Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
It would be my pleasure as long as I get an invite to hear your new DAC
Various DAC Audition Impressions
- Thread starter pk_LA
- Start date
The Apex depends so so much on the upsampling scheme, filter and map settings I learned. If any one are out of whack it becomes clinical. This gets somewhat further compounded by the UX on the dCS. You are only able to set filter settings for a format when that format is present.
What was the dunce DAC? And why? By omitting it you cast a shadow over all the ones not on your list. Also, including it will inform readers of your preferences as much as the ones you did list.
Hmm not sure I'm with your take on this one. I don't see how not listing a DAC he didn't like cast a shadow on anything.
INTRODUCTION
Over the last several months I have had the honor and the pleasure of accompanying pk_LA on what likely is the most extensive audition survey of top-of-the-line DACs ever conducted. The survey was conducted using pk_LA's new system consisting of the Wilson Audio Alexx V, the Boulder 3010 line stage pre-amplifier and the Boulder 3060 stereo amplifier, and Transparent Audio Opus Generation 6 cables.
COMPARISONS
LAMPIZATOR HORIZON VERSUS DCS VIVALDI APEX — FIRST SESSION
pk_LA began by playing a vocal track I had never heard before. He did not alert me as to which DAC we were listening. We listened to the track all of the way through. Then he played it again, on the other DAC. Within 60 seconds I said I believed that we now were listening to the Horizon. He told me I was correct.
pk_LA made many track selections over the course of the evening. I selected:
"Landslide" by Fleetwood Mac on Fleetwood Mac
"Witness" by Sarah MacLachlan on Surfacing
"Hallelujah" by Jeff Buckley on Grace
"Hotel California" by The Eagles (live version)
"Walk on the Wild Side" by Suzanne Vega on An Evening of New York Songs and Stories
"I've Got the Music In Me" by Thelma Houston on I've Got the Music In Me
My initial impressions of the Horizon versus the Apex:
1) I heard a harmonic richness and instrumental decay on the Horizon which was truncated on the Apex.
2) I heard on the Apex what I sensitively perceive as a slight digital dryness and sterile menthol sonic quality, and leading edge sharpness, which has always been my personal tell-tale sign of digital that I do not personally care for.
3) I feel the perceived frequency response of the Apex is centered in the upper midrange to treble, whereas I feel the perceived frequency response of the Horizon is centered in the mid-range (like how I perceive good analog playback).
4) I heard greater depth and dimensionality from the Horizon. The Apex sounded a bit "flatter" in comparison.
5) On each track that I selected and with which I am very familiar the Horizon presented the music in a way that reminded me of vinyl. The music sounded "right"; it sounded the way I am accustomed to these very familiar tracks sounding.
The first time I ever really relaxed listening to digital was on audioquattr's system in the Netherlands with the Taiko Audio SGM Extreme feeding a Lampizator Pacific. I enjoyed listening to the Horizon at Steve's during the Horizon debut. I enjoyed listening to the Horizon at pk_LA's last night. I conclude that if I have to listen to digital the Lampizator DACs simply work for me.
The dCS components are, to my personal aesthetic, beautiful and contemporary, and they look like they are machined out of blocks of aluminum. The Horizon is the best-looking Lampizator thus far, but, with its neon tube numerical display, it still looks reminiscent of Russian laboratory equipment from the 1950s.
LAMPIZATOR HORIZON VERSUS DCS VIVALDI APEX — SECOND SESSION
I returned to pk_LA's house for a re-match of Lampizator Horizon versus dCS Apex. On a track I did not know I failed to identify correctly to which DAC we were listening two out of three times.
It took a track I have heard hundreds of times ("Song of Bernadette" by Jennifer Warnes on Famous Blue Raincoat) to be able to tell the DACs apart.
pk_LA reported to me during the week prior to this second session the varying sound quality from the Horizon as the Horizon broke in since my last visit. Did the Lampizator change or did the dCS change?
