The more highly resolving the system, the bigger differences smaller improvements can yield. DACs, along with every other piece in the system rely on the overall context of room, cables, isolation, etc. The insertion of a new component can illuminate what the context provides as well as showing its own character. Does the component in question provide new and deeper insight into the soundstage? Does it offer finer resolution of timbres and decay? Does it reveal something that was previously hidden? In my experience when these things are happening, the experience is usually deeply satisfying and an indication that the surrounding equipment provides a beneficial context.
Various DAC Audition Impressions
- Thread starter pk_LA
- Start date
Your system has to be highly resolving. When you have better cables components amps and speakers that have low noise floors. Dac can make all the difference. The Dac itself must conduct low noise floor, tone, texture and dynamics in a way that’s pleasing to your ears. Also types of music can make differences as well. My infigo method 4 Dac plays great with my quick hitting jazz. It has speed, dynamics and layering that most of my music requires.
If one's personality leans toward finding differences, as we know the ear/brain is very good at making those distinctions. As someone who learned professionally to find likenesses (was that survival or inclination of both?), I tend not to notice small changes.
After many years of analytical listening, which eventually limited my enjoyment of music, I now judge changes in gear or tweaks simply by whether I find myself more engaged with the music after the change. While the initial judgement is usually very quick (Malcolm Gladwell's Blink seems to have it right), living with the change for many weeks is an easy way for me to decide whether to adopt the change.
Completely agree that the quality of the recording rules all else. You can only hope to find yourself transported to the recording venue with a good engineer at the helm.
Great detailed summary of these amazing DACs!
I auditioned the Nagra HD DAC X against the MSB and dCS and preferred the Nagra. The source was different in your comparison, which could have lead to the ‘difficulty with transients’ you noticed. Also, keep in mind that the Nagra does not have true balanced outputs. Nagra believes these add more noise and advocates using RCA outputs — they included XLR but they are not recommended. So the dealer should not have used XLR.
This site does very detailed unbiased reviews:
clubedoaudio.com.br
clubedoaudio.com.br
I auditioned the Nagra HD DAC X against the MSB and dCS and preferred the Nagra. The source was different in your comparison, which could have lead to the ‘difficulty with transients’ you noticed. Also, keep in mind that the Nagra does not have true balanced outputs. Nagra believes these add more noise and advocates using RCA outputs — they included XLR but they are not recommended. So the dealer should not have used XLR.
This site does very detailed unbiased reviews:
TOP 5 – AVMAG
Ranking de testes da Áudio Vídeo Magazine Apresentamos aqui o ranking atualizado dos produtos selecionados que foram analisados por nossa metodologia nos últimos anos, ordenados pelas […]
clubedoaudio.com.br
Teste 1: NAGRA HD DAC X
Fernando Andrettefernando@clubedoaudio.com.br A possibilidade de ser o primeiro revisor crítico de áudio a testar a linha completa de todos os novos produtos da Nagra, é uma […]
clubedoaudio.com.br
TOP 5 – Fontes digitais
- Nagra HD DAC X – 111 pontos (Estado da Arte) – German Audio – Ed.264
- MSB Select DAC – 106 pontos (Estado da Arte) – German Audio – Ed.252
- Nagra Tube DAC – 105 pontos (Estado da Arte) – German Audio – Ed.262
- dCS Rossini – 100 pontos (Estado da Arte) – Ferrari Technologies – Ed.250
- dCS Scarlatti – 100 pontos (Estado da Arte) – Ferrari Technologies – Ed.183
Been reading this thread with great interest, thanks everyone for your impressions!
I've heard most of these DACs in various contexts, but only a few in direct comparison. Having said that, comparisons are odious - literally. I enjoy them a lot as there's much to learn, but in the end, one will have to draw conclusions in absolute terms.
Which leads me to two conclusions: I'm the type of listener who stays up late, listens into the wee hours despite the fact that I'm susceptible to migraines, triggered by flickering neon light, some chemical smells, digital hash and glare. In addition to that, I'm primarily a classical music lover, and even listening to jazz and prog rock, I'm often drawn to music that takes time.
In short, the number one prerequisite to me in any audio component is that it must not, under any circumstances, cause listening fatigue. It took me some time to learn how to find these in the context of shows and even shootouts among audiophile friends. It's a matter of listening to oneself rather than the component. Much like avoiding migraine in the first place, one learns to pay attention to e.g. muscular tension, to aural and visual effects etc., in short, warning signs.
