Various DAC Audition Impressions

I suppose it depends on the tubes, but I must say that I don’t find the Pacific or Horizon “tubey.” I have compared to Dave, DCS and MSB as well as multiple Chifi dacs like the one mentioned above (Which I didnt enjoy for various reasons). Again, this may depend on the system and the tubes, not sure, but for me the realism of the Pacific was much greator than the Dave.
 
No component that uses tubes is not going to sound “tubey”! That’s the nature of the beast. I have owned tube preamps and amplifiers and tube CD players and tube DACs for almost 25 years from dozens of manufacturers. . They always have that tube sound to them. You might prefer that coloration, as I do, and you may even consider it “realism“. But there’s no getting away from that sound as a coloration. That’s why I keep 6 DACs in my systems. I hear the differences between them pretty easily. The contrast to the tubey DAC sound from the solid state DACs is as obvious as the sound of dynamic speakers from electrostatic speakers or horns. Every component has colorations, and it’s your choice which colorations you like.
 
3. For the ultimate in simplicity, I use the Lyngdorf 2170 true DAC-less digital amplifier with room correction to take out the bloated bass that every dynamic moving coil loudspeaker I’ve heard in the past 35 years suffers from. The Lyngdorf does no traditional digital to analog conversion. The bitstream is converted to a pulse width modulated signal, which is converted to analog using a purely passive RC network. There are no D-to-A converters in the Lyngdorf. This gives it a purity of sound that no traditional tube or solid state DAC can match. Think of your traditional DAC. It has to go through layers of intermediate components — preamp, amp, interconnects — before reaching your speakers. The Lyngdorf eliminates all this and the volume control is not in the signal path at all — to adjust volume, you directly change the power supply voltage. Done right, room correction lifts the sound to a level no DAC can touch. But not everyone likes the sound because the mid-bass hump that everyone loves is gone. The sound can be lean but only because we all like bass colorations.
Does an upright bass sound realistic with the Lyngdorf?
 
I suppose it depends on the tubes, but I must say that I don’t find the Pacific or Horizon “tubey.” I have compared to Dave, DCS and MSB as well as multiple Chifi dacs like the one mentioned above (Which I didnt enjoy for various reasons). Again, this may depend on the system and the tubes, not sure, but for me the realism of the Pacific was much greator than the Dave.

agreed.
 
I suppose it depends on the tubes, but I must say that I don’t find the Pacific or Horizon “tubey.” I have compared to Dave, DCS and MSB as well as multiple Chifi dacs like the one mentioned above (Which I didnt enjoy for various reasons). Again, this may depend on the system and the tubes, not sure, but for me the realism of the Pacific was much greator than the Dave.
I'm reluctant to say something negative, but this would seem an example of where comparisons aren't helpful, given the Chord DAVE to me is a solid state DAC that colors the sound as much if not more than any tube component I've ever heard - just not in the positive sense. I remember it as particularly artificial sounding, superficially impressive, "upholstering" redbook CD files almost beyond recognition, but that "sameness" or superimposed character across recordings and recording formats is such that it makes everything, high-resolution PCM and DSD, sound more or less the same (it actually manages to make DSD sound worse than PCM).

Admittedly, lesser tube gear tends to create "sameness" adding coloration, too. But as far as comparisons go, throw a great piece of gear such as the Pacific into the mix and, indeed, it would appear that compared to something like the DAVE, it's not farther from musical "truth" (maybe it would be safer in this context to agree that "truth" in audiophile terms is a moving target).

The difference is that when I listen to the Pacific, I can see (hear!) this is what one would like reality to sound like. I used to be a more avid concertgoer, and will be the first to admit that in some (if not many) respects, reality can sound disappointing.

Tubes, to me, at their worst overlay the sound with (mostly) pleasurable harmonic distortion (and sometimes reverberation due to their microphonic behavior), while at their best, they "enrich" the sound to where one feels involved in a (re-)creative process, not unlike being at a recital or concert.

