[saint.panda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmopragma Here's something negative: The whole USB-section isn't really audiophile (K-mixer), but that is probably true for all current USB-inputs into DACs. The built-in headphone amp is crap. Some of the german fanboys seem to think this DAC is the end of all DACs as far as Redbook audio is concerned.Personally I like the Wadia I listened through better.

Thanks for all the info on the Aqvox. I guess I can just use the digital out from my soundcard.

 

[drp]

If I understand correctly (digital noob), Apogee's ASIO driver does bypass the K-Mixer. My Mini-DAC, when connected via USB, disables Windows' volume settings completely and samples at 44.1 kHz. And, it's both accurate and musical (the mutually exclusive comment mentioned earlier).

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drp If I understand correctly (digital noob), Apogee's ASIO driver does bypass the K-Mixer.

Wow, Apogee programmed their own ASIO compatible USB driver?Did you have to install a driver or is it instantly plug and play? In the latter case it only seems to bypass K-Mixer, only the left slider ("Speaker") in the K-mixer console is deactivated and therefor keyboard and software player volume control doesn't work. Move the second slider ("Wave") and you'll see what happens.

 

[the terabyte]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmopragma Wow, Apogee programmed their own ASIO compatible USB driver?Did you have to install a driver or is it instantly plug and play? In the latter case it only seems to bypass K-Mixer, only the left slider ("Speaker") in the K-mixer console is deactivated and therefor keyboard and software player volume control doesn't work. Move the second slider ("Wave") and you'll see what happens.

Apogee does indeed include an ASIO USB driver (not that I use it; I'm on OS X): http://apogeedigital.com/downloads/

I'm not sure why more people don't try the Mini-DAC. It really is great, even if it isn't the "flavor of the month."

 

[Nomad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by the terabyte Apogee does indeed include an ASIO USB driver (not that I use it; I'm on OS X): http://apogeedigital.com/downloads/ I'm not sure why more people don't try the Mini-DAC. It really is great, even if it isn't the "flavor of the month."

I can't agree more

 

[Kurt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmopragma That's me. All I can say now after only one week is that my Benchmark DAC1 in direct comparison looks like the flavour of last month.

I found this:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pc...ages/3131.html

Could it be that he heard it with a crappy cable and without upsampling enabled? As described in this post:
http://www.hifi-forum.de/index.php?a...2&postID=59#59

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt I found this: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pc...ages/3131.html Could it be that he heard it with a crappy cable and without upsampling enabled?

Most probably this DAC is simply not his flavour.
When the Benchmark DAC1 became FOTM here last year I already owned one and I posted that the Benchmark is no general purpose DAC for everyone.
Here we go again:
The AQVOX DAC is not for everyone.
I can't write a comparative or even a full featured review after one week of experience , all I have are impressions and pictures.
These two DACs are kind of opposite, no middle-of-the-road DACs.
The Benchmark is like a sports motorcycle, fast, faster, fastest, aaccelleratiooon!The transient response sometimes seems to be faster than reality.
The engine sounds somewhat bright.
My favorite bundle for the occasional infusion of raw energy is the Benchmark, a Prehead, a Grado RS-1 , ska, dynamic brass or metal dependent on the mood.
This extreme chain isn't exactly what I'd call a comfortable and fatigue free listening experience, but sometimes I like it.
In contrast the AQVOX is more like a powerfull luxurious car.
Listening through an AQVOX/Stax SRS 3030 rig is absolutely fatigue free(given a decent recording quality).
The sound is a bit laid-back , relaxed and smooth.
The engine sounds somewhat dark.
This is a very good combo for classical music, Jazz or any other genre with rich tonal structure and a natural or artificial soundstage containing more than a wall of guitars, a drummer spread all over the place and a guy somewhere in the middle shouting as loud as he can.
Today I listened (eyes closed naturally)to a well recorded version of Wagner's fifth .What I got was an extremely enjoyable coherent soundfield, a magical fluidity and a very good impression of the original recording location.
The Benchmark (and most other players/DACs) imprints his own signature onto any "room".
Through the AQVOX different recording locations do sound very different.

Both DACs are IMO and to my personal ears no general purpose DACs.Some recordings which are at least listenable through the Benchmark or even a cheap Emu or M-audio sound card sound dark, veiled, boring through the AQVOX.
And vice versa the Benchmark is relatively weak in portraying room and is lacking organic flow.

I'm already using different headphones for different purposes, and now I'm getting used to the idea of several sources for different purposes.

Originally I thought it would be an easy task to get an one-size-fits-all source, but that seems to be harder than it appeared.

