Light Harmonic Da Vinci DAC

[Larry Ho]

I'm with you on offering a choice, though some choices are too bewildering for end users, so fewer choices is normally better. Ayre for example offers the choice of 'measure' vs 'listen' on some of its products. I don't though take the view that users who prefer not to use a computer as their source should be penalized so in my designs I prefer not to rely on external processing to get a flat response. To me that's like having built-in EQ which can't be overridden. I take it that a lot of (not all) customers would like to follow the 'official' (i.e. the designer's) recommendation for their filter setting Putting the onus for that choice on the end user is asking rather a lot.

NOS vs OS is always one key design element in DAC. For Da Vinci, the original purpose of this DAC is for high-res music, from 96K and all to 384K. In this situation, NOS's strength play more good here.
Also, another benefit is, we can offer people choice. In NOS DAC + high sampling rate USB interface, users can choose all kinds of methods for oversampling. Different software/algorithm will make the sound all different. And people can choose.

DAC should be neutral here. We don't force people to do over-sampling inside DAC. They can choose they want to do it or not.

So there are three situations:
(1) High-res music going through USB interface: There is no much need for over-sampling. And without digital filter, there is a great benefit to remove the pre-ring and post-ring problem. We can support up to 384K/32bit.

(2) CD transport going through SDPIF/AES interface: The signal can be OS or NOS, again, given by users' choice. The interface can accept up to 192K/24bit (I hope could be higher, but spec. is there)
(3) 44.1K red book file going through USB interface: This is a BIG choice for OS or NOS. To be or not to be. I tested a lot of softwares and musics myself. Frankly, inconclusive. Generally I like NOS music is more
situations. Some orchestra music likes OS to 352.8K.

Hope this information helps.

Larry

 

[MylesBAstor]

NOS vs OS is always one key design element in DAC. For Da Vinci, the original purpose of this DAC is for high-res music, from 96K and all to 384K. In this situation, NOS's strength play more good role here.
Also, another benefit is, just like you said, we can offer people choice. In NOS DAC + high sampling rate USB interface, users can choose all kinds of methods for oversampling. Different software/algorithm will make the sound all different. And people can choose.

DAC should be neutral here. We don't force people to do over-sampling inside DAC. They can choose they want to do it or not.

So there are three situations:
(1) High-res music going through USB interface: There is no much need for over-sampling. And without digital filter, there is a great benefit to remove the pre-ring and post-ring problem. We can support up to 384K/32bit.

(2) CD transport going through SDPIF/AES interface: The signal can be OS or NOS, again, given by users' choice. The interface can accept up to 192K/24bit (I hope could be higher, but spec. is there)
(3) 44.1K red book file going through USB interface: This is a BIG choice for OS or NOS. To be or not to be. I tested a lot of softwares and musics myself. Frankly, inconclusive. Generally I like NOS music is more
situations. Some orchestra music likes OS to 352.8K.

Hope this information helps.

Larry

A warm welcome to Larry and thanks for taking the time to drop by and enlighten us on your new product!

 

[Larry Ho]

Is 3db down at 20Khz state of the art? That should result in lots of loss sound for second harmonics of instruments playing even at 10Khz, thats not too good , and for $20K, oh well. Not that I am against tone controls, but given people over 45 or so already are way down in their hearing, this aint gonna help much with "air"...

Hi, Tom

Like the previous email, the design choice we made here is to provide a neutral platform for playback. So users can choose if they want to OS or NOS. And agree with you, a lot of music we tested, e.g. from 2L's DxD or DSD musics, we need to keep the FR curve flat to get the best result...

The key is, we believe this design can offer the most flexible and neutral platform. And when people play high-res music, a lot of our users do, they can enjoy the most direct bit perfect music without further digital manipulation in between.

 

[Larry Ho]

View attachment 4967

I heard it at HighEnd 2012, and the sound was very good.

Thanks a lot, Wizard.

 

[Larry Ho]

From Larry Ho

Da Vinci will support DSD64 and DSD128. (but no DSD256)

We actually put TWO DAC's core into one chassis. Use best R2R structure for PCM and delta-sigma for DSD conversion.
This new "version" of Da Vinci is coming out and will demo in RMAF.

Some further information here... (actually I suppose not say too much before RMAF)

The reason why we combined "dual cores" in one DAC? We found that PCM and DSD need a totally different conversion structure to get the best result.
It's really really hard to use only one... For example, Delta-sigma to deal with two format (the most popular approach), it actually chop 24bit/32bit PCM into 5 or 6 or 7 bits, then doing internal up sampling. So
when you use Delta-sigma, PCM music is impossible to maintain bit perfect before conversion. You either do the digital conversion inside an IC (the 99% market available IC) or by FPGA with discrete solutions (like dCS or Playback design, they are very nicely implemented)

Another example is use R2R to maintain bit perfect for PCM, but it will be hard to direct convert DSD. So you need to "pre-process" the DSD into PCM then converted by R2R. It's NOT IDEAL as well.

So we design TWO conversion cores inside the Da Vinci DSD/PCM. One core for DSD, one core for PCM... And yes, it indeed cost us a lot of time, the result is worth everything!

L.