Brian Berdan believes that, because the Vivaldi stack pk_LA is auditioning was just upgraded with the Apex circuit board, the Apex circuit board needed breaking in. This is a plausible theory. All I know is that the canyon-like gap in sonic attractiveness I heard between the Horizon and the Apex the prior week narrowed very considerably. If I had to quantify it I would say the gap has narrowed by at least 75%.
I still hear directionally the impressions I reported originally, but the amplitude is much lower. I still hear the Horizon as being more resonant and harmonically rich, but by a much smaller extent. I still hear the Apex as having more treble energy, and the Horizon as being slightly more midrange-focused (which I find more natural and more "correct"). I still hear the Apex as being slightly drier-sounding than the Horizon, and with leading edge transients I find unnaturally sharp.
The only thing I prefer about the the Apex over the Horizon is the resolving power of the Apex. All information and detail is “dug” out of those zeros and ones by the Apex.
I still easily prefer overall the Horizon over the Apex, but the gaps in what I prefer about the Horizon have narrowed very considerably. And the fact that only a week later I had to dig deep and use a track I am extremely familiar just to tell the DACs apart is puzzling — and telling.
PS: Alcohol consumption was identical during both listening sessions.
INFIGO METHOD 4 VERSUS DCS VIVALDI APEX
The Infigo Audio Method 4 DAC (MSRP $35,000) is designed by Hans Looman, a Dutchie from Delft, The Netherlands, who now lives in Canada. Hans is the CEO and Founder of Infigo Audio. Hans was very straightforward, very low-key and very knowledgeable about digital audio circuit design.
On a couple of the tracks with which I was unfamiliar I could not tell which DAC was which. But on familiar tracks I could determine which was the Method 4 and which was the Apex.
Overall I found the Method 4 to be smoother and slightly warmer and more analog-sounding than the Apex. I found the Method 4 to offer generally slightly greater decay and more harmonic resonance than the Apex.
On Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah" on Grace the attention-grabbing guitar pluck in the beginning of the song sounded slightly more edgy on the Apex. On the Method 4 the guitar pluck sounded like I am accustomed to it sounding. It sounded more organic and golden, rather than slightly less natural and silvery.
The last track we used to compare the DACs showed us something interesting. This particular track had a dance vibe. When we played it on the Infigo we felt we had a bit of a drive literally to get up and dance. Playing this track on the dCS I had no such feeling to get into, or to connect with, the music. The dCS made this lively track sound a bit clinical and unengaging.
The dCS Vivaldi Apex is the champion of resolution, detail, dynamics, and low-frequency punch. To my ears it is the sound of the Boulder electronics in the functionality of a DAC.
The Lampizator Horizon thus far remains my favorite DAC in this on-going audition and comparison process. Interestingly I preferred the Method 4 over the Nagra HD even though the Nagra HD has a tube amplification stage. To my ears the Method 4 sounded a touch more natural and tube-like (this, for me, is a compliment) than did the Nagra.
SW1X DAC III SPECIAL VERSUS DCS VIVALDI APEX
In contrast to the Infigo which I felt was only slightly less resolving than the Apex, the
SW1X DAC III Special was conspicuously less resolving than the Apex. The SW1X was richer-sounding and more natural-sounding and less "digital"-sounding than the Apex, but I felt the SW1X sacrificed too much in resolution to achieve its richer, warmer, smooth sound.
The Infigo Method 4 sounded slightly richer and more natural and less digital than the Apex as well (as reported above) (indeed, a little bit tube-like in tone and density but without the soundstage dimensionality of tubes) but without sacrificing as much in resolution as the SW1X appears to sacrifice.
With the SW1X it seemed like some subtle details and a sense of air around singers and ambient cues were wholly missing in comparison to the highly-resolving dCS.
