Lampizator questions

[lightminer]

This is not correct. DSD is the equivalent f L4, and I had the L5. The difference between L5 and B7 was huge, even with stock B7 tubes. Especially if you listen to complex orchestral. If you are just listening to vocals and simple music, yes, the difference is not worth the higher price.

 

Well, that definitely wasn't my understanding. The L4 part set is used, but Lukasz and others report that when the DSD-only circuit path is implemented without the digital hash of lots of chips and whatever the circuit is so simplified and pure that it sounds way better. In questioning people they put the DSD-only just a tad under L7. With upgraded caps, that is, just to be clear.

 

It is funny you mention that, I was just playing Beethovens 5th, the 3rd and 4th movements and thinking about how hard that is to get right. That is a lot harder than a single female vocalist with light accompaniment. I have a disk with SACD and redbook and the SACD is a totally different animal, with such complex music and so many things happening at once it takes a serious system to really put that forward with clarity between instrument groups and all that. I'm definitely looking for that. Huge fan of epic orchestral works, Beethoven, Shostakovitch, Mahler, etc.

 

If you are talking about your experience and not theoretically, then that is interesting. But several have chimed in before saying that DSDonly is definitely better than playing DSD on a L4 for example even though the output stage is the same. I believe the DSD module he uses in L4, L5 and L7 is the same from what I understand, you just get different output stages and higher parts picks for resistors and whatever else. And in L7 it is the DHT used as pre-amp that makes it really sing, which I should have covered elsewhere, see next paragraph.

 

When you say B7 were you using it as a pre-amp? Can it be used at line level? I'll stick with my Supratek which may have some of the DHT magic, especially after I actually upgrade it to actual DHT. So, of course it can't right now, but it is quite the pre-amp and is fundamentally different than DACs use as pre's, much more dynamics and air, for example.

 

Maybe this is oversimplification, but there are really three parts to this, input stage, dac, and output stage. The input is Amanero for DSD for all of these so that isn't very different, maybe a different tube or resistor here or there, but all Amanero based, then the DAC which is the same throughout the line, and then output stage, which is where the difference is. And since I'm going to use a pre we aren't going to high voltages, so those differences may be minimized.

[bmoura]

If you like SACD, you will love the sound of DSD Downloads, especially the ones that are taken directly from the DSD tapes - like you will find on Blue Coast, Native DSD and some of the other download sites.

 

As for the DSD DAC vs. the various Lampizator levels, your best bet there is to audition them. The Big 7 is very impressive - in PCM and especially in DSD. But there is quite a price difference between the Big 7 (and the even higher end Golden Gate) than the Lampizator DSD DAC.

 

You get a pretty good percentage of the Big 7 value with the DSD DAC, but there is value in moving up. It's a question of what you can afford and value vs. performance.

[Jabs1542]

Brian, he asked about the Amber (which I have never heard). I imagine it sounds great being a part of the Lampi line up, but it is a Sabre based DAC (at least I think it is). Have you heard the Amber (I seem to think you temporarily had an Amber at one time)? Can you provide any insight regarding the difference between the Amber and the DSD only DAC?

 

Lightminer, I too understood that most of the DSD circuitry was the same through the Lampi levels. However, the power supplies are different and they will make a difference - so as stated, there is value in moving up.

[bmoura]

Brian, he asked about the Amber (which I have never heard). I imagine it sounds great being a part of the Lampi line up, but it is a Sabre based DAC (at least I think it is). Have you heard the Amber (I seem to think you temporarily had an Amber at one time)? Can you provide any insight regarding the difference between the Amber and the DSD only DAC?

 

Lightminer, I too understood that most of the DSD circuitry was the same through the Lampi levels. However, the power supplies are different and they will make a difference - so as stated, there is value in moving up.

 

There was also a mention of the DSD DAC, which is what I was responding to.