It's as though tubes give a performance that ultimately can't be separated from the artistic. I wouldn't want to compare this to the weirdly artificial sculpting of a sonic "replica" I'm hearing in some FPGA DACs, of which the DAVE to me is the equivalent of being served processed food on an objectively higher level.

What I find perhaps most disturbing is it can sound great with some music. I've heard it, including in a blind test. It's totally unlike the "You Are There" feeling I look for in audio (especially natural instruments recorded in a natural setting), but I could see it would appeal to some people.

OK, potentially treading on someone's corns, enough of it for a day… ;)

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
Last edited:
I'm reluctant to say something negative, but this would seem an example of where comparisons aren't helpful, given the Chord DAVE to me is a solid state DAC that colors the sound as much if not more than any tube component I've ever heard - just not in the positive sense. I remember it as particularly artificial sounding, superficially impressive, "upholstering" redbook CD files almost beyond recognition, but that "sameness" or superimposed character across recordings and recording formats is such that it makes everything, high-resolution PCM and DSD, sound more or less the same (it actually manages to make DSD sound worse than PCM).

Admittedly, lesser tube gear tends to create "sameness" adding coloration, too. But as far as comparisons go, throw a great piece of gear such as the Pacific into the mix and, indeed, it would appear that compared to something like the DAVE, it's not farther from musical "truth" (maybe it would be safer in this context to agree that "truth" in audiophile terms is a moving target).

The difference is that when I listen to the Pacific, I can see (hear!) this is what one would like reality to sound like. I used to be a more avid concertgoer, and will be the first to admit that in some (if not many) respects, reality can sound disappointing.

Tubes, to me, at their worst overlay the sound with (mostly) pleasurable harmonic distortion (and sometimes reverberation due to their microphonic behavior), while at their best, they "enrich" the sound to where one feels involved in a (re-)creative process, not unlike being at a recital or concert.

It's as though tubes give a performance that ultimately can't be separated from the artistic. I wouldn't want to compare this to the weirdly artificial sculpting of a sonic "replica" I'm hearing in some FPGA DACs, of which the DAVE to me is the equivalent of being served processed food on an objectively higher level.

What's I find perhaps most disturbing is it can sound great with some music. I've heard it, including in a blind test. It's totally unlike the "You Are There" feeling I look for in audio (especially natural instruments recorded in a natural setting), but I could see it would appeal to some people.

OK, potentially treading on someone's corns, enough of it for a day… ;)

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
I agree that tubes overlay second harmonic distortion, which is often pleasing to the ear, as does vinyl. I recently bought one of Nelson Pass’ First Watt amplifiers, the J2. Pass knows as much about designing solid state amplifiers as anyone on planet Earth. It’s refreshing to read his thoughts on each of his First Watt designs. He’s very consciously trying to design single-ended solid state amplifiers that have tube like distortions. No feedback is used, the amplifiers running pure class A, and the distortion profile is very similar to a tube amplifier.


Here is a slightly simplified schematic of the J2 circuit. It could be a classic tube amp, except that the P channel input JFETs would have to be fabricated from anti-matter. The single-ended Class A output stage is “second harmonic” in character, and it uses about half the feedback of a comparable MOSFET circuit but with half the distortion and twice the bandwidth.

Similarly I like the Lampi Pacific because it sounds to my ears like the old fashioned Conrad Johnson tube products from the 1980s (the Premier line, the newer CJ stuff like the GAT is more solid state’ish). Too many digital recordings are mastered poorly and sound bright. The tubes in the Pacific help a lot in making these listenable.

