I have owned both the Lavry DA10 and Bel Canto DAC3 for almost a couple months now. I'm still not ready to make a wholesale review simply because I can't decide conclusively which one I like better! Since both have volume controls -- Lavry DA10 is analog, the DAC3's is digital -- I have been able to run it directly into my amp (NuForce Ref 8.02, driving Magnepan MG1.6s). The direct method appears to show up the differences between the DACs better than running them through my Placette RVC passive preamp. You guys can decide whether that's because the extra cable + preamp colors the sound uniformly or because the Placette makes it easier to A/B the DACs and that I'm magnifying the differences when I actually have to switch the DACs manually.
In the context of very small differences, my initial impression of the DA10 and DAC3 remains the same after all this time: they are diametric opposites. The Lavry DA10 is a midrange performer, the proponent of the analog sound; the Bel Canto DAC3 is all about realism. I listen to the Lavry when I want the best chance of relaxing to the music no matter how poorly-recorded it may be -- although the DA10 will eventually show up the badly-recorded stuff too -- but it is the Bel Canto that sends shivers up my spine when something sounds particularly realistic. Diana Krall is superior on the DA10; acoustic instrumental jazz is better on the DAC3. This does not mean that either DAC is incapable of moments where it sounds like the other -- indeed, they sound more alike than any other pair of components I've had through my system -- but there is a character to the Lavry that lends musicality to recordings, while the Bel Canto consistently sounds more realistic.
There are caveats to both approaches. The Lavry DA10 is almost as extended in the treble as the DAC3, but the DAC3 seems to push it up a bit more. It's a difficult thing to describe for me because I don't have the vocabulary, but sometimes it feels like the DAC3 is extending the treble so far that it hits a frequency brick wall when my own hearing cops out, so it doesn't sound as smoothly extended as the DA10. In other words, whereas the treble on the DA10 fades unnoticeably into light, I can hear where the DAC3 stops. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that when I first listened to the DAC3 I thought my Magnepans had suddenly grown metal tweeters. That's a harsh (pun not intended) description considering how amazingly smooth the DAC3's treble is, but that gives you a flavor of how different the DAC3's treble sounded coming from the DA10. On the other hand, while the DA10 isn't as super-extended as the DAC3 it compensates by focusing attention on the octaves just below high treble, which can sometimes come across as a brightness. This is exacerbated by my Maggies' tendency to a bit of misbehavior in that region as well. The final tally is that the Bel Canto actually sounds more coherent through the treble region, even with its more active high treble response. Confusing, I know: sorry about that.
Again I have to remind everyone that the differences between DACs nowadays -- at least at these price points, I have little experience with $3000+ DACs -- is very small and requires concentrated listening to tell apart, or casual listening over a long time. It would be a grave mistake to immediately dismiss one or the other DAC based on one or another comment. For example while the Bel Canto is brighter than the Lavry it is also clearly the more realistic, and although the Lavry may be more analog-sounding to me it does not imply that this is the sound you are looking for. When I plug the DACs directly into my power amp I seem to hear obvious differences, but when I tape over the Placette's input indicator and A/B the DACs through the preamp I find myself flummoxed by their similarity.
From memory, both DACs are again different from the Benchmark DAC1, which I gave up to get the Lavry DA10, so while for me they are both better than the DAC1 I myself cannot say that I couldn't live with any of the three forever. For me the hardest part to get right is the upper midrange-through-treble range, and each has its own problems in that area. You definitely don't get that slight Benchmark DAC1 coldness in either of the other two DACs, but the DAC3 may be too extended for some and the DA10 a little too uninvolving for others.
My apologies: I said I wasn't going write a review and end up putting myself in the position where people are probably going to bombard me with questions. So let me try warding off some of them:
- I haven't done much soundstaging/imaging observations, although I think the DAC3 is slightly wider and more laid-back, the Lavry DA10 is narrower with greater forward presence due to its midrange prowess, and the Benchmark DAC1 is flatter than both. Magnepans have a "background music" presentation that is better served by the Lavry DA10 but I suspect that in general the Bel Canto DAC3's soundstaging would be considered the best of all the DACs here.
- Bass is not terribly existent with my current setup so I can't really comment on that (although I think the DAC3 compensates its treble extension with a wee bit more welly on the bottom, vs the DA10; I can't remember what the DAC1 sounded like on the bottom).
- The differences between the DACs are far greater than anything I could hear between the various types of inputs (USB, optical, coax, etc.). In fact, I haven't heard any differences at all so far.
- I didn't try enough transports to determine their impact on the DACs and their jitter-reduction schemes. FYI, the Lavry DA10's Crystal Lock mode reclocks the data and the Bel Canto DAC3 uses the same upsampling scheme as the Benchmark DAC1 to push jitter beyond the audible range. I am convinced now that the DAC1's coldness is not due to this method of reducing jitter.
- I don't have any experience with Zhaolu or Stello DACs. I have in the past spent time with an Electrocompaniet ECD1, but that one was overtly musical and I was trying for neutrality at the time.
- Both the Bel Canto and Lavry are equally competent through the midrange, although as mentioned the Lavry is somewhat more forward there and the Bel Canto a bit more distant by comparison. Oh, that business about lower-midrange levity in the DAC3: it exists, but it serves to give richness to, say, Krall's voice rather than torpedo the DAC3's tonal response. It's part of why I feel the Lavry is more analog-sounding.
- Oh, the most obvious question of all: I haven't updated my headphone system as rapidly as my speaker system, so I can't really say anything on that front. Sorry guys and girls!
Ruppin: I think you will be pleased by the USB input. Know that it is only up to 16-bit/48kHz; however, ASIO works just fine (e.g. foobar2000 v0.8.3 with the .exe version of the ASIO component).
Hope that helps. I may change my opinion over time, but when they settle down I will write a better review. I will be receiving a pair of NuForce's S9 speakers shortly and expect that they will be more neutral than my Magnepan MG1.6s. That may be a better test of the DACs' performance.
Cheers!
Edit: I forgot to mention: all that I said about the Bel Canto DAC3's extended treble applies in even greater part to the previous DAC2. I never found the DAC2 to be as smooth and analog-sounding as many reviewers thought. In fact, I was quite taken aback at how bright it was. You want analog, try an Electrocompaniet ECD1 or, to a lesser extent, the Lavry DACs. I hear that Monarchy Audio M24 is a real player on that front as well.