Over the last several months I have had the honor and the pleasure of accompanying pk_LA on what likely is the most extensive audition survey of top-of-the-line DACs ever conducted. The survey was conducted using pk_LA's new system consisting of the Wilson Audio Alexx V, the Boulder 3010 line stage pre-amplifier and the Boulder 3060 stereo amplifier, and Transparent Audio Opus Generation 6 cables.
COMPARISONS
LAMPIZATOR HORIZON VERSUS DCS VIVALDI APEX — FIRST SESSION
pk_LA began by playing a vocal track I had never heard before. He did not alert me as to which DAC we were listening. We listened to the track all of the way through. Then he played it again, on the other DAC. Within 60 seconds I said I believed that we now were listening to the Horizon. He told me I was correct.
pk_LA made many track selections over the course of the evening. I selected:
"Landslide" by Fleetwood Mac on Fleetwood Mac
"Witness" by Sarah MacLachlan on Surfacing
"Hallelujah" by Jeff Buckley on Grace
"Hotel California" by The Eagles (live version)
"Walk on the Wild Side" by Suzanne Vega on An Evening of New York Songs and Stories
"I've Got the Music In Me" by Thelma Houston on I've Got the Music In Me
My initial impressions of the Horizon versus the Apex:
1) I heard a harmonic richness and instrumental decay on the Horizon which was truncated on the Apex.
2) I heard on the Apex what I sensitively perceive as a slight digital dryness and sterile menthol sonic quality, and leading edge sharpness, which has always been my personal tell-tale sign of digital that I do not personally care for.
3) I feel the perceived frequency response of the Apex is centered in the upper midrange to treble, whereas I feel the perceived frequency response of the Horizon is centered in the mid-range (like how I perceive good analog playback).
4) I heard greater depth and dimensionality from the Horizon. The Apex sounded a bit "flatter" in comparison.
5) On each track that I selected and with which I am very familiar the Horizon presented the music in a way that reminded me of vinyl. The music sounded "right"; it sounded the way I am accustomed to these very familiar tracks sounding.
The first time I ever really relaxed listening to digital was on audioquattr's system in the Netherlands with the Taiko Audio SGM Extreme feeding a Lampizator Pacific. I enjoyed listening to the Horizon at Steve's during the Horizon debut. I enjoyed listening to the Horizon at pk_LA's last night. I conclude that if I have to listen to digital the Lampizator DACs simply work for me.
The dCS components are, to my personal aesthetic, beautiful and contemporary, and they look like they are machined out of blocks of aluminum. The Horizon is the best-looking Lampizator thus far, but, with its neon tube numerical display, it still looks reminiscent of Russian laboratory equipment from the 1950s.
LAMPIZATOR HORIZON VERSUS DCS VIVALDI APEX — SECOND SESSION
I returned to pk_LA's house for a re-match of Lampizator Horizon versus dCS Apex. On a track I did not know I failed to identify correctly to which DAC we were listening two out of three times.
It took a track I have heard hundreds of times ("Song of Bernadette" by Jennifer Warnes on Famous Blue Raincoat) to be able to tell the DACs apart.
pk_LA reported to me during the week prior to this second session the varying sound quality from the Horizon as the Horizon broke in since my last visit. Did the Lampizator change or did the dCS change?
Brian Berdan believes that, because the Vivaldi stack pk_LA is auditioning was just upgraded with the Apex circuit board, the Apex circuit board needed breaking in. This is a plausible theory. All I know is that the canyon-like gap in sonic attractiveness I heard between the Horizon and the Apex the prior week narrowed very considerably. If I had to quantify it I would say the gap has narrowed by at least 75%.
I still hear directionally the impressions I reported originally, but the amplitude is much lower. I still hear the Horizon as being more resonant and harmonically rich, but by a much smaller extent. I still hear the Apex as having more treble energy, and the Horizon as being slightly more midrange-focused (which I find more natural and more "correct"). I still hear the Apex as being slightly drier-sounding than the Horizon, and with leading edge transients I find unnaturally sharp.