I similarly like vinyl replay and often prefer it to even listening to the Pacific because vinyl’s distortions and colorations make many older jazz recordings sound marvelous. I listen a lot to jazz and popular music from the 1940s-1960s. These invariably sound horrible on digital. On a good turntable (I have 4 turntables!), the sound of Coltrane’s sax or the voices of Ella Fitzgerald or Frank Sinatra sound gorgeous. On digital, they simply suck. Sinatra on digital sounds like he has a cold. The very best vinyl replay in my house is through a true mono Miyajima Zero cartridge on a restored Garrard 301 with a 12” SME arm. On the right recordings of classic jazz or rock and roll, it blows away each one of my six DACs. No DAC I’ve heard can touch the sound of the Miyajima Zero. But that’s because it’s tuned to replay mono vinyl only since it cannot track vertical groove modulations. The sound is rich and three dimensional. Unbelievably beautiful. I wish I could buy a DAC that could make digital sound like the Miyajima Zero on a mono vinyl record!
 
I agree that tubes overlay second harmonic distortion, which is often pleasing to the ear, as does vinyl. I recently bought one of Nelson Pass’ First Watt amplifiers, the J2. Pass knows as much about designing solid state amplifiers as anyone on planet Earth. It’s refreshing to read his thoughts on each of his First Watt designs. He’s very consciously trying to design single-ended solid state amplifiers that have tube like distortions. No feedback is used, the amplifiers running pure class A, and the distortion profile is very similar to a tube amplifier.


Here is a slightly simplified schematic of the J2 circuit. It could be a classic tube amp, except that the P channel input JFETs would have to be fabricated from anti-matter. The single-ended Class A output stage is “second harmonic” in character, and it uses about half the feedback of a comparable MOSFET circuit but with half the distortion and twice the bandwidth.

Similarly I like the Lampi Pacific because it sounds to my ears like the old fashioned Conrad Johnson tube products from the 1980s (the Premier line, the newer CJ stuff like the GAT is more solid state’ish). Too many digital recordings are mastered poorly and sound bright. The tubes in the Pacific help a lot in making these listenable.

I similarly like vinyl replay and often prefer it to even listening to the Pacific because vinyl’s distortions and colorations make many older jazz recordings sound marvelous. I listen a lot to jazz and popular music from the 1940s-1960s. These invariably sound horrible on digital. On a good turntable (I have 4 turntables!), the sound of Coltrane’s sax or the voices of Ella Fitzgerald or Frank Sinatra sound gorgeous. On digital, they simply suck. Sinatra on digital sounds like he has a cold. The very best vinyl replay in my house is through a true mono Miyajima Zero cartridge on a restored Garrard 301 with a 12” SME arm. On the right recordings of classic jazz or rock and roll, it blows away each one of my six DACs. No DAC I’ve heard can touch the sound of the Miyajima Zero. But that’s because it’s tuned to replay mono vinyl only since it cannot track vertical groove modulations. The sound is rich and three dimensional. Unbelievably beautiful. I wish I could buy a DAC that could make digital sound like the Miyajima Zero on a mono vinyl record!
well....er.....my Wadax dac and server does sound 'like' both my Miyajima Infinity monos' (1.0mil and 0.7mil); it's not exactly the same, but it makes me not think about what it's not doing. i'm smiling.

when i play my mono pressings on my turntables, yes, it's a step up, but lots of great things are going on with the digital. it holds it's own. very recording dependent, of course. not every file of golden age jazz comes thru at the top level. but some does come through.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: acousticsguru
(...) Similarly I like the Lampi Pacific because it sounds to my ears like the old fashioned Conrad Johnson tube products from the 1980s (the Premier line, the newer CJ stuff like the GAT is more solid state’ish). Too many digital recordings are mastered poorly and sound bright. The tubes in the Pacific help a lot in making these listenable. (....)

The old fashioned cj tube products from the 1980's were extremely colored, hided a lot of information and had poor definition - I owned several of them and regularly listen to some of them, I hope that the Lampi Pacific (no experience with it) does not sound like them. And no the GAT2, that I still own, does not sound solid state'ish IMO.