 

The Amber DAC is the only one in the Lampizator line up that doesn't use the direct filtered approach to DSD. As a fan of that approach, I'd recommend getting one of the non-Amber DACs from Lampizator, if possible.

[k6davis]

... Lukasz and others report that when the DSD-only circuit path is implemented without the digital hash of lots of chips and whatever the circuit is so simplified and pure that it sounds way better. In questioning people they put the DSD-only just a tad under L7. With upgraded caps, that is, just to be clear.

 

If you are talking about your experience and not theoretically, then that is interesting. But several have chimed in before saying that DSDonly is definitely better than playing DSD on a L4 for example even though the output stage is the same.

 

Products in the Lampizator price range are a bit of a stretch for me, but I'm a huge fan of DSD (and DSD upsampling). When I read about Lukasz's unique approach to DSD and the tube based power supplies and output stages, I was sold - before I'd ever heard a note. Knowing I could return it if I didn't like it, I figured that it was at least different and potentially superior to what others were doing with DAC chip based, solid-state designs, so I dove in.

 

The DACs at the top of Lampizator's range were beyond my means, but I felt that I could stretch to the DSD-Only DAC. That way I could get all of the DSD goodness they are famous for without having to pay for PCM processing that I'll never use. So my objective was to maximize its potential. I ordered mine balanced, with Duelund caps and volume control/preamp.

 

Now, I've never heard an L5 or a B7 (which is probably just as well), but the sound I get from this DAC is beyond incredible. Using it as a balanced preamp and pairing it with Dual WS2012 Servers + AudiophileOptmizer + JPlay6 + DSD128 upsampling... I have no words. Each of these elements alone are fantastic, but the combination sounds better than I ever thought anything could. And while it's hardly cheap, it feels like a bargain, because none of the (few) megabuck systems I've heard even come close - to my ears, of course.

 

My DAC is out now for an upgrade to DSD256. I can't wait to get it back. When I do, I'm going to bring HQPlayer into the mix. It's intriguing to hear that some people feel that the "simplified" L4 DSD-Only Lampi compares favorably to the products higher in their line, because it's hard for me to imagine sound orders of magnitude better than what I'm getting now.

[k6davis]

Well, I got an Oppo 105d a while ago as an intermediate solution and wanted the BluRay part anyway, and am DSD'ing all over the place but I don't think that is the same as Lampizator . Opus stuff is really good. Paid too much for the Jazz at the JazzClub or whatever, but it is really nice. Done some conversions as well. One JRiver conversion, (recognizing that it isn't as good as HQPlayer), was playing and a musician friend who hates all of my 'hi fi' hobby quite a bit, was startled on hearing the DSD *conversion* (let alone native). She said - and doesn't know what DSD is at all or any of this in any way - 'that sounds like a record player'. The fact that she made that comment blew me away and helped sell me on DSD. The Oppo with proper power cords and vibration isolation actually sounds pretty darn good, better than it gets credit for, but is not even in the same class as the Lampi. I'm also about the take the HQPlayer plunge.

 

I'm totally sold on DSD128 personally, but what matters is what the masses do. Can DSD persist as a viable product only for the high end community? The 2-channel high end stores are 80% out of business compared to 15 years ago. I don't know that we can support anything. Will Tidal embrace DSD? That is quite a stretch. The low end devices can't DAC the info. Low end generally drives everything and then things that are similar but improved can exist at the high end. There is very little that is high end only. Porsche essentially went out of business and then they added a car at 1/2 to 1/3rd their price and survived. Mercedes created the C class for same reason.

 

Anyway, I really do hope it makes it, but don't trust the overall market. Everyone I know outside friends in the hobby are still on MP3-128-ish.........

 

I don't quite understand what you mean? CD's are gradually becoming a niche! Audiophiles are a definitely a niche. DSD is a niche within a niche. I don't see it ever becoming something that the masses are familiar with. But I don't see how the viability of DSD to the tiny (but passionate) high end audiophile market is dependent on that.

