Lavry DA-11

[Nicholas.Bedworth]

John,

 

Thanks for the report. Perhaps the fact that you made similar observations means we're both wrong! But I don't think so... What kind of equipment do you have for the rest of your system? My Usher's and the Odyssey make it really easy to differentiate components, and the Audioquest and Wireworld cabling help a lot as well.

 

I hope that our independent observations about USB will help open the eyes and ears of our friends here on the forum. One second thought that I've had is that maybe the USB circuitry, software, whatever, isn't happy with 96/24, although the Lavry certainly picks up on the 96 part. On the other hand, the TOSLINK, also passing 96/24 via S/PDIF, seemed pretty much like the USB, only somewhat better.

 

My colleagues who design state-of-the-art DACs regard the noise and clock contamination issues relating to computers as a nightmare environment, so it's hardly surprising that USB, in this particular instance, seems deficient compared to RCA from a quality transport. I'd assume that AES will sound even better, with its larger voltage swing and differential circuit, but haven't had a chance to try it out yet.

 

In this entire discussion about USB, going on since September, notice how "everyone" reflexively dumped all over Alan Taffel, who had the nerve to report what he heard, rather than what "should be". Most readers are probably unaware that Alan not only has a professional background as an electronics engineer, but also has a home recording studio. And he listens to more SOTA equipment each year than most audiophiles will hear in their lifetime. And he's been doing this for years.

 

Finally, Alan is also a performing artist, meaning he's on stage, signing in a well-known Washington, DC choruse. One suspects his hearing and the ability to describe what comes out of loudspeakers, is probably in good condition.

 

Attempting to diagnose the electronic reasons why there are differences between the interconnect methodologies is of course going to be very difficult. The main thing is to establish what the subjective differences are in sound quality, because after all, that's the whole point of what we're doing here.

 

Nick

 

[restock]

Of course, the fact that the Lavry DA-11 can easily present the differences between various lengths of very high quality USB interconnect (and don't even think about using those OEM gray USB cables) and RCA is a testimony to its refinement.

 

 

Now that statement I just can't agree with - the sensitivity to transports as well as the sensitivity to USB! cables is more a testimony to inferior jitter and noise rejection in the Lavry (and possibly a positive testimony to the DAC and analog section that don't cover up those faults).

 

 

[Nicholas.Bedworth]

Barry,

 

The details you bring out about the history of the PM are certainly interesting and I agree with your clarification. The general point I was trying to make is that Dan's involvement in various high-end DA designs goes back a long ways.

 

Notice that I cited his wife, and CEO of Lavry Engineering, Priscilla

 

Of course, they have good reason to be proud of their many accomplishments, and contributions to the recording industry, both directly (in the form of LE's products) and indirectly (in the form of components and designs used in other firms' products).

 

[Voltron]

@Clay:

 

One more slightly off-topic comment regarding the Sonic 302 vs. Amarra 4 comparison. The 4 is mine and JP and I will certainly do our best to post something up here. Partly on-topic, the DA10 can be factored into the equation through the optical out from the MacMini, but I do not have the DA11 available to compare.

 

Cheers!

 

[cfmsp]

 

"I hope that our independent observations about USB will help open the eyes and ears of our friends here on the forum."

 

Not precisely sure what you mean by 'open the eyes and ears', but allow me to share what I believe to be the belief of many - or perhaps only the ones I agree with - on this forum, and which was developed prior to your arrival.

 

USB inputs on (virtually) all devices which include other interfaces almost always pale in comparison to the other inputs, and probably for multiple reasons. One, they're usually added on to devices optimized for legacy inputs (AES/EBU, Coax S/PDIF, etc.), and two, they quite often use inferior mechanisms, e.g. for converting USB to I2S, etc. Some seem to be afterthoughts, added on for marketing reasons. Many seem to outsource their USB implementation to Centrance.

 

Additionally, it's pretty well accepted here (IMO) that Asnc USB is the superior mechanism for implementing USB interfaces, and the only folks who implement this do so in USB-only devices.

 

It's also fairly well established here (again, IMO) that Asynchronous interfaces will be superior to the legacy interfaces (read any/all of the S/PDIF variants), all other things being equal (e.g., analog section, PS, etc.).

 

Taken together this means that when USB interfaces on legacy DACs are being compared to the legacy inputs (AES, Coax), the results mean next to nothing with regards to an overall USB versus S/PDIF comparison, but rather, is a(nother) testament to the obvious.