The music I listen is usually properly mastered and sounds decent, I have not great experience digital recordings masterly poorly and sounding bright. But I think that the real reason why digital can sound great with tubes is not their coloration, but their dynamic characteristics. Remember that for example an Audio Research REF10 preamplifier has less distortion than some high-end solid state preamplifiers.

Just to say the I completely disagree with old stereotype that people love tubes because they are forgiving. Many of us love tubes because they do not have the problems that most (not all) solid state electronics have with current digital.
 
WADAX VERSUS DCS VIVALDI APEX

In every match except the SW1X thus far I preferred the contender to the Apex. Not on every track, but, overall, I preferred the contender over the Apex.

To my ears the Apex has a consistent sonic signature of a touch of coolness, thinness, dryness -- the sonic sensation of menthol. It is more apparent on some tracks and less apparent on other tracks. On some tracks it really is not apparent at all.

Idiosyncratically I am very, very sensitive to this kind of sound. It is a dealbreaker for me personally. This genre of sonic signature, broadly-speaking, is the reason I have never cottoned to digital playback in general.

The Wadax equaled the stunning, ultimate resolution of the Apex, but without the Apex's sonic signature of slight coolness and thinness. The Wadax sounded a little bit warmer, a little bit richer and a little bit more resonant in comparison to the Apex. I think the Wadax exhibited slightly greater decay on acoustic instruments than did the Apex.

Put another way I found the Wadax to be a Pareto Optimal improvement over the Apex: at least one sonic attribute was improved, with no other sonic attribute being degraded. The Wadax sounded less digital and more natural to me than the Apex while, to my ears, maintaining the same resolving power of air and ambience and details and low frequency punch and frequency extension as the Apex. The Wadax’s elimination of the Apex's coolness and dryness did not come at the cost of, or any diminution to, any desireable sonic attribute.


ARIES CERAT KASSANDRA VERSUS DCS VIVALDI APEX

The Kassandra, the entry-level DAC from Aries Cerat, at about half the price of the Lampizator Horizon, brought me back to what I liked about the Lampizator Horizon: the sonic liquidity and the greater body and the soundstage dimensionality of tubes. I think the Horizon took these attributes even a step further than did the Kassandra, but, since we did not hear the Horizon side-by-side with the Kassandra, I cannot be sure.

If the Kassandra gave up anything to the dCS in ultimate resolution it was a minor sacrifice, and — to me — well worth the trade for the slightly greater liquidity and warmth and dimensionality of tubes. I think the dCS reproduced the detail and the texture and the punch of the lowest frequencies better than did the Kassandra.


MSB SELECT II VERSUS DCS VIVALDI APEX

An important development occurred between the departure of the Aries Cerat Kassandra and my audition of the MSB Select II: pk_LA fiddled with more of the filters on the dCS Vivaldi Apex, and figured out how to smooth out the sound a little bit so the Apex wasn’t truncating decay as much and was not highlighting detail and the leading edge of transients as much. This reduced the dryness and improved the listenability of the Apex for me, and narrowed — once again — the differences between the Apex and the other DACs. My personal sonic issues with the Apex were not eliminated, but they were further reduced in intensity. By the end of the survey the Apex sounded materially different than it did in the beginning.

The MSB Select II did not match the slight liquidity and slight dimensionality advantages of the tube DACs, but it definitely is my favorite of all of the solid-state DACs. The MSB just has a more relaxed and calm sonic quality to it. I also heard this relaxed sound from KeithR’s MSB Reference compared to his MSB Premier. (I suspect the Reference is the sweet/value spot in the MSB line.) This calm or relaxed quality is a little hard to describe, but it’s definitely there, and it allows me able to sit and listen to music without fatigue.

The MSB has a fuller, more “dense,” and more analog-type sound than any of the other solid-state DACs, I believe. Of course I can’t be sure because we no longer had the Wadax in house for a direct comparison.