I hope that wasn't too confused.

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrith Another one. This looks (but not necessarily sounds) a lot like a DAC1 w/ a USB input: http://www.myav.com.tw/vbb221/upload...hreadid=164910

According to a german audiophile who has access to both DACs the C.E.C. DA 53 is technically an AQVOX USB DAC in another enclosure.
Same engineer (Carlos Candeias), same digital components, nearly the same features, the same double mono, LEF and CI(whatever that is) discrete transistor analog section, and most important soundwise undistinguishable.

 

[Don Quichotte]

Cosmopraga, this is very interesting news, especially since the European price of the Benchmark is almost double the price of the AQVOX.
What about the transport? Is the AQVOX more or less jitter imune like the DAC1? I know this is not the point and it would be best to use it with the computer as a source, but I would prefer to use my future D/A converter with a cheap CD or DVD player as a source.
Isn't the AQVOX somewhat similar sounding to the Belcanto Dac2?

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Quichotte Cosmopraga, this is very interesting news, especially since the European price of the Benchmark is almost double the price of the AQVOX. What about the transport? Is the AQVOX more or less jitter imune like the DAC1? I know this is not the point and it would be best to use it with the computer as a source, but I would prefer to use my future D/A converter with a cheap CD or DVD player as a source.

I guess you got me wrong.
The AQVOX and the C.E.C. DA 53 are nearly identical, the Benchmark is extremely different from them.
All these resampling/reclocking DACs are quite immune as far as transport or cable induced jitter is concerned.In my experience the cheapest digital cables ( think in the less than 10 Euro range) are not sufficient. Get a decent cable without spectacular specs (about 40 Euros in Germany), and you are fine off.Euro 300 digital cables don't make a further difference , at least not to my ears.Personally i'll go the AES/EBU way in the future for the peace of mind.
Jitter immunity won't fix laser tracking/error correction faults inside the transport, in this regard a computer harddisc is far superior. Quote:

Isn't the AQVOX somewhat similar sounding to the Belcanto Dac2?

Not at all, to my ears the Belcanto is somewhat similar sounding to the Benchmark.

What I learned is that the terms "human hearing" cover a wide range, physiological and psychological.
Whatever you read on a forum like this are only hints.
In the end you'll never know whether gear is to your liking until you've spend some actual listening time with it.

 

[Don Quichotte]

First of all, Cosmopraga, sorry for the number of questions I am about to ask. I will buy a ~$1000 Dac in a few months and most probably a pair of better phones than my K501 within a year or so and I will have to buy blind, at least the Dac. I know it’s not recommended at all, I know it too well (you got it why…

), but I have no alternative

. What’s worse, my wallet forbids me to make any mistake. Ferbose was so kind to give me a lot of precious information that helped me decide for the Benchmark, but I’m afraid the headphones I am considering (Stax 3030 or, possibly, K1000 / T-amp) do not match it too well. You are now opening new doors…

So, here we go:
1. Why do you say reading errors of the source (CD or DVD player) could be a problem? I remember a few posts mentioning some experiments with the digital output of some players and the conclusion was that the transports of all but the most crappy players are capable of bit-perfect reading if the CD is in very good condition. In that case, only the jitter would be different from transport to transport.
2. Have you actually tried the AQVOX with different transports? I cannot afford a good transport too and I do not really like the idea of using the computer for this purpose.
3. How would you characterize the AQVOX from the point of view of frequency extension (especially upwards) and dynamics? I really care for a dynamic sound, and I do not mean something punchy and “exciting”, I mean uncompressed sound and a very good retrieval of the smallest changes in sound intensity (is this called microdynamics? – not sure). The Dac I want should be able to scream and to whisper with ease. How does the AQVOX compare to the Benchmark from these points of view? I also care a lot about the natural timbre of the instruments and the effortless separation between them. I listen especially to jazz and classic and I have a cheap, warm sounding source (Cambridge D300). I love its colorful portraying of instruments (for the price), but I hate its compressed sound and rolled off treble.
4. I understand Benchmark is rather bright and AQVOX is rather dark. Which one do you consider closer to a “neutral” sound? Also, is AQVOX dark in a sense that the midrange is subdued (Sennheiser-like), the treble is subdued or both?
5. Can I connect the AQVOX to my Mackie monitors via a 50 kohm Alps pot I own without a serious sound quality loss? I don’t have a preamp or any chance to buy one to soon. The Benchmark would have the advantage of allowing me to use balanced cables because of its volume control, but I don’t think it should matter too much, I don’t need long cables.
6. Have you tried the Benchmark with the Stax? I wonder if a dark sounding interconnect would help them mate well tonally? I only had the chance to try the 3030 with my CD player (I know, kind of overkill…) and I found its sound gorgeous. I especially liked the silky quality of the sound, neutral midrange and effortless resolving capabilities.
7. Anything you don’t like about the AQVOX + Stax sound?