 

[LL21]

Some further information here... (actually I suppose not say too much before RMAF)

The reason why we combined "dual cores" in one DAC? We found that PCM and DSD need a totally different conversion structure to get the best result.
It's really really hard to use only one... For example, Delta-sigma to deal with two format (the most popular approach), it actually chop 24bit/32bit PCM into 5 or 6 or 7 bits, then doing internal up sampling. So
when you use Delta-sigma, PCM music is impossible to maintain bit perfect before conversion. You either do the digital conversion inside an IC (the 99% market available IC) or by FPGA with discrete solutions (like dCS or Playback design, they are very nicely implemented)

Another example is use R2R to maintain bit perfect for PCM, but it will be hard to direct convert DSD. So you need to "pre-process" the DSD into PCM then converted by R2R. It's NOT IDEAL as well.

So we design TWO conversion cores inside the Da Vinci DSD/PCM. One core for DSD, one core for PCM... And yes, it indeed cost us a lot of time, the result is worth everything!

L.

As a complete non-techie (who uses a NOS DAC at the moment)...this sounds like quite a piece of equipment. Look forward to hearing it, and reading more about it. Any reviews yet? Or forthcoming?

 

[Larry Ho]

As a complete non-techie (who uses a NOS DAC at the moment)...this sounds like quite a piece of equipment. Look forward to hearing it, and reading more about it. Any reviews yet? Or forthcoming?

Thanks! And yes, quite a few good reviews are coming...

 

[opus111]

Thanks for the clarifications Larry - I'm particularly curious how your DAC handles redbook CD, so I wonder if you might clarify further -

(2) CD transport going through SDPIF/AES interface: The signal can be OS or NOS, again, given by users' choice. The interface can accept up to 192K/24bit (I hope could be higher, but spec. is there)

So when the source material is 44k1/16, the user can choose from NOS, 2X OS or 4X OS? With no EQ filtering or analog post-processing?

If this is so then for NOS, the DAC won't be neutral as you said earlier. Have I understood correctly? Even at 2X OS, there's still some droop although its minor. For the flattest FR the user will need to choose 4X OS ISTM. Yet once an OS filter is in play, the FR can easily be flattened by giving the filter an HF lift, as Philips did in the age-old SAA7220.

 

[dallasjustice]

Larry,
Thanks for the info. Before I bought my current DAC, I tried to find out how your volume control is implemented since I don't use a pre-amp. I couldn't get a good answer. Can you shed some light on how volume is controlled in the DaVinci?

 

[LL21]

Thanks! And yes, quite a few good reviews are coming...

great...if you could post links to the reviews here, that would be much appreciated.

 

[Larry Ho]

Thanks for the clarifications Larry - I'm particularly curious how your DAC handles redbook CD, so I wonder if you might clarify further -



So when the source material is 44k1/16, the user can choose from NOS, 2X OS or 4X OS? With no EQ filtering or analog post-processing?

User can do 2X, 4X and 8X for 44.1K/16 bit. So the FR will be very flat around 190K when OS to 352.8K (384K).
And user can use remote to select enable or disable the analog filter @ -3dB/100K Hz...

If this is so then for NOS, the DAC won't be neutral as you said earlier. Have I understood correctly? Even at 2X OS, there's still some droop although its minor. For the flattest FR the user will need to choose 4X OS ISTM. Yet once an OS filter is in play, the FR can easily be flattened by giving the filter an HF lift, as Philips did in the age-old SAA7220.

You are correct. In my opinion, if user wants to OS, they are better off going straight to 352.8K for red book. And pick the best software they like.

Larry

 

[Larry Ho]

Larry,
Thanks for the info. Before I bought my current DAC, I tried to find out how your volume control is implemented since I don't use a pre-amp. I couldn't get a good answer. Can you shed some light on how volume is controlled in the DaVinci?

Volume control, this is a good question. Da Vinci has a special way to do it. The DAC get the system volume setting from computer, then we don't let them do it. We use our internal DSP engine to do "64 bit" precision calculation for EACH sample of music then output to the conversion core.... This is the best way we think when doing volume control in digital.

Another approach is analog volume control, which will be another module. Current Da Vinci don't have that yet, when this module is done. We can provide it as an option if users want it.

Hope this information helps.

 

[dallasjustice]

Another approach is analog volume control, which will be another module. Current Da Vinci don't have that yet, when this module is done. We can provide it as an option if users want it.
Hope this information helps.

Thanks Larry! I am not sure many folks would prefer the analog approach over your excellent digital volume control, though.

 

[RayCtech]

LSB Auto-Correction
Always enabled

Hi Larry,

As the Da Vinci DAC uses the LSB extension routine there is some information in the following post:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...sion-LSB-extension-errors&p=133694#post133694

What kind of remote can be used with the Da Vinci ?
Ask due to I do not have the remote....

 

[JackD201]

My business partner and I heard the Da Vinci in two totally different systems (Von Schweikert and KR Audio, Joseph Audio and Electrocompaniet) and was highly impressed with what we heard despite the fact that we are guys not so easily impressed. We've decided to put our money where our mouths are and represent them here in the Philippines. I get to babysit the demo unit in the proof of concept room. I love this job.

 

[wizard]

View attachment 7682

Review

 

[dallasjustice]

I heard it in Denver and thought it sounds great. It sounds even better than it looks.

 

[MylesBAstor]

BTW, the new DAC shown at CES does 2X DSD.

 

[wizard]

View attachment 7683

Dual dac with 2X DSD - $31000.

 

[edorr]

Dual dac with 2X DSD - $31000.

To be taken seriously as a high-end brand, selling low 5 figure electronics and low 6 figure speakers does not cut it anymore these days.....