Programmability

The DA10 comes out strong with programmable features, knocks the DAC1 to the ground, and pounds it with:

1. Mode switch for mono or stereo.
2. Polarity switch for "normal" or "invert"
3. PPL selector for DA Clock mode between "Crystallock" [for stereo operation], "Narrow" [for use with multiple DA10's],
and "Wide" [for use with non-standard frequencies]. Note: While the frequency selections on the DA10 are 44.1, 48. 88.2 and 96KHz.
The DA10 can operate at 192KHz in "Wide" mode.
4. Power switch.

The DAC1 does answer back with the option - on the rear panel - to separately calibrate Left and Right output level independently with trim pots.



Programmability round:
DAC1 - N/A
DA10 - 2 points

Updated total score so far:

DAC1 - 4 points
DA10 - 2 points

And the winner in sound quality is?

quote:

Originally posted by TmuKoo:
And the winner in sound quality is?

Yeah, because in the end that's the thing that really matters the most.... But what can I say, Dan is the master of suspense.

-tkr

Morjens, TmuKoo! Oot vissiin Suomen Virroilta, Kaapo täs Lempäälästä hei, kuis hurisee?

quote:

Originally posted by Dot:
Programmability

The DA10 comes out strong with programmable features, knocks the DAC1 to the ground, and pounds it with:

1. Mode switch for mono or stereo.
2. Polarity switch for "normal" or "invert"
3. PPL selector for DA Clock mode between "Crystallock" [for stereo operation], "Narrow" [for use with multiple DA10's],
and "Wide" [for use with non-standard frequencies]. Note: While the frequency selections on the DA10 are 44.1, 48. 88.2 and 96KHz.
The DA10 can operate at 192KHz in "Wide" mode.
4. Power switch.

The DAC1 does answer back with the option - on the rear panel - to separately calibrate Left and Right output level independently with trim pots.



Programmability round:
DAC1 - N/A
DA10 - 2 points

Updated total score so far:

DAC1 - 4 points
DA10 - 2 points

SOT....I feel Soooo..sorry for the poor fella lying on the matt!Phrase made famous by "The Thing" from the Fantastic Four..... " It's Clobbering Time..!.. ..Oh yeah, back to the shootout..!

Sound Quality

After covering a lot of aspects of the DA10 and DAC1 standing still, we take them into the area of sound and everyday use. This is not a "honeymoon" review. We've reviewed too many products over the last several years to worry about being the first review out, or trying something out of the box for a day or two - and then declaring to high heaven about the next product you can't live without.

We received the Lavry DA10 in February of 2006. I'd had a Benchmark DAC1 in my studio as my main DAC since it was introduced in 2002. We have had the DA10 and DAC1 in use and comparison listening tests for around five months. The listening tests have been conducted in several rooms and on several systems and sources. Source files and formats used to conduct the tests consisted of Audio CD's, 24-bit AIFF master stereo files, Nuendo 2 multi-track soundfiles recorded at 24-bit 44.1, MP3's of various bitrates, and internet streaming audio.

Monitors included Dynaudio AIR 15's, Dynaudio BM6A's, Klein and Hummel 0300D, Yamaha NS-10M's/Bryston.
Headphones: Ultrasone Proline 650, Extreme Isolation Headphones, AKG K141, AKG K240
Playback systems included Mac G4 S-Drive, Tascam DV-RA1000, Nuendo 2, iTunes.
Various interconnect cables were used by Gotham, Requisite Audio, Monster, Mogami.
Source music over several months included a wide variety of genres. You name it: we played it.

A bias: If there's any bias here - it's towards the DAC1. I've owned one since they first came out in 2002. And ever since then had commented regularly that the DAC1 was the one single piece of gear I would not swap out of my studio in exchange for something else. Also, just the fact that I owned the DAC1 would somehow make things easier if I just liked it better and shipped back the review unit of the DA10. Liking the DA10 is more of a pain in the butt, 'cause then I've got to go to the trouble of selling the DAC1 and then ponying up for the DA10. Ah, decisions, decisions...

On the first evening of listening to the DA10, it was apparent that the soundfield is wider than the DAC1. It also seemed that there was a hole in the the middle of the soundfield on the DA10. But I later found out - as my ears adjusted - that there was, in fact, program material there in the middle, but due to my ears being used to the DAC1 it wasn't apparent at first. If your ears/brain have been exposed to one stimulus, it can take some time before traces of the old stimulus aren't engrained along with the new stimulus. That's why I feel it's important when doing comparisons - to do them over a longer period of time and in various situations.