 

I would love to see DSD downloads (of a broader spectrum of music) proliferate, but even if that does happen it'll be painful to buy the music all over again (for the 3rd time!!). DSD upsampling and decoding is here and gaining momentum. Upsampling algorithms are improving all of the time. The idea that a file should only be played in its native format is one I predict will fall out of favor in time. Therefore, uniquely, DSD for audiophiles is not reliant on a physical format, or even on digital downloads.

 

I believe it's here for the long haul.

[bonzo]

I love the DSD but it's no match for better circuitry. DSD will sound smoother and all that, but if the circuitry limits resolution, it won't get past that. B7 pcm was greater than L5 dsd, because the circuitry of B7 is different...triodes, high end nos valves, power supplies, blah blah.

 

I.have used it as a preamp directly and also through other pres. Direct it's cleaner and faster, but external preamps can give more body and weight, though can distort. It comes down to preference. I prefer it through an external pre, a couple of my friends who visited me preferred it direct.

[k6davis]

You've heard both bonzo. Plus what you're saying is absolutely reasonable. The improved circuitry has to make a difference.

 

Still, the combination of the 4 upgraded caps, the dual triode output stage, the tube rectification in the power supply, the transparent volume control, the simplified circuitry because there's no PCM processing, balanced output and the premium chipless DSD module in my DSD Only DAC is potent. Very few L4 DAC's are outfitted in quite that way.

 

I know the B7 has better parts, and they surely matter, but I suspect that the options I've chosen for my Lampi elevate it beyond the performance of most L4's. As for running direct or through a preamp, I suppose that you should run the best preamp you have. In my case, that's the Lampi. I've even got an analog input so I can enjoy the benefits of the Lampi preamp with other sources.

 

If the B7 is obviously superior to the sound I'm enjoying now, which it likely is, then it's a good thing there aren't any at my local audio store!! Just kidding, I'll try to arrange to hear one someday and hopefully be able to compare it to mine.

[findog3103]

Sorry if this covered elsewhere but I can't find it. Does anyone know the specific instructions to upsample all music via audirvana to Lampizator dac with dsd capability? Thanks.

[jhwalker]

Sorry if this covered elsewhere but I can't find it. Does anyone know the specific instructions to upsample all music via audirvana to Lampizator dac with dsd capability? Thanks.

 

Audirvana does not (yet) have this capability - it can convert DSD to PCM, and upsample PCM very flexibly, but cannot convert PCM to DSD or upsample DSD.

 

JRiver Media Center for Mac can convert all output to DSD64 or DSD128, if you want to give it a try.

[Foggie]

Audirvana does not (yet) have this capability - it can convert DSD to PCM, and upsample PCM very flexibly, but cannot convert PCM to DSD or upsample DSD.

 

JRiver Media Center for Mac can convert all output to DSD64 or DSD128, if you want to give it a try.

 

1. Upsample PCM to DSD v.s. convert PCM to DSD whats the difference and why would you want to (convert)?

 

2. "JRMC can convert all output to DSD64 / 128" - how is A+ any different? Is the difference "all" formats?

[jhwalker]

1. Upsample PCM to DSD v.s. convert PCM to DSD whats the difference and why would you want to (convert)?

 

2. "JRMC can convert all output to DSD64 / 128" - how is A+ any different? Is the difference "all" formats?

 

1. If your DAC does not support DSD playback, both Audirvana and JRiver have the capability to convert DSD to PCM so you can play DSD at all. WRT upsampling, many people believe that upsampling (for example, converting 44.1/24 PCM to 352.8/24 PCM) allows for better sound because it gives you the capability to control / fine tune the filters used for the upsampling rather than relying solely on whatever your DAC has built-in. Audirvana gives you very fine control of the upsampling process (if you choose to use it), while JRiver does not let you manipulate the filters; i.e., what they give you is "it".

 

2. Audirvana does not allow conversion to DSD at all. So it would not work for your purposes if you specifically want to convert everything to DSD; i.e., it will play back your DSD content, but will *not* convert your PCM content to DSD for use with you Lampizator. JRiver *does* support converting PCM to DSD so that, if you choose, you can convert all your music to DSD for output to your DAC.

 

It all comes down to what you need / want. I think I have *all* the major music players that run on OS X because not a single one does everything I want

[findog3103]

Audirvana does not (yet) have this capability - it can convert DSD to PCM, and upsample PCM very flexibly, but cannot convert PCM to DSD or upsample DSD.

 

JRiver Media Center for Mac can convert all output to DSD64 or DSD128, if you want to give it a try.

 

Thanks, John, for confirming I'm not a complete idiot as I looked for a way on audirvana last night and could not figure out how to do it.

[Foggie]

1. If your DAC does not support DSD playback, both Audirvana and JRiver have the capability to convert DSD to PCM so you can play DSD at all. WRT upsampling, many people believe that upsampling (for example, converting 44.1/24 PCM to 352.8/24 PCM) allows for better sound because it gives you the capability to control / fine tune the filters used for the upsampling rather than relying solely on whatever your DAC has built-in. Audirvana gives you very fine control of the upsampling process (if you choose to use it), while JRiver does not let you manipulate the filters; i.e., what they give you is "it".

 

2. Audirvana does not allow conversion to DSD at all. So it would not work for your purposes if you specifically want to convert everything to DSD; i.e., it will play back your DSD content, but will *not* convert your PCM content to DSD for use with you Lampizator. JRiver *does* support converting PCM to DSD so that, if you choose, you can convert all your music to DSD for output to your DAC.

 

It all comes down to what you need / want. I think I have *all* the major music players that run on OS X because not a single one does everything I want

 

I understand #1, but was wondering what you meant in "convert PCM to DSD"? Is this along the lines of offline converting PCM to DSD (meaning saving a AIF file to a DSF file type permanently) and not upsampling?

 

A+ can upsample PCM to DSD128 and I think 256, but is upsamapling in this way not compatible to say a DSD only dac like the lampi and therefore does the DSD lampi require "DSD" file types only?

[wisnon]

A+ does not upconvert PCM to DSD as far as I know.

 

JRiver, HQ Player and Foobar do.

 

This is on the fly conversion and creates a DSD stream that the Lampi DSD Dac can play, no problem.

 

You can convert offline too with tools such as Saracon, and Korg Audiogate (the old version).

[lightminer]

Okay, so really trying to dissect the situation.

 

Decided these comments are important in understanding the differences. So, DSD-only is based on L4 power supply. Here are comments on the L5:

 

"In Level 5 the tube power supply (which is 70 % of all DAC budget) is fully dual mono. Two main transformers, two rectifier tubes, two CLC filter sections with prime chokes and caps.

 

We use only electrolyte-less supplies for L5, we use MKP caps which for power supply section are obscenely expensive, bulky and inconvenient but the MKP is 100X faster and less noisy than any electrolyte even black gate. MKP as power reservoirs are a whole different ball game than electrolytes. This gives us super pure sound and ultra dynamic response to power requirements. Not to mention longevity: the MKP will outlive any electrolyte by 50 years."

 

Also, in checking out, you'll notice the opportunity to have Dual-Mono 256 DSD Processing for 1500 Euros. Not cheap, but there it is. Oh, wait, I see that for L4 too. Wasn't sure based on PS if they would allow dual mono DSD processing.

 

I understand that there are resistors here and there but for DSD-focused folks I'm going to say L4 vs 5 is 98% power supply. For PCM he also uses his 'favourite DAC chip', in L4 it is not quite his favourite one, but none of that applies to DSD.

 

I went to the CAPS get together in Berkeley last weekend and had a lot of fun. No one that I could find either had heard or owned a Lampi. Overall many in that group were pretty down on DSD.

 

To the comments on DSD above, I will stick with my comment that while I'm all for it, I think it could disappear quite quickly and DSD-only is a risk. Imagine if HQPlayer guy decides he likes another format in a month, or worse, decides to change hobbies/jobs or becomes I'll and doesn't continue to work on the product. Anyway, I do a lot of business work, and while, again, I'm all for it, I think it is a huge risk. Sony has been great recently but that could change overnight, especially if they find revenue low.

 

Anyway, still figuring it all out! I might be able to swing a full L4, but full L5 w/dual mono DSD 256 is 7600 Euros - just too much. I actually can do that, but doesn't sit right with me.

[lightminer]

It is good you guys above reminded me that the Amber doesn't do DSD the 'lampi' way - that is only one that doesn't use the DSD module that is used in all of the other ones. That makes me much more L4, L5 and L4/DSD only focused.

[Foggie]

A+ does not upconvert PCM to DSD as far as I know.

 

JRiver, HQ Player and Foobar do.

 

This is on the fly conversion and creates a DSD stream that the Lampi DSD Dac can play, no problem.

 

You can convert offline too with tools such as Saracon, and Korg Audiogate (the old version).

 

Weird, I always thought A+ could upsample to DSD 128, but it looks as though DXD is the highest - that's not a bad thing mind you.

[Foggie]

It is good you guys above reminded me that the Amber doesn't do DSD the 'lampi' way - that is only one that doesn't use the DSD module that is used in all of the other ones. That makes me much more L4, L5 and L4/DSD only focused.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the amber have the all important Lampi output stage and the General Lampi "DNA"?

[lightminer]

Yes - but in the specific case of DSD it uses the ESS 9108 for DSD. It also uses the USB chip (I think XMOS) that comes with ESS 9108 vs the Amanero for the rest. Everyone who has heard the Amber loves it and at the price point no one should hesitate, but then there is also the option of going full-hog on the "Lampizator DSD Process" which is at the cheapest 3,800 to join in on. In that case you are using the same DSD module that is on the L7 or Golden Gate.

 

Happy to be corrected, but that is my understanding.

[lightminer]

There are lots of images of the inside of Lampi's. This is just one. See the 'DSD' module? Of course there is more to it than that, a few tubes for example, but just to say I believe that DSD box is not in the Amber, it uses the ESS9108 instead.

 

[wisnon]

Weird, I always thought A+ could upsample to DSD 128, but it looks as though DXD is the highest - that's not a bad thing mind you.

 

DXD is PCM NOT DSD.

[wisnon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the amber have the all important Lampi output stage and the General Lampi "DNA"?

 

For PCM...but DSD is not "chipless" like in the others.

[wisnon]

There are lots of images of the inside of Lampi's. This is just one. See the 'DSD' module? Of course there is more to it than that, a few tubes for example, but just to say I believe that DSD box is not in the Amber, it uses the ESS9108 instead.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18385[/ATTACH]

True.

 

I would recommend you get the DSD256 option and NOT the dual mono DSD. From what I hear, there is much more performance differential that way...

 

Dual mono DSD is just 2 modules running in mono (1 per channel), vs 1 module in stereo.

[wisnon]

Yes - but in the specific case of DSD it uses the ESS 9108 for DSD. It also uses the USB chip (I think XMOS) that comes with ESS 9108 vs the Amanero for the rest. Everyone who has heard the Amber loves it and at the price point no one should hesitate, but then there is also the option of going full-hog on the "Lampizator DSD Process" which is at the cheapest 3,800 to join in on. In that case you are using the same DSD module that is on the L7 or Golden Gate.

 

Happy to be corrected, but that is my understanding.

 

Correct, AFAIK, the DSD engine is the same, But you can now choose the upgraded DSD256 engine as an option, as its only standard in the Golden Gate.