Any Metric Halo LIO-8 users here ? .....

[earflappin]

Hi Joe,



I've been using a ULN-8 for a few years now. (Was actually beta testing it for a few before it was released to the public.)

A bunch of colleagues periodically do a blind test where everyone receives sets of files created with about a dozen converters. No one knows which converter created which set until long after listening. So far, I haven't heard anything I think is as transparent as the '8.

There are a lot of converters nowadays that sound very good. That is exactly what I find wrong with them. Some of the last few "comers" brought to my studio for comparison were shamed by the '8, in spite of rave reviews from some quarters. I think that is attributable to some folks liking a certain sound. For folks seeking a "sound", one of those will likely satisfy, depending on the sort of sound they seek.

What I love about the '8 is the enormous amount of trouble I've had pinning down its "sound". So far, when used at a 4x rate (i.e., 176.4k or 192k), I haven't been able to distinguish its output from my microphone feed. That is something I've never experienced before with any other device, analog or digital, regardless of price.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

Barry, I'm also a fellow LIO-8 owner. Was wondering your view on the value, if any, of loopback tests like this one in quantifying and ranking DAC transparency. http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear...converter-da-ad-loopback-shootout-thread.html

Thanks.

 

[astrotoy]

I did a shootout a couple of years ago when determining what ADAC I would get. We had a ULN-8 as well as an MSB amd JCF Audio. We also had a Berkeley DAC, original model, as a reference. I went into the shootout thinking and hoping that the ULN-8 would come out on top. In addition to a reasonable price point, it had enough channels that I could take multichannel analogue sources, like SACD's, and convert them to digital. It did come in a respectable second in the shootout and first among the new ADACs. Unfortunately, the winner by a good margin was a used Pacific Microsonics Model Two. It took several months for my consultant to locate one. Mine came from Warner Bros Studios. So I didn't get the ULN-8. If the Model Two hadn't been in the competition, I probably would have the ULN-8 or Amarra equivalent today. BTW, the Berkeley Audio DAC did pretty well, but not at the level of the Model Two. Of course, I was looking for an ADAC, not a DAC, so the PDS and other fine DACs were not in the competition.

Thanks, Larry

 

[bdiament]

Hi earflappin,

Barry, I'm also a fellow LIO-8 owner. Was wondering your view on the value, if any, of loopback tests like this one in quantifying and ranking DAC transparency. http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear...converter-da-ad-loopback-shootout-thread.html...

Just saw your post.
I haven't read that thread.

The main way I've tested the ULN-8 (and the few dozen other converters that were contenders) is with sets of files sourced from very high quality analog masters, usually one classical, one jazz and one pop. The group I'm in receives these sets of three files for each converter being examined. No one knows which converter created a given set until after all the reports are sent in.

While I can understand a converter being evaluated for how one feels about its sound, I prefer another approach. Most of the better converters today sound pretty good and as I mentioned earlier, this is exactly what I find wrong with them. I want a converter that sounds likes its input, without "enhancing detail" or "smoothing rough edges" etc.. So far, in my experience, the ULN/LIO-8 stands head and shoulders above every single comer we've tested. It was true when I first heard the ULN-8 and it remains true today. I understand that if the criterion is what someone *likes*, the results will differ with the listener.

If I get a minute to read that thread, I'll post again with any thoughts that occur.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[Bruce B]

While I can understand a converter being evaluated for how one feels about its sound, I prefer another approach. Most of the better converters today sound pretty good and as I mentioned earlier, this is exactly what I find wrong with them.]

And this is how I felt about the PM2. It sounded great, but it wasn't true to the source. I felt it exaggerated the bass and the treble wasn't as coherent as it should be.

I've also used the Model 305 and though felt it was very good, it was easily surpassed by other converters. I read the Gearslutz thread and though there was a commendable selection of converters, I felt the the Orpheus was the best "in that group".

 

[bdiament]

Hi Bruce,

And this is how I felt about the PM2. It sounded great, but it wasn't true to the source. I felt it exaggerated the bass and the treble wasn't as coherent as it should be.

I've also used the Model 305 and though felt it was very good, it was easily surpassed by other converters. I read the Gearslutz thread and though there was a commendable selection of converters, I felt the the Orpheus was the best "in that group".

I've liked the PM2 a lot; it was my favorite converter at one time but that was many years ago and I believe other designs (in my case the MH ULN-8) have significantly exceeded its performance in terms of giving back an uneditorialized result.

To my ears, the Orpheus is *very* good sounding. That is what I don't like about it. ;-}
I hear it as belonging to what I call the "silky smooth" school of converters, gently rounding out rough edges in the sound. It is precisely that rounding that, in my view, makes it depart from the absolute truth. I can see why many folks like it.

It is the opposite of some converters that I hear belonging to the "enhanced detail" school. They "increase" detail, whether it is in the input signal or not. To my ears, some quite highly touted units belong to this school. Again, I can see why many folks like them. (The exceptions for me are those converters that take this detail "enhancement" a bit further; they just litter the signal with spurious harmonics, which many will interpret as "detail".)

As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in the original input, I don't want it, no matter how much "nicer" it might be, whether that takes the form of "enhanced detail" or making everything "silky smooth". To my ears, it is still a quite rare bird among converters that doesn't stray to either of these side roads from straight ahead.

The good news for listeners though, is that none of the truly better converters (not necessarily to be confused with highly reviewed converters) sounds really bad. Digital technology has come a long way since I first heard it in early 1983. Thank Heaven! ;-}

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[Bruce B]

The good news for listeners though, is that none of the truly better converters (not necessarily to be confused with highly reviewed converters) sounds really bad. Digital technology has come a long way since I first heard it in early 1983. Thank Heaven! ;-}

I was on the expert panel at the Newport show and told the audience about how we go about using different converters.
Case in point: We are doing original master tape transfers for major labels and they want to leave no stone unturned. They wanted the very best digital conversion that is available today. We transfered 4 master tapes with 5 different high-end converters. We used:

MSB Tech Platinum Studio ADC with Diamond base
Grimm AD1
Pacific Microsonics Model 2
Digital Audio Denmark AX24
EMM Labs ADC 8IV
Weiss ADC2

Over $100k in the latest/best converter technology!
We transfer all files in DSD via the Grimm, DAD and EMM Labs and the other 3 straight to 24/176.4kHz. The DSD files are sample rate converted to 24/176.4 as well. We put the files up on our server blindly, labeling them Sample-1, Sample-2... and so on. We randomly change the order as well.
On every single occasion, our clients have perferred the DSD transfers of the Grimm and EMM Labs. Out of 100 or so clients we've had over the past year, only 1 chose a PCM converter.
Now, I don't know if they are choosing because they sound "pretty" or because the engineers thought they better represented the source material. I'm a firm believer in "DSD done correctly".

 

[astrotoy]

I was on the expert panel at the Newport show and told the audience about how we go about using different converters.
Case in point: We are doing original master tape transfers for major labels and they want to leave no stone unturned. They wanted the very best digital conversion that is available today. We transfered 4 master tapes with 5 different high-end converters. We used:

MSB Tech Platinum Studio ADC with Diamond base
Grimm AD1
Pacific Microsonics Model 2
Digital Audio Denmark AX24
EMM Labs ADC 8IV
Weiss ADC2

Over $100k in the latest/best converter technology!
We transfer all files in DSD via the Grimm, DAD and EMM Labs and the other 3 straight to 24/176.4kHz. The DSD files are sample rate converted to 24/176.4 as well. We put the files up on our server blindly, labeling them Sample-1, Sample-2... and so on. We randomly change the order as well.
On every single occasion, our clients have perferred the DSD transfers of the Grimm and EMM Labs. Out of 100 or so clients we've had over the past year, only 1 chose a PCM converter.
Now, I don't know if they are choosing because they sound "pretty" or because the engineers thought they better represented the source material. I'm a firm believer in "DSD done correctly".

I forgot that the Digital Audio Denmark was the other ADAC that we tried. I wish we had the Grimm at that time, since the PM Model Two beat the competition. Paul Stubblebine led the shootout. Since I was interested most in ripping my vinyl collection, Paul cut a lacquer of the first cut of Keith Johnson's Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances, which we used to compare the ADACs to the original. We used a Boulder phono pre, since my Herron did not have balanced outputs to feed the various pro ADACs.

Thanks, Larry

 

[earflappin]

Has anybody on this thread heard the new Lynx Hilo which scored at the top of the Loopback test? How about the Invicta? Thanks.

 

[zydeco]

Has anybody on this thread heard the new Lynx Hilo which scored at the top of the Loopback test? How about the Invicta? Thanks.

Earflappin - How did you get on with the search? - Zydeco

 

[hvbias]

Bruce, for computer audio playback of PCM (majority of my music is 16/44, though slowly some of it is coming out as high res downloads), what do you think is the best D/A converter? Thanks.

 

[Glory]

I was on the expert panel at the Newport show and told the audience about how we go about using different converters.
Case in point: We are doing original master tape transfers for major labels and they want to leave no stone unturned. They wanted the very best digital conversion that is available today. We transfered 4 master tapes with 5 different high-end converters. We used:

MSB Tech Platinum Studio ADC with Diamond base
Grimm AD1
Pacific Microsonics Model 2
Digital Audio Denmark AX24
EMM Labs ADC 8IV
Weiss ADC2

Over $100k in the latest/best converter technology!
We transfer all files in DSD via the Grimm, DAD and EMM Labs and the other 3 straight to 24/176.4kHz. The DSD files are sample rate converted to 24/176.4 as well. We put the files up on our server blindly, labeling them Sample-1, Sample-2... and so on. We randomly change the order as well.
On every single occasion, our clients have perferred the DSD transfers of the Grimm and EMM Labs. Out of 100 or so clients we've had over the past year, only 1 chose a PCM converter.
Now, I don't know if they are choosing because they sound "pretty" or because the engineers thought they better represented the source material. I'm a firm believer in "DSD done correctly".

Hi Bruce,

What dac are you running now?

Gary

 

[Bruce B]

Hi Bruce,

What dac are you running now?

Gary

Playback Designs MPS-5