 

"My colleagues who design state-of-the-art DACs regard the noise and clock contamination issues relating to computers as a nightmare environment, so it's hardly surprising that USB, in this particular instance, seems deficient compared to RCA from a quality transport."

 

I humbly suggest your colleagues consider Asynchronous interfaces if they want to reduce the effects on the computer environment re clock contamination. The more relevant issue would appear NOT to be the physical interface (AES vs USB) per se, so much as it is whether the protocol relies on use of the clock signal FROM the computer.

 

"In this entire discussion about USB, going on since September, notice how "everyone" reflexively dumped all over Alan Taffel, who had the nerve to report what he heard, rather than what "should be".

 

The word 'reflexively' can only be assumed as a perjorative in this instance. As one of the many that dumped all over Alan, please allow me to share what MOST seemed to take issue with.

 

First of all, Alan stated there were NO Firewire DACs in existence, which came as quite a surprise to many of us who were happily listening to Firewire DACs.

 

Secondly, he also TOTALLY disregarded the Async USB devices that were available, and more importantly, gave the rather strong impression that USB as a whole was NOT up to audiophile standards. That he knew this NOT to be the case was quite disengenuous on his part, IMO, especially considering the title of the article.

 

Those are some of the issues for which Alan was rightly castigated, IMO. Another is that he seemed unaware of basic computer audio info that is general knowledge to people who've spent more than 30 minutes on a site such as CA.

 

Perhaps the word 'reflexively' could also apply to your comments in support of Alan as you seem to have little awareness as to what most people seemed to find disagreeable re: Alan's article?

 

respectfully,

clay

 

 

 

 

[Nicholas.Bedworth]

You're certainly correct in identifying my assumption (as opposed to knowledge) that the Lavry is probably doing a very good job with respect to handling the USB, and that any issues with USB playback are probably external to the DA-11.

 

So, what you suggest could well be correct, but the problem is that there's no way for me to evaluate whether the differences heard with varying USB cable lengths relate to the electronics in the Lavry, USB, the computer, the encoding method, or who knows what? One thing for sure, there are differences, and they're cable-length-dependent.

 

My observations are thus essentially "behavioral" and treat the Lavry DA-11 as a "black box". How does it sound under various circumstances? Describing how it performs is easy, and can be communicated to other listeners; why it sounds like it does is another matter.

 

Now, given that the device works so well with RCA, it seems odd that Lavry would have put out a product knowing that its USB interface was grossly deficient, with respect to "jitter and noise rejection". Certainly they're past-masters at understanding, characterizing, and designing for, numerous forms of jitter and noise.

 

How one teases apart the Gordian knot of USB to DAC performance is going to be very, very difficult, given that there are so many variables involved. The main thing is that the listening needs to be done with reference-grade gear, which is capable of making any differences quite obvious.

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

"Now, given that the device works so well with RCA, it seems odd that Lavry would have put out a product knowing that its USB interface was grossly deficient, with respect to "jitter and noise rejection"."

 

I cant speak for Dan, but I can share anecdotally the approach of another industry heavyweight (albeit not in the digital design space).

 

Paul McGowan reported on his forum that he had finally "bought" a USB implementation (from Centrance) that was basically "as good as it [uSB] gets".

 

Glean from that what you will regarding possible attitude towards USB by some legacy DAC manufacturers (i.e, those who were building DACs prior to the computer audio age, and therefore prior to the expectations that DACs have interfaces for connecting directly to computers).

 

clay

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

Thanks Voltron,

 

I'm only interested in the 302 versus Amarra model 4 comparison.

 

clay

 

 

[Nicholas.Bedworth]

According to the Lavry online store, the DA-11 is now $1480, which makes it even more affordable.

 

[bmckenney]

>>The main thing is that the listening needs to be done with reference-grade gear, which is capable of making any differences quite obvious.

 

More importantly the speaker setup and the room acoustics need to be excellent to really hear what is going on. Reference gear doesn't get you far without it. I wouldn't put any stock in someones impressions of different USB interfaces done with reference gear if the acoustics were of an average listening room or studio or lab and no acoustic treatment.

 

[Nicholas.Bedworth]

Goes without saying. A lot of reviews that I see give me the impression that the reviewer is telling us more about his room and cabling, than the equipmnet or software ostensibly being tested.

