[Edwood]

I've heard the Lavry DA10, Benchmark DAC1, Modded and Stock Bel Canto DAC2, and the Stello DA220 under excellent, in home listening conditions.

I've ended up owning and still have the Stello DA220. It won my ears over.

That said, I have not personally heard a Bel Canto DAC3 (I've touched one before.

), so I'll reserve my final opinions until then.

However given the price/performance and the opinions of those that took the time for long term in home listening comparisons (not just brief meet/trade show impressions) the DAC3 is not off to a good start.

I'd also like to see detailed pics of the DAC3's innards too before passing any further judgement as well.

-Ed

 

[tonyx]

I get my DAC3 last night. The sound comes out from the DAC3 was not good at the very beginning. After 10 hours run-in, the treble and bass are great; 3D and air feeling are much improve than my previous DAC (Chord DAC64).
I am happy to listening my music now.

This report is written after 24 hours of running.

 

[dcguy73]

Please keep the impressions coming...

 

[granodemostasa]

hi. is there anyone else here with the bel canto dac 3? does anyone know how the usb input works and is there an input selector?

 

[Liver]

curious, it has a digital "volume" knob. Do you think a really simple, yet high quality and fidelity headphone amplifier can be made without its own volume knob?

I am sure it can be done, but any ideas?

 

[granodemostasa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liver curious, it has a digital "volume" knob. Do you think a really simple, yet high quality and fidelity headphone amplifier can be made without its own volume knob? I am sure it can be done, but any ideas?

singlepower has made several headphone amps without volume controls to be used with pre-amps in the past. just ask them, they could make anything. (i'm actually contemplating this right now).

 

[thomaspf]

You can probably find amps without volume control but whether that gives you any better quality is questionable. The volume control in the Bel Canto works in the digital domain and therefore must give up resolution when you turn down the volume.

A high quality analog volume control is build from individual resistors or by switching different taps of a transformer and has the potential to preserve more resolution at lower volumes.

You are probably better off leaving the volume control in the DAC at 100% and using a high quality volme control in an external amplifier.


The Lavry DA10 has a digitally controlled analog volume control directly integrated into the DAC. Some Headroom models also come with stepped attenuators.

Cheers

Thomas

 

[humanflyz]

Well, digital volume control only decreases resolution up to a certain extent; if it's high enough, it won't really decrease any bits. And if it's dithered to 24bits, then most of the time you are not going to lose any resolution.

But I agree, setting the Bel Canto at maximum digital volume and using an external, high-quality analog volume control would give you the most fidelity.

 

[clarkc]

This thread seems to have gone a little quiet. Shame, as I am very interested to hear more about users' experience with this DAC, particularly with the USB input which seems possibly like the perfect way to access music files from a PC. Any other views out there?

 

[Ruppin]

I am actually using it now, comparing it to my Benchmark DAC1 (either optical/optical) or (usb/optical). My test set up, I freely admit, is less than ideal. But, in my less than expert opinion, I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that the Bel Canto is worth 2.5 times the Benchmark. The difference in qualtiy so far, is minimal at most. But, I will keep listening, and see if I can come up with better methods of camparison.

I have also tried calling Bel Canto (I read their manuals and white papers withiout learning much), to try and get advice on how to get the best results from the DAC-3. I haven't been able to reach them yet.

I'm beginning to wonder if the Stello 220 mk 2 woudn't be a more interesting DAC.While the Bel Canto is pretty, you can't control the degree of upsampling. it is unclear whether the digital volume control degrades quality at less than 100%. More later, but I'd like to see more reviews as well.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I tried the DAC3 running with the volume disabled via a Pre3 into a pair of A1000 refs and also running the DAC3 with volume enabled into the A1000s (both balanced and unbalanced).
Have to say that I felt that adding the Pre3 did improve the sound a small amount, implying that the volume control in the DAC3 is not the best on the market, though clearly not rubbish.