Interestingly, those have nothing at all to do with the music, but everything with its reproduction. Of course a live concert, in particular jazz, rock etc., may be loud, sound harsh, bright etc., but what's bothering me, and may trigger migraine, tends to be much more subtle. It's not music or the sound of music that ever puts me off, it's almost always a function of the gear. Certain DACs, some early digital recordings, distortion and breakup in loudspeaker drivers, that kind of thing…
Classical music aficionados, the die-hard ones anyways, love comparisons not so much of sound or recording quality, but performance, interpretation etc. What this means is they tend to have a much greater tolerance when it comes to recording quality. I recently listened to the Bruno Walter Walküre Act I recording with Lehmann and Melchior and was totally entranced by the performance. Yes, it was recorded in 1935. Yes, it's mono.
I know there are many audiophiles out there who'd never listen to what they consider recordings of inferior sound quality, and who would question the need for SOTA equipment to listen to such recordings. All I can reply to this is what is SOTA equipment for if not to preserve and appreciate art?
Ideally, playback equipment should allow the listener to re-experience a performance, well-recorded or not. I've yet to hear any that does all of it equally well: have the resolution to truly differentiate (e.g. the micro dynamic shadings of different legendary pianists playing the same piece of Debussy among recordings from different eras and recording formats), not cause listening fatigue playing back anything from a lute to punk rock on the same system, knock the listener over the head with the real-life macro dynamics of a Mahler symphony or Strauss tone poem, whether a modern recording or a historical one by the likes of a Mengelberg or Scherchen, reproduce the articulation in the singing of artists who still knew how to act out a story on stage such as a Callas, Hotter, Siepi, Wunderlich etc. Heck, most systems can't faithfully reproduce piano…
Reminds me that's how I became an audiophile: forced to sit and play cards with my grandma while my sister would practice on her Steinway, then go home and hear my dad wear out the newly released LP of Jarrett's Köln Concert, falling head over heels with the performance (being but a little boy), yet wondering what the heck was wrong with that piano…
I've recently noticed that the older I get, the more I wish equipment were more benign to bad recordings, whilst bringing out the best in great ones, and that perhaps the most problematic category of gear in this respect are DACs.
[…]
I've heard most of these DACs in various contexts, but only a few in direct comparison. Having said that, comparisons are odious - literally. I enjoy them a lot as there's much to learn, but in the end, one will have to draw conclusions in absolute terms.
Which leads me to two conclusions: I'm the type of listener who stays up late, listens into the wee hours despite the fact that I'm susceptible to migraines, triggered by flickering neon light, some chemical smells, digital hash and glare. In addition to that, I'm primarily a classical music lover, and even listening to jazz and prog rock, I'm often drawn to music that takes time.
In short, the number one prerequisite to me in any audio component is that it must not, under any circumstances, cause listening fatigue. It took me some time to learn how to find these in the context of shows and even shootouts among audiophile friends. It's a matter of listening to oneself rather than the component. Much like avoiding migraine in the first place, one learns to pay attention to e.g. muscular tension, to aural and visual effects etc., in short, warning signs.
Interestingly, those have nothing at all to do with the music, but everything with its reproduction. Of course a live concert, in particular jazz, rock etc., may be loud, sound harsh, bright etc., but what's bothering me, and may trigger migraine, tends to be much more subtle. It's not music or the sound of music that ever puts me off, it's almost always a function of the gear. Certain DACs, some early digital recordings, distortion and breakup in loudspeaker drivers, that kind of thing…
Classical music aficionados, the die-hard ones anyways, love comparisons not so much of sound or recording quality, but performance, interpretation etc. What this means is they tend to have a much greater tolerance when it comes to recording quality. I recently listened to the Bruno Walter Walküre Act I recording with Lehmann and Melchior and was totally entranced by the performance. Yes, it was recorded in 1935. Yes, it's mono.
I know there are many audiophiles out there who'd never listen to what they consider recordings of inferior sound quality, and who would question the need for SOTA equipment to listen to such recordings. All I can reply to this is what is SOTA equipment for if not to preserve and appreciate art?