 

Of course doing A/B comparisons given constant room conditions is at least reducing the variables somewhat. In my case, the listening "chamber" has asymettrical ceilings, which kill off a lot of problems right from the start.

 

[bmckenney]

I would hardly say it does without saying. Most systems with top flight electronics have no room treatment.

 

[bdiament]

While I would agree room treatment is essential to getting the best out of any system, I do not at all think it is essential to hearing differences between components.

 

In my experience, fine components and fine recordings are identifiable as such in some surprisingly non-optimized situations. Of course, full room treatment only makes the sonic assets of fine components and recordings easier to hear.

 

I would add that many of the products being sold for the purpose of treating acoustics and much of the advice offered by the "experts" selling these products is to my mind, ultimately ineffective, often silly and just plain wrong. Many "treated" rooms I've heard have quite short reverberation times in the treble, with relatively out of control modal issues. (Beware of folks with $50 computer programs, showing graphs and numbers for their devices that are ultimately as effective as hanging a bunch of bath towels on the walls.)

 

All that said, my studio is fully treated for room modes in the bass, absorption of early reflections and diffusion of later reflections. The difference it makes in being able to hear past the system and into the recording is astounding. However, I personally would not say judgements made by astute ears in untreated rooms are not in any way valid ones.

 

Just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[bmckenney]

I do understand your perspective is more grounded by experience than mine is and you are likely closer to being right than I am. It would be interesting to do some testing with a panel of seasoned listeners using a resolving system and have them evaluate a new component and have them articulate what the changes are under two different room conditions. I agree that it will be easier for them to hear the changes in a well treated room than the same room without treatment. From my perspective, which makes this a theory more than anything, I believe that they will not be able to hear all of the changes in an untreated room because it is going to mask a lot of information. Sure they will hear some changes or differences from the new component in the untreated room scenario but they can't possibly hear the full extent of the changes. They will be able to hear a relative change from the new component compared to the system before the new component so they could maybe extrapolate there is an X degree of change, which is good in the sense they can compare and contrast, but it was all still masked by poor acoustics and in my mind that is a flaw that I would prefer not happen in listening tests that I am going to read about as a consumer. And worse yet, if manufacturers are designing and building equipment such as DACs and performing listening tests in an untreated, poor to average acoustic space, they are likely making decisions based on bad data, even if they can hear the differences before and after a change.

 

[machinehead]

@ zorro

dude, he said he was a dealer, and take his word with a grain of salt, so knock it off with you accusatory comments.

 

[bdiament]

Hi bmckenney,

 

I agree 100% on the theoretical level and on the practical level as well.

 

However, my experience has been that an experienced, astute listener can tell more about a product using a less than optimized system than most others can using a state of the art system in a properly treated room.

 

In other words, I trust certain listeners more than others, based on what I've heard them say about things I have experience with, regardless of how I might feel about how much better their playback systems/rooms might be.

 

One example of many, has been with the reports about the ULN-8 from other beta team members, during the 3 1/2 year period we were all testing the device and reporting about our experiences. A lot of those folks are not audiophiles and some have systems I would describe as "car" systems, set up close to walls in rooms using "acoustic foam" in a futile attempt to address the acoustics.

 

Yet, I found a rare and to me amazing consistence in most of the comments. Many (not all) of these folks are quite experienced listeners and even though we may not reach the same conclusions about how to set up a monitoring system, the comments from this group were surprisingly consistent.

 

In a set of blind shootouts that circulated among the beta testers (transfers from analog masters, done through more than a dozen "contenders"), again, the responses showed a very large degree of consistence. Folks were hearing the same things, even though their setups differ radically. We have everything from super audiophile systems to (what I would call) "cheesy" self-powered "shoeboxes" but all the comments had much in common.

 

All this, a long (sorry) way of saying that while I fully agree that everyone would hear more with an optimally set up system and room, above all else, when it comes to getting the word on hardware or software I might want to audition and perhaps use myself, it is the listener that convinces me and not what they are listening to.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[machinehead]

@clay, do you really feel the need to comment on every thread in this forum, even if you don't have experience with a product?

 

[bdiament]

May I request we save the bickering and personal attacks for other forums?

 

No one is being forced to read any post they don't want to read.

Please feel free to use that scroll bar on the side of the window.

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

nice 'tude

 

As far as I know, no experience with a product is required when asking a question.

 

have a nice day!