I've also compared the DAC3 vs the DAC2 and felt that there wasn't much in it for outright sound quality. The balanced connection did improve dynamics a small amount on the DAC3.
Yes the DAC3 does add a lot of nice connectivity options, and the volume control is a useful addition (and a LOT cheaper than adding the slightly better Pre3). I'm not going to comment on value for money, as that's always a personal opinion. If Ruppin believes his DAC1 is close (and clearly a LOT cheaper), then the DAC1 is looking like substantially better value for money.

One thought, also recently heard the PL1 (supposedly similar overall to the DAC3) against an Esoteric X-01 CD player. Have to say that the Esoteric was different league stuff, though it should be at 3 times the cost.
If I were looking at buying new, I'd be very inclined to investigate the Esoteric X-03, which is substantially closer to the DAC3, though still a good deal more, and includes a world class standard transport.

 

[clarkc]

Thankyou Ruppin and Mr_Sukebe for your impressions. It doesn’t seem that anybody is reporting any significant increase in sound quality of the Bel Canto DAC3 vs Benchmark DAC1, Lavry DA10, Bel Canto DAC2, etc. Most of the (still limited) impressions I have read talk about subtle differences at most. Perhaps that is in the nature of things at this level? I can only suppose that the higher price level of the DAC3 reflects more the design/styling and increased features (e.g. remote, USB)?

I have no direct experience with DACs but now wish to move to computer-based audio playback, hence the interest in the USB interface. I would therefore be interested in any impressions relating to the DAC3 driven by HDD via USB.

Ruppin, I agree with your view that based on what I have read, the Stello 220 Mk2 looks very interesting - and very elegant ! (Why do the offerings of so many other DAC manufacturers look more suited to a garage environment?). Others on my shortlist are the solutions offered by Empirical Audio around Benchmark DAC1, the Aqvox USB and, of course, the DAC3 which I understand will soon be reviewed soon on the 6moons site. For now, I will continue with my research…

 

[James]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Sukebe /img/forum/go_quote.gif I tried the DAC3 running with the volume disabled via a Pre3 into a pair of A1000 refs and also running the DAC3 with volume enabled into the A1000s (both balanced and unbalanced). Have to say that I felt that adding the Pre3 did improve the sound a small amount, implying that the volume control in the DAC3 is not the best on the market, though clearly not rubbish.

I actually had the complete opposite experience. After using the DAC3 for a couple months it is almost painful (sonically) to go back to using traditional preamplifiers. It's not just a matter of a loss of transparency as an obvious imposition of character by the preamp. The PRe3 in particular adds density and a certain bass/treble excitement to the mix, which can appeal to some, but not those who value transparency above all else. Moreover, philosophically-speaking as long as the SNR is good enough I find it very hard to believe that a properly-implemented digital volume attenuation -- which is what the DAC3 uses as its "volume control" -- can be inferior to most reasonably-priced preamps such as the PRe3. The only preamp I can bear to use nowadays is a Placette Audio RVC passive preamp, but oh if only its interface were designed by Bel Canto. The RVC is a geek tool to use, albeit a Class A tool!

This is not to say the PRe3 isn't a pretty damn good preamp, which it most definitely is! It's just that I'd think thrice before using an active preamp in front of the DAC3 unless you want to mess with its purity of sound. Having said that, I would consider putting a Mark Levinson No. 326S in front of the DAC3 since that preamp happens to have a character I like. But the No. 326S also an obscenely-expensive preamp, and not what I am talking about.

Since my mini review of the DAC3 earlier I received a new pair of speakers which has made me realize that I was shading the DAC3's performance due to the equipment I was using at the time. In particular, I now realize that the Magnepan MG1.6QR is not only bright, but really bright -- some 8dB up around 10kHz -- and that this severely limited any chances for an extended source to sound right. With the new speaker (NuForce S-9 standmounts) or an equalized-Magnepan (using a Behringer DEQ2496) the DAC3 simply sounds great. To reiterate the positive points from above, it has great and natural extension at both frequency extremes, a very pure tone, excellent detail (superior I believe to the Lavry DA10), and has in particular a very good sense of space and drama.