Of course, all the other head-fiers are more than welcome to chime in, I am addressing this mainly to Cosmopraga because he actually owns the gear I’m interested in. Sorry for being a bit off-topic sometimes and thank you in advance for any suggestions.

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Quichotte 1. Why do you say reading errors of the source (CD or DVD player) could be a problem?

Listeners tend to adress this problem by using expensive racks/damping mechanisms, but you are probably right, in case of absence of heavy vibrations (bass from loudspeakers, people dancing around, traffic induced vibrations especially trucks, earthquakes

) this isn't that much of an issue.

Quote:

2. Have you actually tried the AQVOX with different transports?

Yes, USB, several soundcards optical, coax and AES/EBU, an Iriver DAP (optical), a Marantz CD 63 II KI( considered to be high end a few years ago) and a cheap Harman/Kardon, both CDPs connected via coax.
So far the jitter immunity of the Benchmark seems to be slightly superior, anything worked fine with both DACs except of the Harman/Kardon.The latter seemed to sound different, but I'm not really sure, I didn't have the time and the nerves for a double blind test, it's only an impression.
Quote:

3. How would you characterize the AQVOX from the point of view of frequency extension (especially upwards) and dynamics? I really care for a dynamic sound, and I do not mean something punchy and “exciting”, I mean uncompressed sound and a very good retrieval of the smallest changes in sound intensity (is this called microdynamics? – not sure). The Dac I want should be able to scream and to whisper with ease. How does the AQVOX compare to the Benchmark from these points of view? I also care a lot about the natural timbre of the instruments and the effortless separation between them

I think by your standards the AQVOX is the superior DAC.The Benchmark fits more into your "punchy and exciting" category, but sometimes I like it.The Benchmark is slightly superior in the detail department and seems to be superior in separating between instruments at first listen, but later I realized that you can have it both, separation and a natural sound field instead of the unnatural separation of the Benchmark.The latter might be better for sound engineers looking for recording flaws, but the AQVOX is more musical.
Quote:

4. I understand Benchmark is rather bright and AQVOX is rather dark. Which one do you consider closer to a “neutral” sound? Also, is AQVOX dark in a sense that the midrange is subdued (Sennheiser-like), the treble is subdued or both?

Neutrality? I don't know, I didn't record the music.
Plus my speakers and cans are not neutral and my ears are not neutral.
My impression: The AQVOX sounds neutral for classical music and Jazz, but there's too much bass in some modern Rock/Pop recordings for my ears.
"Sennheiser-like" cuts it quite nicely, that was my first thought, but when I tested it with a Senn HD 600 I have lying around here the Senn did not sound more "veiled" or distant.Strange.
Quote:

5. Can I connect the AQVOX to my Mackie monitors via a 50 kohm Alps pot I own without a serious sound quality loss? I don’t have a preamp or any chance to buy one to soon. The Benchmark would have the advantage of allowing me to use balanced cables because of its volume control, but I don’t think it should matter too much, I don’t need long cables.

I'm not qualified to answer this question.
Quote:

6. Have you tried the Benchmark with the Stax? I wonder if a dark sounding interconnect would help them mate well tonally?

I'm no fan of "sounding" interconnects, I prefer interconnects which don't sound at all.A sounding interconnect imprints it's signature onto any recorded space, resulting in less difference between different recording locations. I'd rather use an EQ to correct a tonal imbalance.
However, the AQVOX is a better match for the Stax without any EQing.
Quote:

7. Anything you don’t like about the AQVOX + Stax sound?

Some recordings do sound absolute fantastic, but crappy recordings don't sound good and even worse than through mid-fi gear.Today I listened to a Vivaldi Four Seasons recording from a series called "Forever Classics", and all I can say is everyone should avoid "Forever Classics".The contrast between good and bad recordings is even greater now.

 

[rickcr42]

I like this guy even though too rich for my blood.i like the idea of a USB interface to a regular DA converter chip over an "all-in-one USB DAC Chip" solution.


"http://www.wavelengthaudio.com/news.html"

 

[Don Quichotte]

Thanks a lot for the info, Cosmopraga.

 

[mshan]

Scott Nixon's website says he's got a USB TubeDac in the works:

http://www.scott-nixon.com/dac.htm