Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Battle of the balanced DACs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Battle of the balanced DACs - Page 4

post #46 of 75


Get with the comparisons already!
post #47 of 75
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer
Let the battle begin!!!
So what is your plan? Do you have a set of XLR - RCA cables or are you simply just going to compare the amp/dac as a whole?

and I think the highest volume my DA10 has seen is about 35
post #48 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandenigma1
So what is your plan? Do you have a set of XLR - RCA cables or are you simply just going to compare the amp/dac as a whole?

and I think the highest volume my DA10 has seen is about 35
Yeah, I have the cables and am comparing them through the Dynahi. The volume is set to match that of the source I'm comparing to, in this case the Aqvox.

The plan is to compare them as much as I can tonight (though they must still be burning in), before packing up to head down to LA for this weekend's meet.
post #49 of 75
IMPRESSIONSSSSSSSS
post #50 of 75
Well between packing up I haven't had that much time to listen yet, but based on a few tracks I'm getting: The Lavry and Aqvox both seem to have a bit smoother treble than the DAC1, though I detect no loss of detail, in fact I have noticed a few details with those two that I had not previously with the DAC1. At this point the Lavry seems to have a slight bit more bass impact than the Aqvox, though the latter has a bit of an edge in the PRaT/musicality/boogie factor. Granted this is all based on early limited listening, without identically matched cables, so I would hardly stake the moon on these impressions
post #51 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer
Let the battle begin!!!
Dude! I nearly... ah, let's not talk about it. Consider upping the oversampling on the AQVOX.
post #52 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver :)
Dude! I nearly... ah, let's not talk about it. Consider upping the oversampling on the AQVOX.
Really?
The engineer recommends 32, and I agree.64 sounds close to my tin ears, adds a little edginess and might be suitable for the occasions when I want metal to sound more aggressive, but in the rare latter case I'd prefer the Benchmark with Grados anyway.
128 sounds distorted, not recommended.
post #53 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmopragma
128 sounds distorted, not recommended.
I said "consider", not "like the results"

I currently have it at 128, been there for a few days. And you're right, it adds slight but noticable distortion mainly to the bass. But I also like what it does in a way, it's great for rock, add weight. I will fool around with 64 now.
post #54 of 75
I remember the Aqvox to sound best with oversampling at 32x, Dither on, and Phase inversion on occasion.

I have been able to improve my Berendsen in the high frequencies by having a new D/A converter chip installed recently. Now it sounds as detailed as the Aqvox, with some added smoothness, but stilll lacking a bit of its holographic imaging.

IronDreamer: I found the soundstage to be on of the most striking features of the Aqvox, especially in my speaker system. With my MS-2s back then, this obviously wasn't as pronounced. What are your impressions?

There's been a price hike recently with the Aqvox. Still comparatively inexpensive at 749,- Euro.
post #55 of 75
Well I have found the Aqvox to sound best so far with upsampling bypassed, dither off, pluse filter, and oversampling at 32. The soundstage is certainly very good, haven't really tried to compare that aspect yet to the Lavry, but I don't recall a major difference so far.

To me the strength of the Aqvox so far seems to be PRaT, it is damn fun to listen to. The Lavry is a more visceral experience in the bass and treble, but it doesn't get my toe tapping to the ridiculous degree that the Aqvox does.
post #56 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer
Well I have found the Aqvox to sound best so far with upsampling bypassed, dither off, pluse filter, and oversampling at 32. The soundstage is certainly very good, haven't really tried to compare that aspect yet to the Lavry, but I don't recall a major difference so far.

To me the strength of the Aqvox so far seems to be PRaT, it is damn fun to listen to. The Lavry is a more visceral experience in the bass and treble, but it doesn't get my toe tapping to the ridiculous degree that the Aqvox does.
What amp are you using when you're talking about this? And also how is the internal headamp of the Aqvox?
post #57 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnero
And also how is the internal headamp of the Aqvox?
It only works in USB-Mode IIRC. Nothing fancy as AQVOX themselves state, I didn't even bother to try it yet.
post #58 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver :)
It only works in USB-Mode IIRC. Nothing fancy as AQVOX themselves state, I didn't even bother to try it yet.
Ahhh, so that's one big bonus of the Lavry then.
post #59 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnero
What amp are you using when you're talking about this? And also how is the internal headamp of the Aqvox?
I'm using the Dynahi as per in my sig. And the matter of the headphone amp built-in has been settled. I haven't used it in USB mode yet.
post #60 of 75
IronDreamer: The boogie factor is also an aspect where the Aqvox distanced the Berendsen with the older DAC chip installed. In terms of settings: I remember the Pulse setting to add a bit of excitement to the sound as well. I think I might have confused it with Dither in my previous post.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Battle of the balanced DACs