DAC Showdown: AQVOX USB 2 D/A vs. Benchmark DAC1 vs. Lavry Black DA10

[mshan]

Have you found that the USB ports of any recent motherboard sound about the same?

And what sort of sonic degradations have been observed for less than optimal usb ports?

[Iron_Dreamer]

Originally Posted by cosmopragma

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.

Hmm, well I am sorry if my lack of upsampling seems to have so offended you. It simply sounds worse to me, the midrange sounds absolutely nasal, and unrealistic. I did not notice this problem if I upsampled in foobar first. I am not a fan of upsampling to non-integer multiples of 44.1kHz in the first place, as it tends to sacrifice microdynamics for an airier high end.

Certainly I did get SOME jitter reduction from this DAC, because even when fed with the most jittery inputs, it still sounded better than the DAC1. I used it with a DFI NForce3 motherboard FWIW. I did not want to pay for a USB driver, when I was not going to have any real use for USB other than testing, when I already own a better transport to begin with.

Originally Posted by cosmopragma

Either the listeners at your or at my side of the pond are victim of a strange kind of group hypnosis.
All those crazy europeans believe the DAC sounds better with upsampling on, but that might be influenced by the engineer's opinion (also an european).
All the americans at the meet thought the DAC sounds better slaved to whatever with upsampling/reclocking off.Even the damned passive analog filter isn't designed for 44 KHz.But, honestly and without meant to be offensive, to each his own.Many listeners like tube distortion better than solid state precision, and there's nothing wrong with using a DAC in another way as it was suggested by the engineer.
That's soooo funny.
Really.

I really tried to like what it sounded like with upsampling (since as you note that is the recommended configuration), but it was so noticeably and undeniably colored, it simply could not be ignored. If anything sounds more like tube distortion, it's this DAC with the upsampling turned on, followed by it with upsampling turned off. No offense, but both the DAC1 and Lavry sound more like "solid state precision" to me. Even if I upsampled in foobar (to my preferred rate of 176.4kHz), all I got out of it was the typical trade-off of microdynamics for an airier sound, which is not a trade-off that I enjoy, nor find accurate or transparent.

Originally Posted by carlosgp

Peter, congratulations for your review. One of the best I've seen here. After reading it, I think the better option for americans could be Lavry and for europeans Aqvox .

Yeah, the Aqvox is certainly a great deal for Europeans, and you needn't worry about it being lost in the mail for months before it arrives I'd think the price to import the Lavry would be quite a significant increase from the price of the Aqvox over there.

[J-Pak]

Exellent review

[dknightd]

Very nice review. Thanks for going to the trouble.
Makes me wish I had held out a few months till the lavry was available before I bought my dac1. Oh well, I like the dac1 just fine ;-) It is the best source I have, and as long as I am happy, and don't listen to something better, I should be able to resist the upgrade bug for a least a year (I hope)

In the interest of completeness can you tell us which revision of the DAC1 you have?

Edit: I can't remember if you mentioned it, but as you know, at this level (or at any level for that matter) changing headphones or speakers will have a much bigger impact on the sound.

[BrianS]

Anyone know the dimensions of the Lavry, i want to know if it would fit under my mpx3, thanks

[Iron_Dreamer]

Originally Posted by dknightd

In the interest of completeness can you tell us which revision of the DAC1 you have?

Edit: I can't remember if you mentioned it, but as you know, at this level (or at any level for that matter) changing headphones or speakers will have a much bigger impact on the sound.

I have the edition of the DAC1 just before the most current version, i.e. serial #38xxx.

Certainly changing speakers or headphones gives a much larger change in sound character and potential quality. However the differences in sources can be quite significant when the rest of the system is high quality enough.

Originally Posted by BrianS

Anyone know the dimensions of the Lavry, i want to know if it would fit under my mpx3, thanks

It's 8 in wide by 1.75 in tall by 10.5 in deep.

[BrianS]

thanks

it will fit under my amp sideways

[cosmopragma]

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer

Hmm, well I am sorry if my lack of upsampling seems to have so offended you. It simply sounds worse to me, the midrange sounds absolutely nasal, and unrealistic. I did not notice this problem if I upsampled in foobar first. I am not a fan of upsampling to non-integer multiples of 44.1kHz in the first place, as it tends to sacrifice microdynamics for an airier high end.

I didn't feel "offended" or annoyed at all since I'm generally not defensive about my gear or my preferences.Actually I enjoyed reading your review.It is amusing and enlightening how different the perception and preferences of two guys can be.
Sourcewise we have so much in common I have to laugh about it.Benchmark, Aqvox, Rme soundcards (one of my RMEs in my third rig is by chance been modded by you, I've got it for a ridiculously low price since your modding destroyed any ebay market value).Sometimes you like to make jokes about yourself as being a FOTM generator but due to my propensity for detecting I've got any of these long before you had the chance to turn them into a FOTM.

However, it seems to be a question of preferences.For my classical music through the K1000s I clearly prefer upsampling/reclocking.In bypass mode the for me most important coherency is disturbed.Seems to be I'm not that sensitive to lacking microdynamics.Comparatively lame old headphones, my ears are much older, what do you exspect.What I hear in bypass mode is a more forgiving sound for not so stellar recordings at the expense of imaging.There's a good use for both options, and fortunately everyone can experiment for himself.I wouldn't feed the DAC via USB or CDP with a 44,1KHz signál though since the analog filters aren't designed for plain old Redbook.Bypass is usable only for the soundcard guys.

Certainly I did get SOME jitter reduction from this DAC, because even when fed with the most jittery inputs, it still sounded better than the DAC1.

Again, with all the "no offense" back and forth, no offense, but as far as the engineer knows you are just plain wrong.Maybe the whole jitter issue is overrated at least in regard to your preferences, but in bypass mode there's absolutely no jitter reduction.Nada, rien, nichts.What you like is just a slaved DAC with an excellent analog output stage.

[thomaspf]

Certainly I did get SOME jitter reduction from this DAC, because even when fed with the most jittery inputs, it still sounded better than the DAC1.

Again, with all the "no offense" back and forth, no offense, but as far as the engineer knows you are just plain wrong.Maybe the whole jitter issue is overrated at least in regard to your preferences, but in bypass mode there's absolutely no jitter reduction.Nada, rien, nichts.What you like is just a slaved DAC with an excellent analog output stage.

I would think that general sound quality and jitter induced distortions are independent issues. When the sound of a DAC with or without dejittering circuit engaged is slightly better than that of a different model, than the engineer in me would conclude that the impact on jitter on the sound is smaller than the other differences between the two DACs. I would not think you are just plain wrong saying that...

The difference in sound betwen the different PLL modes in a DA10 are very subtle. I am not sure I could reliably DBT the differences between narrow (no secondary PLL), wide (ASRC), and crystal (synchronous reclocking).

Cheers

Thomas

[carlosgp]

Originally Posted by cosmopragma

However, it seems to be a question of preferences.For my classical music through the K1000s I clearly prefer upsampling/reclocking.

Exactly my thoughts, but without k1000 . I tend to use upsampling with all orchestral music. Peter, maybe your preference for other music styles could be conditioning your preference for bypass?