest setting, manufacturer recommended).

You are fairly new to this DAC, and maybe you should give some other settings a second chance.
Admittedly I sometimes bypass the upsampling, but most of the time I prefer the upsampling.You might need some time to readjust, it's similar to a noncoloring amp that sounds uninvolving when you are long term used to a coloring amp, but after a few days of uninterrupted listening to the new one the colored presentation sounds weird.
At least with upsampling switched on you actually might get some jitter reduction.Your preference for bypassed upsampling has a side effect : you are bypassing the reclocking, too.
Doesn't surprise me you've found the Aqvox to be much more prone to jitter than the Benchmark, especially when feeded by the extremely jittery USB signal.
Just switch the damned upsampling/reclocking on, bypass the infamous K-mixer by utilizing the recommended third party USB driver, and in case your mobo USB chip is decent (Intel chipsets are generally, others vary) you might find that the USB input option is quite decent.
Well, jitter reduction at it's current state is not perfect, in fact the jitter is kind of transferred to noise and therefor the input signal with the lowest jitter is still the best, but it makes a small difference.