[philodox]

It may just be that my apartment building has very bad power to begin with so that the differences are more pronounced, who knows.

 

[swt61]

I found a pretty obvious gain in SQ when I ran my Lavry through my power conditioner as well, and notice the same thing with my Zhaolu.

 

[Filburt]

Hmm, well if I get a chance, I'll let you know if I can test that. I'm doubting I'll get the opportunity, unfortunately. My DAC has power filtering in it and current regulators, so maybe I don't get the same variability as I'd get with some of the others.

Next upgrade for my DAC is probably to the PCM1702 K Grade ^_^

 

[swt61]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt Hmm, well if I get a chance, I'll let you know if I can test that. I'm doubting I'll get the opportunity, unfortunately. My DAC has power filtering in it and current regulators, so maybe I don't get the same variability as I'd get with some of the others. Next upgrade for my DAC is probably to the PCM1702 K Grade ^_^

The Zhaolu has a built-in EMI filter as well, but still benifits greatly from an outboard power conditioner.

 

[Filburt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swt61 The Zhaolu has a built-in EMI filter as well, but still benifits greatly from an outboard power conditioner.

I see. Well, I guess I'll test these things out when I get the opportunity. I tend to be pretty sceptical with a lot of this stuff :/.

Looking over the chip the Lavry uses, it seems to use an Iout DAC, so maybe improvement or modification to the I/V section (and still the buffer section too) would make it more likeable to me *shrug*. It struck me as a technically competent DAC; it just didn't engage me as much as some of the other stuff I'd been listening to.

 

[slwiser]

Filburt

Can you post a picture showing me which chip in the Lavry that you are considering as its CrystalLock "chip"? How about the narrow mode "chip?" I know it has one for the wide mode that allows it to function like the Benchmark DAC1 but the way your statement reads is that there is only one method used in the Lavry.

The DA10 uses three methods for dealing with jitter and this is well known. You are speaking to the least effective mode used by the DA10 one as I understand it.

Or or you talking about the discrete headphone amplifier as being a single chip?

Your post is not understandable for me from what is known about the Lavry DA10. Could you be mistatken about which DAC you are talking about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt Looking over the chip the Lavry uses, it seems to use an Iout DAC, so maybe improvement or modification to the I/V section (and still the buffer section too) would make it more likeable to me *shrug*. It struck me as a technically competent DAC; it just didn't engage me as much as some of the other stuff I'd been listening to.

 

[Filburt]

What? The AD1955 looks to be a current output DAC, which means there is a stage after the chip that converts it to voltage (I/V conversion...I = current, V = voltage). The most common method is using an op-amp, but you can also use a resistor (aka "passive"), discrete, or transformer.

What you're talking about is clock recovery and jitter attenuation, which is something entirely different from what I was talking about. I'm not even sure what it was in my post that led you to think I was talking about that, but I wasn't suggesting modifying that portion of the circuit in my post.

 

[slwiser]

Filburt

Sorry, I just did not understand this in relation to the DA10.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt What? The AD1955 looks to be a current output DAC, which means there is a stage after the chip that converts it to voltage (I/V conversion...I = current, V = voltage). The most common method is using an op-amp, but you can also use a resistor (aka "passive"), discrete, or transformer.

 

[325xi]

I was going to order Lavry. So after I heard about Transporter I had to suspend those plans to see what the new beast is going to offer... Waitin' the production unit reviews...

 

[ken36]

I've been happy with the DA10. At least the DAC, I'm still not happy with the amp, but for now at least it's the only game in town.

 

[nightfire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt Yeah I know, weird. The Lavry just didn't do it for me I guess. I felt bored while listening to it. It wasn't as fatiguing as the DAC1, though, and maybe I'd end up preferring it for long term listening; I don't know. I'm happier with the DAC I have, though.

I have to agree.

It is very soothing and great for vocals and jazz, but for rock, I actually prefer the Burr/Brown in my AVR75. I keep trying to convince myself otherwise, but I just can't. How could what's essentially consumer gear best a purpose built DAC?

I haven't heard the DAC1 but I think I'd like it.

 

[regal]

I have the AVR7200, H/K's former top of the line. The DAC in this is incredible.

 

[nightfire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal I have the AVR7200, H/K's former top of the line. The DAC in this is incredible.

So it's not just me.... I thought I was losing my mind.

The Burr/Brown?

 

[thomaspf]

Perceived sound quality is a rather subjective criteria.

For producing music you need to get the truth of what is in the recording. The Lavry was built to be a tool for that type of work and is very accurate.

I have not measured the H/Ks but that might account for the difference.

Cheers

Thomas

 

[nightfire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomaspf Perceived sound quality is a rather subjective criteria. For producing music you need to get the truth of what is in the recording. The Lavry was built to be a tool for that type of work and is very accurate. I have not measured the H/Ks but that might account for the difference. Cheers Thomas

I thought that was more the domain of the DAC1... Anyway I find the Lavry slightly rolled off and a little hashy, but I'm not ready to blame anything other than my setup. It's very frustrating because if I could get that top bit of air out of the DA10 it would be perfect.