Before pk_LA smoothed out the Apex, I was hoping the MSB would pick up two points of desirable sonic warmth and musicality, while sacrificing less than two points of resolution. After pk_LA smoothed out the Apex I think the MSB was just as resolving as the Apex. From my point of view this meant that the MSB was smoother and warmer and more musical, than the Apex, but without sacrificing any resolution to the Apex.


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From the the tube end of liquidity and warmth and dimensionality on the left to the solid-state end of resolution, detail and leading edge precision on the right I would place the top contenders as follows:

Lampizator Horizon -- Aries Cerat Kassandra -- Infigo Method 4 -- Nagra DAC HD -- MSB Select II -- Wadax -- dCS Vivaldi

The SW1X DAC III Special is on a different indifference curve because I feel it gave up too many points in resolution for the points in smoothness and warmth and analog like sound it delivered.

Across these comparisons I believe that the Horizon, the Kassandra, the Select II, the Wadax are on the same indifference curve.

I put the Apex on a slightly lower indifference curve only because, except possibly for system-matching reasons, I don’t see why anybody would prefer the dCS over the Wadax.

The two extremities of this curve are tube liquidity and warmth and musicality at the one end, and maximum resolution, detail, dynamics, crisp transient response and sharp leading edges at the other end of the curve. What a surprise! Tubes versus transistors yet again!

I think the differences between and among most of these DACs is relatively minor. If I had to make up a number I'd say something like 10% to 25%. This feels like the right (if intellectually indefensible) quantification of order of magnitude.

I believe there is no sense in which one DAC is 50% or 100% more highly resolving than any of the others. I feel there's no sense in which one DAC is 50% or 100% more musical or smoother or more analog like then another. I think any claim to the contrary is partisanship of ownership, and hyperbole.

If I were choosing for myself, I would get the Lampizator Horizon if I wanted a tube DAC, and I would get the MSB Select II if I wanted a solid-state DAC.

If somebody wants to maximize resolving power and detail and dynamics without any signature of dryness or coolness or menthol quality, and without any emphasized leading edge transient response, then I recommend the Wadax.

If somebody wants to maximize liquidity and dimensionality and naturalness and “musicality,” then I recommend the Horizon. If you prefer the technical design or the aesthetics of the Kassandra, then get the Kassandra. I think the sounds of these DACsare in the same direction, but the Horizon goes a little bit further in that direction.

If somebody wants to stay with solid-state and seeks a denser, slightly warmer, slightly more analog-like experience, I recommend the MSB Select II on the expensive end (with no sacrifice in resolution) and the Infigo (and the MSB Reference) in the $30,000 to $50,000 range.

Thanks, again, to pk_LA for allowing me to join him on this incredible survey of state-of-the-art DACS!
Thanks Ron for your excellent addition to pk_LA's wonderful review. Based on your sonic preferences I am curious about your thoughts on the Nagra HD DAC X. I currently have the DAC X and the MSB Select II in my system. I will do a final shootout when all other tweaking is complete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lordcloud
To be fair, the Pacific is a great sounding tube DAC, but as the review comparison at the beginning of this thread noted, the overwhelming impression of Lampi DACs on first listening is their warmth. That’s why I fell in love with the Pacific. Finally a digital component that doesn’t have me screaming for the door and covering my ears when I play older analog material through it.

Most DACs sound fine on modern digital recordings. It’s the older stuff that reveals differences. If, like me, you dig old classic jazz and popular music from the 1940s-60s, you want a DAC that’s gentle on the highs. You don’t want a bright sounding DAC. My Chord Dave is a little too forward in the highs to enjoy classic jazz. The Pacific is much better. You can tune its sound to a considerable degree by tube rolling. To me that’s the true breakthrough with Lampi DACs. It’s like a tone control of sorts. KR 242s give you huge dynamics with a bit of grain. 300Bs give you that rich mellow sound. 45s are more neutral but lack the dynamics of the 242. Lampi DACs make you into a TRIP (tube roller in Paradise). As the hugely long Horizon and Pacific threads illustrate, there’s a lot of fun to be had if you like tube rolling.
 
