Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › DAC Showdown: AQVOX USB 2 D/A vs. Benchmark DAC1 vs. Lavry Black DA10
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DAC Showdown: AQVOX USB 2 D/A vs. Benchmark DAC1 vs. Lavry Black DA10 - Page 4

post #46 of 133
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
post #47 of 133
thanks

it will fit under my amp sideways
post #48 of 133
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
post #49 of 133
Quote:
Quote:
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
post #50 of 133
Quote:
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?
post #51 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosgp
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?
Having spent a great deal of time listening to gear and music with Iron_Dreamer, he has diversified his music choices, as have I. I never thought I'd find myself listening to Progressive Metal. LOL.

But if you look at his first post, he extensively lists the different songs he listened to. And it's not all Metal and Rock.

-Ed
post #52 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwood
Having spent a great deal of time listening to gear and music with Iron_Dreamer, he has diversified his music choices, as have I. I never thought I'd find myself listening to Progressive Metal. LOL.

But if you look at his first post, he extensively lists the different songs he listened to. And it's not all Metal and Rock.

-Ed
Yes, yes - This is not what I mean. I'll try to explain with my limited english. I suppose he prefers certain music styles over others, as we all do. And is normal we listen for different "things" in different styles of music. You can listen to a wide variety of music, but prefer certain "presentation" because you are more partial to one style whose strong point is this "presentation". Hard rock/metal and classical sound certainly are very different. Only asking if this could be the case.

By the way, I'm a heavy metal lover too since the beginnings of the '80s
post #53 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaspf
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...
I didn't want to question his comment about the sound quality in comparison to the Benchmark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer
Certainly I did get SOME jitter reduction from this DAC,
doesn't make much sense since the guy that designed the DAC claims the DAC doesn't provide jitter reduction in bypass mode.
post #54 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer
Certainly I did get SOME jitter reduction from this DAC,

Quote:
doesn't make much sense since the guy that designed the DAC claims the DAC doesn't provide jitter reduction in bypass mode.
How exactly would it not provide some jitter reduction. You'd be hard pressed to build a S/PDIF device that does not provide some jitter reduction from the standard chips available on the market.

A digital receiver chip like the CS8416 does of course use a PLL to extract a low jitter version of the clock embedded in the S/PDIF stream.

There might no secondary PLL like the crystal lock circuit in the Lavry or an ASRC but the primary PLL in the receiver chip is always there.

An interesting question is how you would ever compare the quality of a S/PDIF signal without this. I suppose older generations of the receiver chips did pass most of the jitter through to its clock output.

Cheers

Thomas
post #55 of 133
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosgp
Yes, yes - This is not what I mean. I'll try to explain with my limited english. I suppose he prefers certain music styles over others, as we all do. And is normal we listen for different "things" in different styles of music. You can listen to a wide variety of music, but prefer certain "presentation" because you are more partial to one style whose strong point is this "presentation". Hard rock/metal and classical sound certainly are very different. Only asking if this could be the case.
So, if I might paraphrase, you are essentially saying that my preference for rock/metal effects how I like to have classical/orchestral music sound? If this is the case, well then I am not entirely sure it is true. For instance, I am not generally listening for soundstaging intracacies or how natural or convincing an acoustic instrument sounds when listening to metal. There are certainly some characteristics that I want to hear regarless of the type of music I'm listening to , like instrument seperation and definition, impact/dynamics, and high and low end extension. I would generally say that there are specific qualities I look for in different types of music, because those genres make those qualities easier to discern (i.e. soundstaging in classical, or bass impact in metal). Overall, I listen to music to be excited and have a good time, regardless of the genre, so most of the time I don't favor soft/quiet music that lacks dynamics.

Considering that the two folks so far that prefer using the upsampling capability of the Aqvox both do so with the K1000, perhaps there is a certain synergy there?
post #56 of 133
For those interested, I belive Sound Pure has some Lavrys DA-10 in stock.
post #57 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.a.b.
For those interested, I belive Sound Pure has some Lavrys DA-10 in stock.
Indeed they do.
post #58 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canman
Indeed they do.
Fixed ones, or first batch?

The reversed Left and Right thing was just stupid.

-Ed
post #59 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwood
Fixed ones, or first batch?

The reversed Left and Right thing was just stupid.

-Ed
They said that they were sent back to Lavry for an update and returned to Pure Sound. Hopefully that was fixed.
post #60 of 133
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canman
They said that they were sent back to Lavry for an update and returned to Pure Sound. Hopefully that was fixed.
As far as I know this was done to reprogram a couple of chips which caused the wrong volume number to show for a few setting, and fix how it handled a certain sample rate. If this is the case, then it is from the first back, and has the improperly labelled outputs which are supposed to be fixed on the next batch of units to come out.

I "fixed" the lock LED on mine by just bending the plastic part that holds the LED to better fit the hole. Hopefully this is something they'll do a better job of on the next bach as well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › DAC Showdown: AQVOX USB 2 D/A vs. Benchmark DAC1 vs. Lavry Black DA10