Ideally, playback equipment should allow the listener to re-experience a performance, well-recorded or not. I've yet to hear any that does all of it equally well: have the resolution to truly differentiate (e.g. the micro dynamic shadings of different legendary pianists playing the same piece of Debussy among recordings from different eras and recording formats), not cause listening fatigue playing back anything from a lute to punk rock on the same system, knock the listener over the head with the real-life macro dynamics of a Mahler symphony or Strauss tone poem, whether a modern recording or a historical one by the likes of a Mengelberg or Scherchen, reproduce the articulation in the singing of artists who still knew how to act out a story on stage such as a Callas, Hotter, Siepi, Wunderlich etc. Heck, most systems can't faithfully reproduce piano…
Reminds me that's how I became an audiophile: forced to sit and play cards with my grandma while my sister would practice on her Steinway, then go home and hear my dad wear out the newly released LP of Jarrett's Köln Concert, falling head over heels with the performance (being but a little boy), yet wondering what the heck was wrong with that piano…
I've recently noticed that the older I get, the more I wish equipment were more benign to bad recordings, whilst bringing out the best in great ones, and that perhaps the most problematic category of gear in this respect are DACs.
[…]
Last edited:
[…]
What I do making buying decisions is listen for common traits. For example, I've only had a chance to hear the Wadax stack in two systems so far, and was irritated by what they shared in common despite their differences: digital playback sounded dynamically flat to the extent of sounding dull, whereas analog playback did not. And I don't mean to discuss the superiority of one format over the other, as I happen to find either to have their pros and cons (remember I cherish piano recordings…). That is right at the opposite end of what I mean when I say gear must be good for longterm listening. Sure, there was no "digititis", but such a lack of dynamic jump and a lively sense of realism simply won't do. Not going to jump to conclusions when I don't like something, as experience has taught me all kinds of things can go wrong in the setup and demo of a system, looking forward to another opportunity to hear these.
What, if memory serves, Ron says about dCS, that "mentholly" quality, I'm hearing the same in many systems and/or recordings, what makes me scratch my head, however, if this were indeed a trait, how come it's completely absent from some systems and/or recordings. Logic has it, it would have to be something dCS DACs "superimpose" onto all playback, in every system, with every recording. And that's not the case. Something all dCS playback has in common is a sense of realism, offering a very direct, almost raw connection to the musical and artistic content of recordings, over which at its best I get really emotional, or at worst, makes me perk up and be annoyed with flaws, including elsewhere in a system. Amplifon designer Andrzej Piwowarczyk echoes my experience building loudspeakers in that he likes dCS because it allows him to hear exactly what his tube amps do and don't do. I never think of dCS as benign or beautiful sounding, but when I play back recordings of artists I've heard in real life, this is where I'm getting flashbacks of what e.g. a Leon Fleisher (R.I.P.) sounded like in person, and not just in its "glory", no, including that slight metallic "ping" in his playing that one would never hear from e.g. Iván Moravec. I've always thought it fitting that dCS uses classical composer names for their products as I do find differentiation (between performances and interpretations, instruments, instrumentalists, orchestras, recording venues etc. & etc.) to play a unique and much greater role than in any other type of music where, basically, the question is not so much how it sounds rather than whether one likes it.
MSB is another brand that I wish I knew better than to have heard it many times in systems whose sound, and this is something dCS, MSB and Wadax demos and private systems tend to share, I would probably not have liked no matter what the source equipment might have been. The common trait is smoothness to the point where music seems to be sculpted to an almost plasticky extent, with transients and decay overlaid by that tiny residual whitish resistor noise that I remember pointing out to Christoph in Munich, much less audible as a separate entity than in other R2R DACs such as TotalDAC (which, by the way, I also like, especially with tube output stage). Would be fun to hear the full potential of a Select 2 stack in a system built around more "alive" speakers and amplification, as in terms of longterm listening ease, my gut instinct would place it in the top three.
Another brand whose sound has this "sculpted" and therefore "HiFi" character (the problem is, I'm one of those audiophiles who want it all, i.e. including a more raw and direct, "warts and all" emotional connection to the musical and artistic content of a recording) I've been impressed with particularly with DSD, less so PCM playback, is Playback Designs. From a quality/price ratio perspective, one might as well get that and be done with it. Except, most of the 15-20TB worth of music I have (I'll admit I'm a music lover first, audiophile second, and maybe that is my problem) is PCM, or else I might have gone that route.