The old fashioned cj tube products from the 1980's were extremely colored, hided a lot of information and had poor definition - I owned several of them and regularly listen to some of them, I hope that the Lampi Pacific (no experience with it) does not sound like them. And no the GAT2, that I still own, does not sound solid state'ish IMO.

The music I listen is usually properly mastered and sounds decent, I have not great experience digital recordings masterly poorly and sounding bright. But I think that the real reason why digital can sound great with tubes is not their coloration, but their dynamic characteristics. Remember that for example an Audio Research REF10 preamplifier has less distortion than some high-end solid state preamplifiers.

Just to say the I completely disagree with old stereotype that people love tubes because they are forgiving. Many of us love tubes because they do not have the problems that most (not all) solid state electronics have with current digital.
Surely some people love tubes because they can be forgiving. I happen to own several tube amps ranging from forgiving to one that I find no less forgiving than my Spectral SS amps - and it may come as no surprise when I say the unforgiving one is the best-sounding. It would nonetheless not be my favorite to spend a whole night listening to bright sounding recordings. Which I will, occasionally, if the music is good (the performances/the interpretations, i.e. when it comes to classical recordings, there may be no choice).

In the context of this DAC discussion, however, the Pacific to me is a more tubey sounding as well as slightly more forgiving DAC than the Horizon - both are tube DACs. And no, the Pacific does not per se sound "extremely colored", nor does the Horizon. I dare say that if one were trying to trick listeners in a blind test claiming one is a tube DAC and the other SS, it would be obvious to me which candidates would pick as one or the other. Having said that, given the wide range of tubes one can roll in either, one could make quite a mockery of such a blind test.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
  • Like
Reactions: christoph
You are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the great. How often do we read nonsense “comparisons” about competing components across different systems and different rooms?

Be happy this was a survey of eight (8) different DACs in the same system and in the same room, as apples-to-apples as reasonably possible.
I agree with you completely. I do wish he had uses a better server or sampled only local files.
 
Surely some people love tubes because they can be forgiving. I happen to own several tube amps ranging from forgiving to one that I find no less forgiving than my Spectral SS amps - and it may come as no surprise when I say the unforgiving one is the best-sounding. It would nonetheless not be my favorite to spend a whole night listening to bright sounding recordings. Which I will, occasionally, if the music is good (the performances/the interpretations, i.e. when it comes to classical recordings, there may be no choice).

In the context of this DAC discussion, however, the Pacific to me is a more tubey sounding as well as slightly more forgiving DAC than the Horizon - both are tube DACs. And no, the Pacific does not per se sound "extremely colored", nor does the Horizon. I dare say that if one were trying to trick listeners in a blind test claiming one is a tube DAC and the other SS, it would be obvious to me which candidates would pick as one or the other. Having said that, given the wide range of tubes one can roll in either, one could make quite a mockery of such a blind test.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Agree completely. This is the primary reason I didn’t choose to upgrade my Pacific to the Horizon. I felt from the reviews and its design that the Horizon was going to be a more neutral sounding DAC. I already have the Chord Dave. I don’t want another similar DAC. The Pacific is more forgiving and warm sounding than my Dave, and I suspect the Horizon. So I’m staying with it.

The Aries Cerat Kassandra DAC sounds intriguing indeed. I think it might be hard to get here in the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acousticsguru
SW1X and Aries Cerat Kasandra Ref are both Entry Level,

Whilst the Lampizator is Reference, the DCS Apex and the MSB.,

So we comparing the Entry level from one company to the very best of another??
I agree that this is problematic.
 