 

clay

 

 

[bmckenney]

Hi Barry, I see where you are taking me with this and it makes a lot of sense. It is the listener and his/her skills that is really the critical factor in listening tests, not the room acoustics.

 

This might be irrelevant, or maybe just too insignificant or unimportant to worry about, but I'll say it anyway. When evaluating equipment at higher SPLs and trying to understand how something sounds during complex music passages I believe a properly treated room is definitely preferred. I'm not sure a seasoned listener can determine how a component behaves in this situation is a poor acoustic environment. Can he or she hear thru all of the acoustic noise at high SPLs and really understand how a component really sounds? Sure, maybe they can hear thru the noise, but I guess my point is why not just eliminate the noise so the person can really hear what is going on. I think that gives a less seasoned listener a better chance of hearing differences, and it gives a seasoned listener more insight too.

 

Bryan

 

[Purite Audio]

Everything listened to in that room will be subject to the same acoustic of course, but I wholeheartedly agree,that treating your room will be the single biggest improvement ,and probably cheapest you will ever make.

Keith.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Bryan,

 

"When evaluating equipment at higher SPLs and trying to understand how something sounds during complex music passages I believe a properly treated room is definitely preferred. I'm not sure a seasoned listener can determine how a component behaves in this situation is a poor acoustic environment. Can he or she hear thru all of the acoustic noise at high SPLs and really understand how a component really sounds? Sure, maybe they can hear thru the noise, but I guess my point is why not just eliminate the noise so the person can really hear what is going on."

 

 

Most astute listeners I know will evaluate gear, not necessarily at "higher SPLs" but at a healthy SPL. (In my experience, Peter Walker was 100% correct when he suggested every recording has an optimal playback level.)

 

Yes, the better the room and the better the system and the better everything is set up, the easier it is to hear deeper into whatever is being listened to. No doubt.

I would point out though that I know more good listeners than really good systems/rooms. In fact, most of the really good systems I've heard have been in less than optimal rooms. I've been in very few rooms I would consider optimally treated and this includes a number where the owners have spent a considerable amount of money on treatments.

 

The interesting thing for me, is that even with less than optimal setups, even with not being able to hear all they might be able to hear with better setups/rooms, the astute listeners I know can really hone in on the fine points of a component's performance.

 

Perhaps not too unrelated to this is my experience that a really good original recording is identifiable as such on any system - even an mp3 copy of said recording, played in the car (on the highway, with the windows open ;-} ). It isn't heard at its best but somehow, the important cues are there.

 

I really agree with everything you've said. The one area of departure that I'm trying to highlight is that of an acoustically treated space being an absolute prerequisite for an accurate assessment. (Even a properly acoustically treated space - again, something I find relatively rare, despite the claims of many self-proclaimed acoustics "experts" on some other forums.)

 

Just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

"In my experience, Peter Walker was 100% correct when he suggested every recording has an optimal playback level."

 

I'm glad to learn that this idea has a good pedigree. I agree with it one hundred percent and am quite surprised that more is not made of this. It's something that haunts me as I attempt to compare gear, e.g., music players, cables, etc.

 

Indeed, it seems near impossible to ascertain legitimate differences between components (incl. players & cables) while simultaneously listening to recordings at their 'optimal' level, due to the well known "louder will sound better" phenomenon. OTOH, when listening to recordings at other than optimal level, one will have relatively exaggerated (or softened) detail, bass, etc.

 

I"m not a big fan of instant switching back and forth to do comparisons, so this issue seems pretty significant to me.

 

Thoughts?

 

Clay

 

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Clay,

 

Personally, I find optimal level is where one can get the best any recording has to offer. I don't find this interferes at all with evaluating components; on the contrary, I find this is where it is easiest, at least for me.

 

If I'm comparing more than one item, say two different DACs, the first thing I always do is ensure I've got matched levels. (The MIO Console makes this easy, as I like to feed each component to its own pair of tracks and then to its own output bus on the Monitor Controller, making for easy switching.)

 

Otherwise, I'll feed each to its own input on my line stage, where I can adjust levels, again, ensuring a precise match before evaluations get under way.

 

Both of these offer the convenience of quick switching, which I find useful in some situations. Of course, long term listening takes one to deep levels in finding what a component (or recording) can do. Either way, I want to get the levels optimized and precisely matched first.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Purite Audio]

If you really want to level match you need to measure the output across the speaker terminals for each component you test.

Keith.