[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by akwok Uh, that holds true the other way around for the SA5000; you're covering up the flaws (it's harsh treble) with the DA10.

I don't think headphones can be harsh. They are just representative of the upstream situation.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by akwok Uh, that holds true the other way around for the SA5000; you're covering up the flaws (it's harsh treble) with the DA10.

Oh, that's a good one

Thanks for the impression, Iron_Dreamer. I don't know if I agree with your underlying logic, though. To me there is nothing wrong in using a brighter source to balance out a darker heapdhone, just like there is nothing wrong in using tube's warmness to balance ouyt CD's slight coldness, or K1000's slight sibilance. I guess complementarity can be a kind of positive synergy as well.

 

[Borat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer The DAC1 doesn't have more treble (i.e. more sparkle, or whatever choice noun you prefer)

Was that a dig at me? Well, screw you man!

I'm still a newb in terms of articulating sound characteristics of gear. I know in my head what I heard, it's just tough sometimes communicating that to others. So I admit that "sparkle" was not the appropriate term to use there.

 

[applebook]

In my view, having a slightly warm source with a warm and laid-back can is not ideal and might be too much of a good thing. Having said that, I've not read of the DAC1's "harsh" treble anywhere other than on head-fi and think that the cans of choice here (e.g. Grados, Sonys, etc.) might account for part of this potential flaw.

 

[mshan]

The reviews I've read all seem to point to a perceived overall leaness of the sound, with most thinking that a good tube preamp is what is needed.

Also sounds like Cardas Golden Cross interconnect might be a perfect match if using the DAC1 as a DAC in a 2 channel system. I'm also guessing that Acoustic Zen Matrix (all copper series 1) might also make a very good match for the DAC1. What do others think?

 

[AndreasG]

Hi everybody,

question: How do the built in headphone amps of the Benchmark and the Lavry compare? The Benchmark's doesn't seem to be all too bad -- can the Lavry keep up with that? Do you all have seperate headphone amps or do you use the built-in amps?

Next question: I am looking for a DAC that also works as a pre-amp (like the Benchmark and the Lavry do) so that I can connect my active speakers to the DAC without a separate pre-amp. The only problem is that none of them has a remote... Does anyone of you know such a device with a remote?

I know that the successor of the AQVOX USB2-D/A will have a remote volume control and a built in high-end class-A headphone amp, so this would be exactly what I am looking for. But according to AQVOX it is still in developement and it will be 2007 till it is sold. I don't want to wait so long, so I was thinking of buying either the Benchmark or the Lavry and sacrificing the idea of remote control...

More comparisons and impressions of the Lavry and the Benchmark would be very welcome... The Lavry seems like a nice unit, I like the idea of electronic volume control without a potentiometer. To bad that it doesn't habe a remote...

Would be nice to get some suggestions...

Andreas

 

[tkam]

I haven't heard the Lavry yet but I've never been all that impressed with the benchmark's built-in headphone amp. The Grace m902 has an optional remote that you can purchase but it is quite a bit more expensive than either the Benchmark or Lavry units.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by akwok Uh, that holds true the other way around for the SA5000; you're covering up the flaws (it's harsh treble) with the DA10.

The SA5000 doesn't have an inherently harsh or distorted treble. I have heard it sound perfectly refined and "smooth" in the treble if you will, on systems where other cans (most notably John Grado models) still exhibited large amounts of harshness/sibilance. I think the SA5000 is only harsh when you feed it from harsh sounding electronics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose Thanks for the impression, Iron_Dreamer. I don't know if I agree with your underlying logic, though. To me there is nothing wrong in using a brighter source to balance out a darker heapdhone, just like there is nothing wrong in using tube's warmness to balance ouyt CD's slight coldness, or K1000's slight sibilance. I guess complementarity can be a kind of positive synergy as well.

I think you missed part of my argument there. It is central that the DAC1 is NOT brighter, the "brightness" is only an illusion caused by harshness and distortion in the treble. So people end up pairing it with 650's or other dark components THINKING they are balancing it out as you described, but in fact, all they are doing is listening to a neutral source with more distorted treble. If the DAC1 was in fact actually brighter then you line of reasoning would hold up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndreasG question: How do the built in headphone amps of the Benchmark and the Lavry compare? The Benchmark's doesn't seem to be all too bad -- can the Lavry keep up with that? Do you all have seperate headphone amps or do you use the built-in amps?

My impressions have been of the DAC sections alone, using my Dynahi as an amp. I have tried the headphone jack on the Lavry, and I feel it is a good deal better sounding than the one on the Benchmark, though not as good as the Dynahi. It misses a bit of lower bass punch, as well the soundstage is slightly closed in feeling, and it doesn't drive K1000's as well (though it is useable with them, just not powerful enough to bring out their full dynamics). The DAC1's jack is thin sounding by comparison, not in frequency response, but in that it has an overrepresented attack as compared to the rest of a note, so you feel the initial rush of a note, but it doesn't quite sustain as it should.

 

[chrisfromalbany]

This only confirms my believes that DAC1 wasn't going to be worth the money. At the DAC1 price point, I don't want to feel the need to upgrade for awhile. Compared to getting an expensive amp which I think will hold it's value longer and isn't as quickly outdated. Only because I have a limited budget and think I get more value else were. Maybe I am making a mistake. But threads like this make me think not.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisfromalbany This only confirms my believes that DAC1 wasn't going to be worth the money. At the DAC1 price point, I don't want to feel the need to upgrade for awhile. Compared to getting an expensive amp which I think will hold it's value longer and isn't as quickly outdated. Only because I have a limited budget and think I get more value else were. Maybe I am making a mistake. But threads like this make me think not.