In conclusion, to my ears the main difference between the Bel Canto DAC3 and Lavry DA10 comes down to the midrange. Do you want it slightly laid back (DAC3) or slightly forward (DA10)? I suppose one might also hear the DAC3 as punchier in the bass and more extended in the treble, and the DA10 as smoother and more sultry. I wish I could hold onto both DACs indefinitely, but while I own both I enjoy having the ability to choose the sound as I please. I will miss whichever one I eventually decide to sell, that's for sure.

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruppin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am actually using it now, comparing it to my Benchmark DAC1 (either optical/optical) or (usb/optical). My test set up, I freely admit, is less than ideal. But, in my less than expert opinion, I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that the Bel Canto is worth 2.5 times the Benchmark. The difference in qualtiy so far, is minimal at most. But, I will keep listening, and see if I can come up with better methods of camparison. I have also tried calling Bel Canto (I read their manuals and white papers withiout learning much), to try and get advice on how to get the best results from the DAC-3. I haven't been able to reach them yet. I'm beginning to wonder if the Stello 220 mk 2 woudn't be a more interesting DAC.While the Bel Canto is pretty, you can't control the degree of upsampling. it is unclear whether the digital volume control degrades quality at less than 100%. More later, but I'd like to see more reviews as well.

I own both the Bel Canto DAC3 and the Stello 220mkII, as I have said previously. I have not been able to do a direct comparison to Lavry or Benchmark. What I can say is the these are both very excellent DACs. I prefer the Bel Canto over all. It has the greatest extension at both ends, the most natural and open tone and the most sense of 'air'. The Stello has a slightly fuller quality in the midrange, not louder but the tones seem more substantial (by a little, of course). I have used the SP MPX slam se balanced and mdr-r10 with each with USB source.

Each, as some have said, has extensive but different additional controls or capabilities, most of which have already been described. So your preference would depend on your system, etc.

Someone asked how the DAC3 USB 'works' and if there is a USB input selection. I'm not sure what is meant by the former, but one simply plugs the usb cable in the back and selects USB with the front universal knob which switches between volume setting and input selection. The volume can be variable or set at a fixed level one picks by pushing in a button on the back. Chosen input is displayed on the front when not changing volume.

It seems to me that differences in DACs at this level are necessarily slight in the total scheme, perhaps more in the order of significant cable difference than transducer differences. It seems apparent to me from reading here and elsewhere extensively that either of these is more to my taste and perhaps just better in respect to smoothness (vs. slightly etched detail and clarity), openness and perceived levelness of frequency response (vs. alittle brightness or being rolled off at either end). That's why I chose them. But, of course, I can't know this because I haven't been able to directly compare.

In any case, I agree that the Bel Canto is not better to a degree that matches the degree of difference in the price though as far as I can tell it is worth some more for sound and more again for appearance and features. Perhaps it should cost what the Stello does, and the Stello should cost a couple hundred less--to make the prices more proportionately reflect what you get in comparison the Lavry and Benchmark. Anyway, that's closer to what I bought them for...or I wouldn't have.

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by James /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only preamp I can bear to use nowadays is a Placette Audio RVC passive preamp....It's just that I'd think thrice before using an active preamp in front of the DAC3 unless you want to mess with its purity of sound.

Placette Passive is a great preamp, one I prefer even over transformer volume control in direct A-B comparison. What holds it back IMO is the additional RCA connectors and the extra set of interconnects one needs to connect it the power amp. I was rather surprised to find EVS Ultimate Attenuators sounded even purer and more dynamic in direct A-B comparison with Placette Passive. It's not a fair fight since EVS plugs right into amp's inputs without interconnects, and you don't get remote control, either.

The only active preamp I would feel comfortable using happens to be a $11,000 all-tube unit, but even that one does editoralize the signal more than EVS.