The only thing I prefer about the the Apex over the Horizon is the resolving power of the Apex. All information and detail is “dug” out of those zeros and ones by the Apex.
I still easily prefer overall the Horizon over the Apex, but the gaps in what I prefer about the Horizon have narrowed very considerably. And the fact that only a week later I had to dig deep and use a track I am extremely familiar just to tell the DACs apart is puzzling — and telling.
PS: Alcohol consumption was identical during both listening sessions.
INFIGO METHOD 4 VERSUS DCS VIVALDI APEX
The Infigo Audio Method 4 DAC (MSRP $35,000) is designed by Hans Looman, a Dutchie from Delft, The Netherlands, who now lives in Canada. Hans is the CEO and Founder of Infigo Audio. Hans was very straightforward, very low-key and very knowledgeable about digital audio circuit design.
On a couple of the tracks with which I was unfamiliar I could not tell which DAC was which. But on familiar tracks I could determine which was the Method 4 and which was the Apex.
Overall I found the Method 4 to be smoother and slightly warmer and more analog-sounding than the Apex. I found the Method 4 to offer generally slightly greater decay and more harmonic resonance than the Apex.
On Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah" on Grace the attention-grabbing guitar pluck in the beginning of the song sounded slightly more edgy on the Apex. On the Method 4 the guitar pluck sounded like I am accustomed to it sounding. It sounded more organic and golden, rather than slightly less natural and silvery.
The last track we used to compare the DACs showed us something interesting. This particular track had a dance vibe. When we played it on the Infigo we felt we had a bit of a drive literally to get up and dance. Playing this track on the dCS I had no such feeling to get into, or to connect with, the music. The dCS made this lively track sound a bit clinical and unengaging.
The dCS Vivaldi Apex is the champion of resolution, detail, dynamics, and low-frequency punch. To my ears it is the sound of the Boulder electronics in the functionality of a DAC.
The Lampizator Horizon thus far remains my favorite DAC in this on-going audition and comparison process. Interestingly I preferred the Method 4 over the Nagra HD even though the Nagra HD has a tube amplification stage. To my ears the Method 4 sounded a touch more natural and tube-like (this, for me, is a compliment) than did the Nagra.
SW1X DAC III SPECIAL VERSUS DCS VIVALDI APEX
In contrast to the Infigo which I felt was only slightly less resolving than the Apex, the
SW1X DAC III Special was conspicuously less resolving than the Apex. The SW1X was richer-sounding and more natural-sounding and less "digital"-sounding than the Apex, but I felt the SW1X sacrificed too much in resolution to achieve its richer, warmer, smooth sound.
The Infigo Method 4 sounded slightly richer and more natural and less digital than the Apex as well (as reported above) (indeed, a little bit tube-like in tone and density but without the soundstage dimensionality of tubes) but without sacrificing as much in resolution as the SW1X appears to sacrifice.
With the SW1X it seemed like some subtle details and a sense of air around singers and ambient cues were wholly missing in comparison to the highly-resolving dCS.
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!
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!
Last edited:
Ron you need to be reviewer !
you stay kind and focused yet do in a very detailed manner make clear conclusions
I’m happy to read how well the horizon did and in price comparisons it’s a jewel for Sure
I liked the areies cerate dac and complete setup at axpona
great read
you stay kind and focused yet do in a very detailed manner make clear conclusions
I’m happy to read how well the horizon did and in price comparisons it’s a jewel for Sure
I liked the areies cerate dac and complete setup at axpona
great read
Thank you so much for that in-depth review. I greatly enjoyed reading it. Congratulations on your MSB Select II DAC. I hope it brings you many years of enjoyment. If you decide to step up to MSB’s Digital Director, please post a review with your thoughts. MSB says it provides a significant improvement in sound quality.
Ken
Ron,
Thanks for posting about about your listening to this system - IMHO considering the recordings you picked and your preferences these results could be expected.