I don't know if I'd say an expensive amp would hold value longer, because there are always improvements being made there as well. Just think, a few years ago you'd have paid out the nose for something like a Headroom Cosmic that is now outpaced by the much smaller Hornet, and for less than half the cost.

Though it is not as bad as in the computer hobby, I think one must be at least somewhat ready for the pheonmenea of lowering value, because of new products on the market. If it is too much money to potentially put in something of that sort, then perhaps one needs to re-evaluate their potential investment level.

And remember that the differences I have described regarding these DAC's is a last few-percent sort. Don't read too much into the cross-comparison criticisms, since either unit sounds vastly better than any soundcard I've heard, and most CD players. The emergence of the DA10 by no means makes the DAC1 a bad investment, especially considering that many report that newer DAC1's sound better, and that the DAC1 is easily avaliable used, whereas the DA10 is in very short supply only at full retail at the moment.

 

[grawk]

The way to be happy with gear is to find gear you're happy with, then stop looking. Being unhappy with something because there's something newer out is entirely mental.

 

[AndreasG]

...a few more questions, because I am still not decided which DAC to buy...

1. Is there anybody who still prefers the Benchmark over the Lavry? If so: why? What reasons could you give me to buy the Benchmark and not the Lavry?

2. There's very little technical information available for the Lavry compared to the Benchmark. Is the Lavry upsampling to 192/24 also? I have read somwhere that it is not...I got the notion that the Benchmark is highly acclaimed in professional audio, the specifications and measurements look *very* good. Can the Lavry keep up with that?

3. How do the Lavry Black DA10 and the DA924 compare soundwise (I can see the differences in *features*, I would like to know which one is superior when it comes to audio quality)?

Thanks for any clarifications...

Andreas

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndreasG ...a few more questions, because I am still not decided which DAC to buy... 1. Is there anybody who still prefers the Benchmark over the Lavry? If so: why? What reasons could you give me to buy the Benchmark and not the Lavry? --One reason to "prefer" Benchmark is that it's available used right now, therefore cheaper. Even if you wanted a Lavry, it won't be available until mid-February when the second run is made. Besides, the differences are subtle, and unless you do rapid A-B testing, I wonder how many people/setups can tell the difference. 2. There's very little technical information available for the Lavry compared to the Benchmark. Is the Lavry upsampling to 192/24 also? I have read somwhere that it is not...I got the notion that the Benchmark is highly acclaimed in professional audio, the specifications and measurements look *very* good. Can the Lavry keep up with that? --I don't personally pay too much attention to measurements as indication of SQ, but I'm sure that Lavry, being a respected Pro gear house, has great measurements. If the Lavry is used in "crystal lock" mode, it does not upsample. 3. How do the Lavry Black DA10 and the DA924 compare soundwise (I can see the differences in *features*, I would like to know which one is superior when it comes to audio quality)? --can't help you there.. Thanks for any clarifications... Andreas

nt

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndreasG 1. Is there anybody who still prefers the Benchmark over the Lavry? If so: why? What reasons could you give me to buy the Benchmark and not the Lavry? 2. There's very little technical information available for the Lavry compared to the Benchmark. Is the Lavry upsampling to 192/24 also? I have read somwhere that it is not...I got the notion that the Benchmark is highly acclaimed in professional audio, the specifications and measurements look *very* good. Can the Lavry keep up with that? 3. How do the Lavry Black DA10 and the DA924 compare soundwise (I can see the differences in *features*, I would like to know which one is superior when it comes to audio quality)?

1) I have heard a few reports from people who have owned one then the other, but I am not aware of anyone else who has both to compare side-to-side. If you have not already read it, check out the so-cal meet thread, there are some comparisons of my units there, and everyone that I talked to who listened to it preferred the Lavry to the Benchmark.

2) The Lavry in Crystal lock mode does NOT resample. It only does so in "wide" or "narrow" modes, where it uses the resampler to lock onto non-standard sample rates (those that are not 44,48,88, or 96). In fact, the Benchmark does not resample to 192kHz either, it acutally resamples to 110kHz, which their main engineer has stated on these boards was used because it served as an optimum value for their digital filters.

Lavry's other DAC's (and ADC's for that matter) are also very highly regarded in pro audio circles, but they have not been taken up by the "audiophile" press in the way that Benchmark has lately, so hence are not as well known (less marketing $$$ perhaps?).

Specifications and measurements are not everything. As I have witnessed in soundcard modding, engineers often design things to measure better for marketing purposes, when in fact a device which measured worse would actually sound better. And of course, you must never lose sight of the fact that marketers can be very selective with the measurements they choose to popularize so as to cast their product in the best possible light. Lies, damn lies, and statistics (or measurements, as it were).

The bottom line is that the Lavry has a newer, more sophisticated DAC chip, selectable upsampling, discrete volume control rather than a potentiometer, and a discrete rather than opamp based analog stage, all of which are design advantages over the Benchmark. Frankly it should not come as a surprise that it results in a better sound. After all, one is not surprised when the new Ferrari with 100 bhp more than last year's model runs a faster 0-60 time.

3) Beats me, though I'd like to hear one.

 

[Beauregard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer ... Lavry's other DAC's (and ADC's for that matter) are also very highly regarded in pro audio circles, but they have not been taken up by the "audiophile" press in the way that Benchmark has lately, so hence are not as well known (less marketing $$$ perhaps?). ...

The DAC1 was a hit with pros and the professional audio press before it was discovered by audiophiles. I just googled Lavry DA10 and didn't come up with any hits from pro audio forums (at least in English). I'm curious if anyone who's familar with pro audio discussions knows if there's as much buzz among the professionals about the DA10 as there is here and on a couple of other consumer audio forums.

Best,
Beau