Lampizator to me falls into the "beautiful" sounding category, the Pacific in particular sounds positively "tubey" and benign while being the fist Lampizator DAC I found and still find sufficiently resolving, the Horizon somewhere between that and the above solid state DACs. I'm not trying to be ironic, but frankly, I'm not entirely sure I like one less than the other, as much as, being Swiss, I'm in favor of compromise. As much fun as there's to be had in tube rolling (and I do it all the time in my amps), it's true that it somewhat defeats the purpose of using a SOTA DAC and compare a number of recordings/performances/interpretations of any classical work whatsoever. Last time Christoph rolled tubes in his Horizon, we were able to take the voice of José Carreras all the way from almost feebly girly to sonorously manly, and multiple "versions" in-between, granted, some seemed closer to what the man sounded like in person than others. It's a way of tailoring the sound to one's liking. Mind you, I think that's cool. We're human, not microphones, and "realism" seems elusive. I thoroughly enjoy all of it as long as I'm listening to music I don't know, or artists I haven't heard live. But it can be irritating listening to a piano recording wondering what brand of concert grand it might be, and whether the sound could be tweaked to where it actually sounded like what the booklet reads was used for the recording…
To come full circle: comparisons are "odorous". And I'd like to add something here: they're really only valid if one gives each component the best chance to strut its stuff. I've participated in blind tests where every single time I interrupted to say I liked the sound better, it wasn't just that a dCS Rossini was playing, but via Ethernet, a great audiophile switch and the somewhat crude Mosaic renderer software (note I'm hesitating to call it a media player)! By the same token, a Lampizator DAC without dedicated USB server? Not going to show at its best, so what's the point?
To end this rambling rant, it's not without a morsel of disappointment when I conclude that I'm hearing different brands or types of "artificiality" in digital playback, even among DACs I could easily live with and would be happy to own (certainly my top three "longterm listening ease" brands mentioned above), because on the face of it, given their price point, wouldn't one expect perfection?
Given the choice, I'd probably want to own one of each, i.e. the most benign to a variety of recordings ranging from good to bad, and the most direct and revelatory. Because no one is going to convince me that one is per se "better" than the other, when I like both for different reasons.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
What I do making buying decisions is listen for common traits. For example, I've only had a chance to hear the Wadax stack in two systems so far, and was irritated by what they shared in common despite their differences: digital playback sounded dynamically flat to the extent of sounding dull, whereas analog playback did not. And I don't mean to discuss the superiority of one format over the other, as I happen to find either to have their pros and cons (remember I cherish piano recordings…). That is right at the opposite end of what I mean when I say gear must be good for longterm listening. Sure, there was no "digititis", but such a lack of dynamic jump and a lively sense of realism simply won't do. Not going to jump to conclusions when I don't like something, as experience has taught me all kinds of things can go wrong in the setup and demo of a system, looking forward to another opportunity to hear these.
What, if memory serves, Ron says about dCS, that "mentholly" quality, I'm hearing the same in many systems and/or recordings, what makes me scratch my head, however, if this were indeed a trait, how come it's completely absent from some systems and/or recordings. Logic has it, it would have to be something dCS DACs "superimpose" onto all playback, in every system, with every recording. And that's not the case. Something all dCS playback has in common is a sense of realism, offering a very direct, almost raw connection to the musical and artistic content of recordings, over which at its best I get really emotional, or at worst, makes me perk up and be annoyed with flaws, including elsewhere in a system. Amplifon designer Andrzej Piwowarczyk echoes my experience building loudspeakers in that he likes dCS because it allows him to hear exactly what his tube amps do and don't do. I never think of dCS as benign or beautiful sounding, but when I play back recordings of artists I've heard in real life, this is where I'm getting flashbacks of what e.g. a Leon Fleisher (R.I.P.) sounded like in person, and not just in its "glory", no, including that slight metallic "ping" in his playing that one would never hear from e.g. Iván Moravec. I've always thought it fitting that dCS uses classical composer names for their products as I do find differentiation (between performances and interpretations, instruments, instrumentalists, orchestras, recording venues etc. & etc.) to play a unique and much greater role than in any other type of music where, basically, the question is not so much how it sounds rather than whether one likes it.
MSB is another brand that I wish I knew better than to have heard it many times in systems whose sound, and this is something dCS, MSB and Wadax demos and private systems tend to share, I would probably not have liked no matter what the source equipment might have been. The common trait is smoothness to the point where music seems to be sculpted to an almost plasticky extent, with transients and decay overlaid by that tiny residual whitish resistor noise that I remember pointing out to Christoph in Munich, much less audible as a separate entity than in other R2R DACs such as TotalDAC (which, by the way, I also like, especially with tube output stage). Would be fun to hear the full potential of a Select 2 stack in a system built around more "alive" speakers and amplification, as in terms of longterm listening ease, my gut instinct would place it in the top three.