However reading about your specific comments on the APEX coolness and thinness I think readers should note that the WADAX was used its very elaborate server and the APEX was used direct to the network - something many of us do not consider as the optimum connection for such system, particularly with solid state systems. Emile is very proud of his Extreme server when used with the APEX and has very good reasons for it!
Thanks for posting about about your listening to this system - IMHO considering the recordings you picked and your preferences these results could be expected.
However reading about your specific comments on the APEX coolness and thinness I think readers should note that the WADAX was used its very elaborate server and the APEX was used direct to the network - something many of us do not consider as the optimum connection for such system, particularly with solid state systems. Emile is very proud of his Extreme server when used with the APEX and has very good reasons for it!
Yes, but then the setting is kept for this format. After you set them you can save the chosen configuration, in order to keep them available anytime if you want to carry further experiments.
BTW, what were the clock and digital cable in the APEX?
Indeed, on the Rossini APEX here the upper range vocals are smooth and not harsh at all even without the Taiko Extreme. In fact I would go as far as saying the vocals are a standout here.
But my friend Hugh has the MSB Select II and it is a wonderful piece. Congratulations on securing a true reference DAC!
I must say that I have no experience with Boulder electronics. I am currently listening to an old Electrocompaniet AW100 amplifier and the SoundLab's, driven directly from the dCS Vivaldi.
Globally speaking the Soundlab's / Electrocompaniet sound is surely cooler and thinner than the VTL Siegfried II /XLF's, but the sound has enough body and smoothness. I listened to "Witness" by Sarah MacLachlan on Surfacing - no way voices in this system were harsh!
But if we expect the Apex to make it sound like Thelma Houston in the Sheffield direct cut going through Atmasphere tubes in the SoundLab's we will be disapointed!
I suspect you are still in break-in phase. I am about 180 hours in on the APEX break-in and it is still getting better. I don't hear the issues you list in points #2 and #3 above.
since Pk did buy the MSB and also liked the Wadax if not for the price, i figured current and future readers of this thread might want a reference to an actual direct compare of those two dacs. PK and Ron took their MSB <-> Wadax perspectives against a third dac in sessions two weeks apart. this other compare was head to head, with 10 listeners on hand, with both dacs warmed up and settled, and the MSB was more optimized since it had a fully optimized and tweaked Taiko Extreme.
this other thread has first person feedback by more than just myself and the Wadax dealer. it's a long thread and if anyone desires i can link specific posts. but for now i figured i'll let it stand on it's own and not editorialize. many might have read it back early in the year. i will only say that doing a full blown head to head in my system took a huge amount of effort (it involved cross country shipping and picking up freight at a depot in 10 degree weather and unloading (3 flight cases, 125 pounds each) on 3 feet of snow and an ice layer on my driveway.....no local dealer bringing it in under balmy weather and 3 hours later removing it), but i feel it did deliver to me personally, what i needed to nail down. i know how these two dacs and servers compare. YMMV.
the actual compare is in the first 20 or so pages. after that it's me optimizing the Wadax Ref dac and server over a few months.
and as PK said;
www.whatsbestforum.com
this other thread has first person feedback by more than just myself and the Wadax dealer. it's a long thread and if anyone desires i can link specific posts. but for now i figured i'll let it stand on it's own and not editorialize. many might have read it back early in the year. i will only say that doing a full blown head to head in my system took a huge amount of effort (it involved cross country shipping and picking up freight at a depot in 10 degree weather and unloading (3 flight cases, 125 pounds each) on 3 feet of snow and an ice layer on my driveway.....no local dealer bringing it in under balmy weather and 3 hours later removing it), but i feel it did deliver to me personally, what i needed to nail down. i know how these two dacs and servers compare. YMMV.
the actual compare is in the first 20 or so pages. after that it's me optimizing the Wadax Ref dac and server over a few months.
and as PK said;
Wadax Reference Dac and Server arrive
we are actually listening to Quboz about 10 minutes after power up.
www.whatsbestforum.com
Last edited:
Similar threads