Agree completely. This is the primary reason I didn’t choose to upgrade my Pacific to the Horizon. I felt from the reviews and its design that the Horizon was going to be a more neutral sounding DAC. I already have the Chord Dave. I don’t want another similar DAC. The Pacific is more forgiving and warm sounding than my Dave, and I suspect the Horizon. So I’m staying with it.

The Aries Cerat Kassandra DAC sounds intriguing indeed. I think it might be hard to get here in the US.
As far as I know Aries Cerat do have an importer in the U.S.

As to Pacific versus Horizon, I believe Christoph has most or all of the tube complements you listed for the Pacific. It sounds at least somewhat lush and warm with all of them. I'm with you in that if one finds pleasure in owning and swapping between alternatives, the Pacific would be my pick as well. Part of the reason are the type of tubes versus the ones one can roll in the Horizon. Having said that, if one had to live with just one DAC and it had to be by Lampizator, or simply wants to make a "pragmatic" choice, the Horizon would be my pick as it is the more neutral sounding, also, in terms of its overall design, it's more of an "industrial design" well thought-out product.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: christoph
This started off a great thread, I will echo the sentiments of the other members here:

Firstly, big thank you to @pk_LA for the time and effort to compare these popular high end DAC in his fantastic system and then sharing the findings with the community. It offers very valuable reference points for people who wondered about these products. Regardless of what this thread has become, please know that effort is appreciated.

Secondly, it is extremely disappointing and distasteful that dealers and reps of brands would jump on this genuine effort to share, resorting to criticizing the validity of someone's personal comparison and preference just to advance their own financial interest. It actually reflects very poorly on the brands they are seeking to elevate.
You have provided a perfect summary of a MAJOR problem with WBF. This thread started with pk-LA's and Ron's relatively unbiased although imperfect comparison and was then degraded by industry hyenas fighting over a carcass. Threads started by parties with financial interests for the sole purpose of selling products should be prohibited. A recent thread on Wesminster's power cables for MSB DACs comes to mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Audire and TDX
Surely some people love tubes because they can be forgiving. I happen to own several tube amps ranging from forgiving to one that I find no less forgiving than my Spectral SS amps - and it may come as no surprise when I say the unforgiving one is the best-sounding. It would nonetheless not be my favorite to spend a whole night listening to bright sounding recordings. Which I will, occasionally, if the music is good (the performances/the interpretations, i.e. when it comes to classical recordings, there may be no choice).

I would suggest getting a good equalizer and just a top DAC. Long years ago I owned a Cello Audio Pallette. It worked miracles in bright recordings. I remember Mark Levinson playing with the six large knobs - he was a master using them. Just to frame our posts, can you tell us two classical recordings available in Qobuz you consider bright sounding?

In the context of this DAC discussion, however, the Pacific to me is a more tubey sounding as well as slightly more forgiving DAC than the Horizon - both are tube DACs. And no, the Pacific does not per se sound "extremely colored", nor does the Horizon. I dare say that if one were trying to trick listeners in a blind test claiming one is a tube DAC and the other SS, it would be obvious to me which candidates would pick as one or the other. Having said that, given the wide range of tubes one can roll in either, one could make quite a mockery of such a blind test.

Atmasphere OTLs and tube preamplfiiers are much less forgiving than many solid state amplifiers. But you have a point most people associate tube sound to some of the rolled off designs of yesterday. and solid state to lean sounding amplifiers.
 
I'm reluctant to say something negative, but this would seem an example of where comparisons aren't helpful, given the Chord DAVE to me is a solid state DAC that colors the sound as much if not more than any tube component I've ever heard - just not in the positive sense. I remember it as particularly artificial sounding, superficially impressive, "upholstering" redbook CD files almost beyond recognition, but that "sameness" or superimposed character across recordings and recording formats is such that it makes everything, high-resolution PCM and DSD, sound more or less the same (it actually manages to make DSD sound worse than PCM).