I've read enough "honeymoon" reviews - where someone gets a new piece of gear and runs excitedly to the forums to post something on the order of, "Hey, I just got the BingBong 2000, and we've tried it tonight on female vocals and acoustic guitar, and it KICKS ASS!" I don't get much out of people's reviews until they've lived with the gear and have passed the initial excitement stage, and can at least attempt to give a sober opinion of the gear in various applications, on different kinds of music, and on different sessions.

So, after living with the DAC1 and DA10 for over five months - what's the conclusion? The DAC1 was sold about a month ago, and the DA10 is sitting snug in my rack as my main DA. And while the DAC1 was a formidable opponent to the DA10, in the end, sonically I found the DA10 to be superior on every level. I was happy enough with the DAC1 - until I was shown a better way. It's as if I'd gotten used to a pair of prescription eyeglasses, and then a visit to an optometrist and a new prescription yields clearer, more accurate vision with more depth of field.

After listening through the DA10 and then back to the DAC1, the DAC1 began to reveal what could be described as a "grainy" sound. And I found this to be most evident in the high-end. Compared with the DA10, the DAC1 could also be described as "colored" by some - even if small amount of - distortion. After using the DAC1 and then switching to the DA10 - everything just clears up. With the DAC1 instruments and sounds seemed less separated, whereas with the DA10 - instruments and sounds are presented in their own respective space.

The overall soundfield widens when the DA10 is employed, and shrinks when the DAC1 is put back on duty. And what I found most striking with the DA10 is that the three-dimensional depth of the soundfield is just - well - deeper. Everything is more alive with the DA10. In fact, after about a month of testing, unless I was specifically testing the DAC1 and the DA10, I was using the DA10 as my DA. On a few occasions I even tried to leave the DAC1 patched into my system after testing, but found I couldn't. The DA10 just sounds that much better. Once you go Lavry Black - you never go back.

I don't claim to know the precise inner workings of convertor chips. And even someone who does, and can read all the specs, still can't apply that to the way something's actually going to sound. You've gotta listen. I do know that there are only a handful of converter chip companies, and that as the technology of their chips increases - so, too, does the sonics of every company's gear that uses the more advanced chips. And many of us have heard the increase in better sonics over the last several years in converters. In that light - the DA10 is simply newer technology - by some fours years. And in computative years - that's a lifetime. And perhaps that's at least partially responsible for what gives it this sonic edge.

I have a part of me that's still old school, and I'm still coming off the shock of the loss of ubiquitous analog technology, and everything moving digital. In the bigger picture - I still think PCM digital sounds like ass compared to a good analog system. But year by year digital's getting there. And the DA10 puts across a much more relaxed and effortless soundfield - that makes both listening for enjoyment, as well as tracking and mixing, a much more pleasurable experience.

I still miss some of the added interconnectivity of the DAC1, and would like to see an additional headphone jack as well as another pair of outputs on the DA10... And, I can't say that I don't miss that nice, juicy knob on the DAC1. But sonically, I just can't go back. The DA10 offers too big of a step forward in DA technology. Whatever Dan Lavry and Lavry Engineering are doing - they're doing it right. Consider me converted.



Final Score: In a technical KO based on superior overall sound and performance
the Lavry DA10 is declared the winner.

Interestingly, I was doing a search for "DA10 and DAC1" not too long ago, and came across a shootout for AQVOX USB 2 D/A vs. Benchmark DAC1 vs. Lavry Black DA10. The poster's conclusions on the DAC1 and the DA10 are virtually the same as what I found. And they, too, ended up selecting the DA10 as the winner of the shootout.

I've had the Lavry now for several months and continue to be very impressed with its performance. I'm running it via a Sonicwave optical cable from an Apple Mac Mini's optical out. The Lavry runs to a PS Audio GCP 200 preamp and then to the NHT Xd digital system.

How does it sound. In a word: tremendous. Considering the cost, I don't know of any system that will compete with its quality across the board.

A really fine product and an excellent match with NHT's Xd system.

Great result... Hopely I get my lavry soon...I just ordered it last week.

To Kaapo: Lue yksityisviestisi...

quote:

I do know that there are only a handful of converter chip companies, and that as the technology of their chips increases - so, too, does the sonics of every company's gear that uses the more advanced chips.

I don't think it's the chips for, if I remember correctly, they use similar (if not identical) chips from the same source. It's the implementation, particularly Lavry's reclocking that results in bit transparency and increased independence from the player/cable source.

TmuKoo, tsekkaa viesti!

-Kaapo-

Nice test and interesting results! It's too bad the Lavry doesn't have unbalanced RCA outs just for a bit of added flexibility (and for the home hifi market to which Benchmark seems to have sold a number of DAC1s).

I wonder if Benchmark plans to release a new version of the DAC1???

"In that light - the DA10 is simply newer technology - by some fours years. And in computative years - that's a lifetime. And perhaps that's at least partially responsible for what gives it this sonic edge."

I don't agree with the above statement. Otherwise, all new DAC would beat the old ones, which is definitely not the case.

But I think this statement is telling us the reason why DA10 beat the DAC1 in the test. It is because it compared to an older version DAC1.

I think DAC1 has been fine tuned and improved significantly over the old 2002 version tested here. I'm lucky that I had compared DA10 with a DAC1 bought in 2006. The DA10 (also bought in 2006) lack the details and openness when compared to DAC1. It did not take long until all of us in the room agree that DAC1 sound better than DA10 for different kind of music we played.

BB, converter chips and converter technologies have greatly increased in the last few years. At similar price points, new DAC's do beat older DAC's. In many cases dramatically.

I can say that my findings in this review are similar to many I've since seen in other reviews. And, also, people who have directly compared older DAC1's to new DAC1's have found no sonic difference.

And as I'm one for being thorough; I do have a newer 2006 DAC1 here at this very moment in my studio. Again, going head to head with the DA10.

I really want to like the DAC1 better. I've really missed the extra outputs and the extra headphone capabilities. Also, still loving the big knob.

So, we've got a rematch: 2006 DAC1 vs 2006 DA10.

There's always the disgruntled trying to stir things up. My money is on the Lavry and it's tube like accuracy to once again triumph over the dry arid DAC1.

So there you have it.

Dan, thanks once again for the effort on this. I really enjoyed this piece. I have some questions and comments:
would the the dramatic difference between no D/A and the Benchmark be similar to Benchmark to Lavry? Would that be safe to say?

In Lieu of nothing you're suggesting having some sort of D/A in your critical monitoring equation, right?

While I find it interesting that the Lavry sounds better, I don't know if I want something to simply sound better, I want it to sound more honest. How would I know from your perceptions that if the Benchmark showed a "narrower stereo field and less front/back depth" that I wouldn't need to make that happen with my mix? Conversely, if the Lavry showed me wider stereo field and more depth than the recording
actually had, that wouldn't help me make some mix decisions.

Of course I'd love my monitoring to sound nicer, what I really desire is honesty, transfer out to the world via what I was "told" by my system. I totally agree that snap reviews don't help much. I'd rather hear from someone who has seen projects through to finished CDs and gotten some comparitive opinions at that point. I see no mention of how final, in-hand mixes were as relating to what you heard in front of your speakers.
Can you shed some light on those impressions


BB, could you tell us a little about yourself?

Kel, obviously if you're in the digital domain you're going to have to have some type of DA to get the signal to your monitors or other devices in the analog domain.

We've found the difference between the sound of the DA10 and DAC1 to be dramatic. I guess, the difference between "no DA" and the DAC1 and DA10 would depend on the quality of the stock DA in whatever device someone is using.

In our tests the DA10 has just give a more "honest" translation. Much easier to hear into different aspects of the music - reverb tails, panning, imagery, etc.

Rematch Conclusion: 2006 Benchmark DAC1 vs 2006 Lavry DA10.

I took the occasion of a recent TLS Intensive Recording Workshop to bring the crew to my new private workspace that's been under construction for the last several months. I'm still finishing it up, but I wanted to give everyone a tour of another listening environment. [ I'll post more room pics at some point in my Studio Journals topic.]

We'd been up at the studio in Myrtle Beach all week, and had been doing a lot of listening - including A/B comparisons to 20+ preamps and a good 30+ mics. So everyone's ears were nice and tuned up for listening to sonic nuances and differences. One of the things I wanted to spend a little time on when I brought everyone over to my new space was to give them a listen to the 2006 model DAC1 and the DA10 I have here for comparison.

With everyone in the room - at different positions, and changing positions through out the audition process - we played various music selections through the DA10, then the DAC1 - and back and forth several times. To cut to the chase: the DA10 was overwhelmingly preferred. It wasn't even close.



I'd also been conducting my own listening tests, and had been using both the DAC1 and DA10 in my work as a real-world tools. I found no difference in the sonic qualities of the 2006 DAC1 and the 2002 DAC1 used in my original DAC1/DA10 comparison. These recent tests, as well as the tests conducted earlier in this review, have taken place over the timespan of more than a year with various listening environments, sound systems, and listeners and engineers present.




The results of the rematch of a 2006-model Benchmark DAC1 and a 2006-model Lavry DA10: The Lavry DA10 is declared the winner and remains victorious.

Good show!!!