Another brand whose sound has this "sculpted" and therefore "HiFi" character (the problem is, I'm one of those audiophiles who want it all, i.e. including a more raw and direct, "warts and all" emotional connection to the musical and artistic content of a recording) I've been impressed with particularly with DSD, less so PCM playback, is Playback Designs. From a quality/price ratio perspective, one might as well get that and be done with it. Except, most of the 15-20TB worth of music I have (I'll admit I'm a music lover first, audiophile second, and maybe that is my problem) is PCM, or else I might have gone that route.
Lampizator to me falls into the "beautiful" sounding category, the Pacific in particular sounds positively "tubey" and benign while being the fist Lampizator DAC I found and still find sufficiently resolving, the Horizon somewhere between that and the above solid state DACs. I'm not trying to be ironic, but frankly, I'm not entirely sure I like one less than the other, as much as, being Swiss, I'm in favor of compromise. As much fun as there's to be had in tube rolling (and I do it all the time in my amps), it's true that it somewhat defeats the purpose of using a SOTA DAC and compare a number of recordings/performances/interpretations of any classical work whatsoever. Last time Christoph rolled tubes in his Horizon, we were able to take the voice of José Carreras all the way from almost feebly girly to sonorously manly, and multiple "versions" in-between, granted, some seemed closer to what the man sounded like in person than others. It's a way of tailoring the sound to one's liking. Mind you, I think that's cool. We're human, not microphones, and "realism" seems elusive. I thoroughly enjoy all of it as long as I'm listening to music I don't know, or artists I haven't heard live. But it can be irritating listening to a piano recording wondering what brand of concert grand it might be, and whether the sound could be tweaked to where it actually sounded like what the booklet reads was used for the recording…
To come full circle: comparisons are "odorous". And I'd like to add something here: they're really only valid if one gives each component the best chance to strut its stuff. I've participated in blind tests where every single time I interrupted to say I liked the sound better, it wasn't just that a dCS Rossini was playing, but via Ethernet, a great audiophile switch and the somewhat crude Mosaic renderer software (note I'm hesitating to call it a media player)! By the same token, a Lampizator DAC without dedicated USB server? Not going to show at its best, so what's the point?
To end this rambling rant, it's not without a morsel of disappointment when I conclude that I'm hearing different brands or types of "artificiality" in digital playback, even among DACs I could easily live with and would be happy to own (certainly my top three "longterm listening ease" brands mentioned above), because on the face of it, given their price point, wouldn't one expect perfection?
Given the choice, I'd probably want to own one of each, i.e. the most benign to a variety of recordings ranging from good to bad, and the most direct and revelatory. Because no one is going to convince me that one is per se "better" than the other, when I like both for different reasons.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Last edited:
Hi David, you should really listen to your (Swiss neighborhor) Nagra. Their DACs sound the most like analog to me (I spent countless hours listening to my father play the violin in live concerts). The media PC also makes a big difference (unfortunately). Using the Taiko Extreme with their latest XDMS software, there is no “digititis“ or fatigue, I can assure you.
I am very sensitive to listener fatigue caused by digital audio equipment, and anything that has a digital sound gives me constant headaches. Whenever I look for new gear, the first thing I notice is usually the fatigue it causes me. I have experience with various MSB and DCS DACs, but not with Naga DACs, which I believe are designed by Andreas Koch of Playback Design.
The only DAC that I have been able to use without experiencing listener fatigue for a few years now is the Playback Design Dream Series. Although I am not affiliated with this company, I think it is one of the best musical DACs in existence.
The only DAC that I have been able to use without experiencing listener fatigue for a few years now is the Playback Design Dream Series. Although I am not affiliated with this company, I think it is one of the best musical DACs in existence.
I have and I don't agree (on Nagra). Which is fine! As to audiophile streamers such as Taiko, all depends on the DAC one uses - for some, it's a godsend, for others a solution to a non-existent problem. What I certainly do agree with is the digititis aspect: one would think the world's greatest manufacturers should be implementing inputs into their SOTA DACs that are immune to aftermarket solutions, but I've tried and been demoed so many, and can attest to the fact that (almost?) everything makes a difference, cables and even external PSUs to those aftermarket solutions, if not the choice of fine fuse in the external PSU powering what would appear to be audiophile "gadgets". It's good to take a step back each time and ask oneself if an audible difference is also a (musically) relevant improvement. At least, that's what I try to keep in mind as there's a point at which I must remind myself that I prefer buying records, and that I really need to make time to listen to them all.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Last edited:
You'll have noticed I made it a point in my little rant not to include DACs that cause listening fatigue (and worse yet, trigger migraine), Playback Designs being one of them (Nagra too, at least the two or three I've heard so far, excluded those because to me, they're sonically not quite up there with the others, except maybe the Wadax). The DACs I discussed, even if only briefly and superficially, all sound different, and choosing one over the other to me is a matter of personal preference, whereas ones that do cause listening fatigue (let alone, trigger migraine) are simply a no-go.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
"Which is fine" meaning: when you show me two people who wholeheartedly agree with each other, in my experience, at least one of them is not an audiophile.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Ron
Hmmmmm Curious … Ron and Kedar agree wholeheartedly rather often"Which is fine" meaning: when you show me two people who wholeheartedly agree with each other, in my experience, at least one of them is not an audiophile.
Wait? Kedar agrees (with anyone)?! How many Kedars are there on this forum?Ron
Hmmmmm Curious … Ron and Kedar agree wholeheartedly rather often
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Only the one left now as far as I am aware since the mysterious disappearance of his replicant twin on a recent visit to Norway … Leif claims that he never arrived
Correct, Andreas Koch partnered with Nagra to develop the digital board in the Nagra DACs.
Only the one left now as far as I am aware since the mysterious disappearance of his replicant twin on a recent visit to Norway … Leif claims that he never arrived
i do have a double because some of the people I have visited are out to get me
Probability of extinction event calculated at …………….. 89.6333 %
@Ron Resnick
Were you ever able to complete the A/B comparison of the Horizon vs a similar Aries Cerat DAC....aka Kassandra Ref 2 or the Signature series? If so, I would love to hear your feedback. Thanks
Were you ever able to complete the A/B comparison of the Horizon vs a similar Aries Cerat DAC....aka Kassandra Ref 2 or the Signature series? If so, I would love to hear your feedback. Thanks
This is a great thread. I’m not surprised by the reactions. I discovered a long time ago that no single component — DAC, preamp/amp, or speaker — no matter the cost, could ever fully satisfy my listening tastes in the long run. So, wisely I decided, I think, to try to acquire a range of components. I’ll focus here on DACs alone, since that’s the topic under discussion.
1. For detail and resolution, and some of the best CD replay I’ve heard, I use the solid state Chord Blu Mk2 equipped with Rob Watts million tap M-scaler, with the Chord Dave. Rob’s upsampling implementation is among the best I’ve heard and it makes my more than 5000 CDs almost as good sounding as the best high res recordings. The Chord combo is also cute looking and easily moved among my 5 different systems located around my house.
2. For tube warmth and body, I use the Lampizator Pacific, which does not compare with the Chord in terms of sheer detail, but is much more relaxing to listen to. The Lampi DACs, being tube based, have the overriding tube signature. I find tube products slow tempos down. My spouse finds this far more objectionable than I do. But the Lampi DACs seduce you with warmth. It’s like eating chocolate pudding or rich red wine. Who could say no?
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.
4. Just for kicks, I use a $700 Topping D90 DAC to remind myself that DACs ultimately matter very little to the overall sound, besides inducing colorations we like. The Topping D90 measures as well as any DAC ever made, even DACs 100 times more expensive. No, it won’t sound tubey like Lampi DACs, but that’s a coloration we all like, and perhaps prefer.
1. For detail and resolution, and some of the best CD replay I’ve heard, I use the solid state Chord Blu Mk2 equipped with Rob Watts million tap M-scaler, with the Chord Dave. Rob’s upsampling implementation is among the best I’ve heard and it makes my more than 5000 CDs almost as good sounding as the best high res recordings. The Chord combo is also cute looking and easily moved among my 5 different systems located around my house.
2. For tube warmth and body, I use the Lampizator Pacific, which does not compare with the Chord in terms of sheer detail, but is much more relaxing to listen to. The Lampi DACs, being tube based, have the overriding tube signature. I find tube products slow tempos down. My spouse finds this far more objectionable than I do. But the Lampi DACs seduce you with warmth. It’s like eating chocolate pudding or rich red wine. Who could say no?
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.
4. Just for kicks, I use a $700 Topping D90 DAC to remind myself that DACs ultimately matter very little to the overall sound, besides inducing colorations we like. The Topping D90 measures as well as any DAC ever made, even DACs 100 times more expensive. No, it won’t sound tubey like Lampi DACs, but that’s a coloration we all like, and perhaps prefer.
Similar threads