Admittedly, lesser tube gear tends to create "sameness" adding coloration, too. But as far as comparisons go, throw a great piece of gear such as the Pacific into the mix and, indeed, it would appear that compared to something like the DAVE, it's not farther from musical "truth" (maybe it would be safer in this context to agree that "truth" in audiophile terms is a moving target).

The difference is that when I listen to the Pacific, I can see (hear!) this is what one would like reality to sound like. I used to be a more avid concertgoer, and will be the first to admit that in some (if not many) respects, reality can sound disappointing.

Tubes, to me, at their worst overlay the sound with (mostly) pleasurable harmonic distortion (and sometimes reverberation due to their microphonic behavior), while at their best, they "enrich" the sound to where one feels involved in a (re-)creative process, not unlike being at a recital or concert.

It's as though tubes give a performance that ultimately can't be separated from the artistic. I wouldn't want to compare this to the weirdly artificial sculpting of a sonic "replica" I'm hearing in some FPGA DACs, of which the DAVE to me is the equivalent of being served processed food on an objectively higher level.

What I find perhaps most disturbing is it can sound great with some music. I've heard it, including in a blind test. It's totally unlike the "You Are There" feeling I look for in audio (especially natural instruments recorded in a natural setting), but I could see it would appeal to some people.

OK, potentially treading on someone's corns, enough of it for a day… ;)

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Thanks for the insightful reply, I like your perspective. You seem to know a lot and have had much experience worth learning from. I will add that I have also had Dcs and MSB in house for comparison, not just DAVE. I am not after a super warm gooey vibe. I understand why some would love that, but it isn’t what I want in my system and for the types of music I listen to. I dont know if it is tubes, system synergy or what, but neither the Pacific nor the Horizon that I have now have been warm or what I think of as “tubey.” Maybe that is the tubes, My pacific had PX25 and 242 with RK 5U4G, I assume it would have been much warmer with some 300b for example. I dont know. I have had tube amps. My current monos have a tube in and SS out. I don’t have the experience of some of you here and so I will defer and honestly try to hear as much gear as possible at shows, friends’ places and dealers and learn more. However, so far my experience with Lampizator dacs runs a bit different. I havent found them warm. Also, I did not find the switch from Pacific to Horizon to be a move towards coolness or neutrality. It was a refinement. The change wasn’t as big as from the Dave to Pacific, but it was there plain as day. The Horizon refines everything the Pac does. As I have lived with it for 6 months now, I have gotten to know many more of its powers, all of which are refinements to the Pac. I don’t yet have the vocabulary to express all of those, aside from cliche terms: bigger and more holographic soundstage, subtler refinement in separating/imaging, better decay, more integration of top and bottom ends and so on… This is just my perspective. More than willing to be wrong. I would also once again like to thank you for sharing yoru experience. It has poked me to question what I know and listen again more deeply.
 
I would suggest getting a good equalizer and just a top DAC. Long years ago I owned a Cello Audio Pallette. It worked miracles in bright recordings. I remember Mark Levinson playing with the six large knobs - he was a master using them. Just to frame our posts, can you tell us two classical recordings available in Qobuz you consider bright sounding?



Atmasphere OTLs and tube preamplfiiers are much less forgiving than many solid state amplifiers. But you have a point most people associate tube sound to some of the rolled off designs of yesterday. and solid state to lean sounding amplifiers.
I remember the Cello Audio Palette very well. Mark Levinson has had a digital version implemented in the Daniel Hertz Masterclass (PCM only) media player. Must say I could never get as good a result adjusting from track to track on the fly, maybe I'm too OCD, kidding aside, it does take a bit of practice.

As to bright-sounding classical recordings, I don't stream, but play back files stored on a NAS, so my knowledge of those services is limited to visits at audiophile buddies' homes.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
Last edited:
Hi PK and Ron, you had some wonderful DAC comparisons. Any chance you can loan a Pilium Elektra dac? For good or bad, it will be interesting to audition it.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu