I felt strongly that I wanted to inform the Gon members about a new DAC that ranks with the very best on the market regarding performance, but costs around $2,000.00. The Lab12 DAC1 SE was compared to three reference level DACS that retail for over $12.000.00 in my review for hometheaterreview.com and was at least on the same level sonicly, if not better. This DAC from Greece is not just "good for the money" but competes with virtually anything on the market regardless of price!
For all the details about the Lab12 DAC1 SE performance and what other DACS it was compared to take a look at the review. If you are shopping/looking for a new digital front end to drive your system, you owe it to yourself to check this DAC out, unless you like to spend tons of more $ without getting better performance.
Oufff... I am happy like in heaven with a 100 bucks dac nos...Fortunetaly...
By the way i dont read specs. only to choose some piece of gear... I listen with my ears; the less scientific mind are sometimes, paradoxically or perhaps not so, the so called by themselves "scientist" , especially in this hobby...
Okay, mr don here, this was a great thread abounding on the merits/demerits of DAC's and specifically the Lab 12 Dac1. Let me paste the response from Lab 12 themselves that I received Monday in the AM to clear up a small matter about this little marvel that stole my heart (even though we never kissed).
Per Lab 12:
Please be informed that our dac1 SE, had from the beginning the below mentioned specifications (http://www.lab12.gr/dac1). Nevertheless, please be informed that dac1 SE is currently out of production.
We are planning on releasing a new DAC based on the same philosophy and core as dac1 SE, clearly upgraded though. However, there isn’t a certain timeframe that we can inform you about at the moment.
If you are really interest in dac1 SE, maybe you can refer to our Canadian distributor to check if he has some units on stock. You can find the contact details of our official distributors worldwide in the following link http://www.lab12.gr/dealers
mrdon) So, it would seem we are in for an improved Lab 12 possibly before it even got off the production floor so to speak. The review by Terry London was completed in Sept./Nov 2018. This thread started in 9-2018 so, it could be possible that due to the critique or quick attention to bring out the flaws in this DAC could have caused the "let me start over" action on the manufacturer's part. Couldn't say for sure but we could be in for a real treat if we are patient.. Comments welcomed...
Jitter out of the source components isn’t that great, which is why it’s good to have a DAC with good jitter reduction, and while the $80 DAC mentioned does, there are very expensive, poorly designed DACs that don’t perform as well. As price from a random brand as little relation on quality.
That makes sense...fifteen years ago jitter was still a problem, and the asynchronous designs like early Gordon Rankin designs were all the rage.
is jitter still an issue with the Phillips chipsets, or is it just that the source components have largely eliminated this as a factor, or that reclocking approaches solve for errors originated at the source?
Tubes are where you can’t go off measurements, as it’s performsnce is influenced by the impedance of the speakers it’s hooked up to.
@anthonymaw
Jitter is pretty much a non-issue nowadays. Steve Nugent (@audioengr, owner of Empirical Audio) can tell you he hears a drastic difference using his $700 reclocker going from 22psec (~20Bit) to 7psec (~22Bit), but that’s just baloney unless you are over amplyfing the signal. Also, even the $80 Grace SDAC has a Jitter-Test result of better than -130dB (~22Bit), so even if he could, it wouldn’t sound any different if the Grace DAC or better was the one being used.
Most every setup does not have a low enough floor noise to get the full benefits of even 16Bit, and I doubt any music takes full advantage of 16Bit either. This is why is very unlikely for any setup to benefit rom using higher bitdepth than CD (and of course no benefit going higher than 44.1kHz, unless your DAC’s filter isn’t that great, then maybe 48kHz like most audio tracks in movies).
I like reading the measurements to see if they correlate what I hear in subjective listening. But I agree that great measurements alone don’t signal great sound, nor do poor measurements signal poor sound.
Case in point: I’ve owned several great SET and triode amps (Air Tight, VAC, and Woo) which have even been described as measuring “broken.” They sounded wonderful.
With digital, I tend to take the measurements more seriously, including total bit depth, channel separation, noise floor, and jitter. Strong results seem to correlate better with good sound in my experience, and poor results seem to correlate with colored sound. I’ve heard several DACs based on the classic Phillips chips and they tend to have a laid back, mellower sound that, while pleasing, is less dynamic and more colored sounding than modern chipsets, especially those using FPGA implementations.
Certainly the quality of the analog output stage will have a big impact, more so than the older DAC itself, in my experience, which is why my Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC, with its well regulated power supply and tubed output stage, still gives modern DACs a healthy run for the money despite using a now pedestrian TI1792 Chipset. I’m currently eyeing the Chord Qutest as a possible upgrade, and I am charmed by the sound and dynamics of the FPGA DACs I’ve heard. They measure really well too.
i am sure the older Phillips based DACs have their charms but giant killers? My gut tells me otherwise. You can only tweak and squeeze so much out of these older chip designs. I’d love to compare these in my own system but without the chance, I’ll probably focus on the newer technology.
Gentlemen: A few years ago I was a member of and attending a lecture by the AES Audio Engineering Society and the topic was what actually makes a "good" DAC?. The takeaway that I remembered most was that an accurate DAC starts with a stable and high precision (low-jitter) clock master signal. Here’s an article that provides an objective write-up on the DAC clock jitter issue that is similar to what I heard at the AES lecture. https://www.lessloss.com/page.html?id=33
By introducing DSP circuitry from a different manufacturer that is entirely designed to alter the signal created by the source component, your argument for measurements is completely nullified
Not sure how you came up with that. DSP is used to tame room modes and EQ to your target curve, if I’m supposed to hear a note at -10dBFS yet my room modes causes that to be heard as -5dBFS, then I’ll use DSP to reduce that peak. It’s altering the signal so that the sound that hits your ear is similar to how it’s intended.
DSP is digital. Bass traps are analog. DSP alters the source signal. Bass traps affect room reflection points. You’re mixing apples & oranges
They are both used to combat room modes, so no harm in mixing them in regards to how one can get a better sounding system. Treatment is of course the preferred method, DSP is the last line of defense.
In other words, your solution takes into account budgetary factors as opposed to scientific measurable factors.
In terms of describing my setup? Then yes.
Really? Have you had your hearing checked lately?
Have you read the technical differences of copper vs silver speaker wire? If so, you’d know that silver imparts no sound quality differences, so anything you hear is in your head, the one and only benefit is better conductivity, but if talking 10awg silver, then 8awg copper will be better conductive and cost a lot less. If you believe silver sounds different, I would recommend doing a double blind study (best if your speakers have dual binding posts, so you can use speaker cables with banana plugs and easily alternate). You could also record with your phone your system playing both songs, play them simultaneously in a video editor, but I very the phase of one track (due note that everything else, including environemental noise, needs to be identical).
If you have any measurements showing that, if conductivity is matched, silver measures differently than copper, I’d love to see that.
Take a look at my review on the Lab12 at hometheaterreview.com for the details about its performance. I sold off a 10K DAC for the Lab12 that had been my reference, and compared the Lab12 to three other highly regarded DACS ranging in price from 14K to 20K and the Lab 12 was at least as good and bettered them on certain parameters. I'm very lucky being a professional reviewer. I get to hear many pieces in the context of my systems, instead of a showroom or at an audio show were you really can't get a take on a specific piece of gear for the obvious reasons.
@akg_ca (1) Since everything in this crazy hobby is built to a level commensurate with its price-point, I have never yet seen ANY $2K DAC match -- much less "crush" -- a $10K-$12K DAC....full stop. And I’ve attended numerous audio fest paloozas with their A-B bake-offs and comparison shootouts.
I agree, plus price has nothing to do with anything. To me there is no correlation between price and performance. Look at cables, some cost more that people have paid for their components and I have yet to hear a cable outperform a component I have owned.
Any manufacturer and place a retail price on something that does not make it sound good. Most higher priced components also have very nice chassis designs. The chassis might cost more that the sum of the parts inside. Most components don't have expensive parts like custom wound transformers, dueland or V-caps, caddock or Vishay resistors, etc. so it is all in the design then? Not too much in design that has not already been done IMO.
Crushing something tells me nothing unless I can understand specifically where the one component was better, then I feel educated on the differences one hears.
" . . . that’s also why I also use DSP to tame room modes . . . "
@mzkmxcv By introducing DSP circuitry from a different manufacturer that is entirely designed to alter the signal created by the source component, your argument for measurements is completely nullified.
" . . why I also use DSP to tame room modes mainly in the bass (as bass traps take up a lot of room . . ."
DSP is digital. Bass traps are analog. DSP alters the source signal. Bass traps affect room reflection points. You’re mixing apples & oranges.
" . . (as bass traps take up a lot of room and cost quite a pretty penny).
In other words, your solution takes into account budgetary factors as opposed to scientific measurable factors.
" I’d like to be shown that that’s indeed the case, saying silver cables sound different than copper is also just wrong"
Really? Have you had your hearing checked lately?
"I’m stubborn to back down from my position . . "
Sorry to hear that your learning curve has a disability.
@mzkmxcv From your above post, you are validating @teajay 's point regarding starting your own thread.
Your position is clearly well thought out and worthy of discussion, which is why starting your own thread on this is an ideal way forward. You will get the quality of debate and discussion you are looking for.
I’m stubborn to back down from my position as there are countless human trials showing that my position is valid. All your comments are dealing with what you believe or have experienced, which is invalid unless these comparisons between products were done double-blind, level matched, switched within ~10sec (humans can’t accurately remember sound past that point), etc. Many people believe digital audio is in stair steps and thus doesn’t accurately represent recorded music, that doesn’t make them right.
Don’t you think it’s odd how Revel, KEF, Magico, Focal, Sonus Faber, PSB, GoldenEar, Vivid Audio, Monitor Audio, Tekton, Dali, etc. all aim for measured idealness (transparent), and pretty much all solid state amplifier companies try to do the same as well? Whereas B&W and Wilson tune for their own house sound and their reviews are divisive (10kHz peaks for B&W aren’t as audible if you are >50)?
Answer me this, if you had a recording of a piano, are you saying you want some keys drastically different in volume than other keys? I want to hear my music, not my speakers nor my room (not anechoic of course, but to be within recommended reverb times), that’s also why I also use DSP to tame room modes mainly in the bass (as bass traps take up a lot of room and cost quite a pretty penny).
If you feel I’m wrong, I welcome useful discussion. I’ve been proven wrong on some things I’ve believed before and welcome further learning. If one believes one solis state DAC can sound lifeless and another can have some more midbass slam, I’d like to be shown that that’s indeed the case, saying silver cables sound different than copper is also just wrong, silver is only better as it’s a better conductor, but a thicker gauge copper can easily have the same results for cheaper.
I did start this thread, so I'll ask you politely to please start your own post regarding your ridiculous position about measurements being more important, or that they can predicate, how a piece of gear will sound to a listener.
You are entrenched in your position, so it's useless to debate with you. My purpose at starting this thread was to share information on the Lab 12 and it was leading to positive sharing until you hijacked it into this meaningless BS. Go start your own thread so you can rattle on about this "dead horse" debate or subject, so we can go back to the intent of my thread.
No. No grasping at straws as the measurements show only part of the story. The only straw being grasped is the one you chose in saying that the measurement is definitive of what an ideal speaker should sound like without being there to hear it for yourself.
The fact that everyone picked that speaker only goes to show that despite it’s drawbacks, everyone liked it due to it’s flavoring and the ear of the the guy who designed it. Some designers are better at it than others.
Kinda grasping at straws there, aren’t you? No, it shows they picked the speaker that was closest to measurably ideal; any drawbacks were minimal compared to every other speaker tested, the “flavoring” added due to the fact that there is yet to be a speaker that measures ideally is of no consequence.
Why do you think the new Revel F228Be is getting so much positive reviews? Because it’s Spinorama is superb (granted the measurement doesn’t show impedance/phase, sensitivity, distortion, etc., so it’s not a full comprehensive measurement).
I'm using the transport teajay mentioned, along with a notoriously poorly-measuring DAC, and it sounds like magic to me. It already sounded very good from a TASCAM player, operating as a transport, but it absolutely took a few steps forward in imaging, instrument clarity, and weight. No venetian double blinds were harmed in my comparisons, either.
i have a NAD D1050 that is just about as good as anything i have heard. you can pick them up for about $400 now. would love to hear something better under 2k.
@teajay thanks for posting, I see you're a fan of John Coltrane too. I'm looking for a digital front end that can do his music justice, been looking for 30 years and heard many hi end efforts but no luck yet. Whats the minimum transport i would need to get to makes this DAC sing? Thanks again!
As usual, this thread has at times deteriorated into a good ol' fashion school yard testosterone-fueled verbiage contest which I sometimes plod on through as I am a masochist at heart.
Oh.... @gray9hound.... thanks for that frequency sweep link. I now know that my 63 year-old hearing apparatus has a fantabulous effective range of about 190 to 9000 hz. What the He!!, might as well just stick with a boom box and sell everything else.
I think you missed my point, which is that no speaker can be ideal as all speakers are a compromise due to the fact that they are the biggest generators of distortion in the audio chain.
The fact that everyone picked that speaker only goes to show that despite it's drawbacks, everyone liked it due to it's flavoring and the ear of the the guy who designed it. Some designers are better at it than others.
Show me one double-blind study where the listeners did not pick the best measuring device as the most preferred.
Now if everyone picked the same CDP, DAC, amp or cable, you could have an argument since those would measure theoretically below what you'd argue someone could hear. A speaker can't to a trained ear.
No, the speaker that measured close to ideal was picked as the winner. And this is with hundreds of test subjects over decades.
So I don’t see how that’s a far cry from what I’ve been saying.
While Toole has his book, it’s quite a heavy read, if you haven’t seen his lecture available on YouTube and have an hour to spare, it’s worth a watch, as are all the web articles written by him and Sean Olive (and there are others of course, like Earl Geddes for subs).
That’s not what Floyd Toole and Sean Olive has found. Toole said people picked the more ideal speaker every single time, no exceptions.
So in one test that you cite, everyone picked the same speaker, which produces the most distortion of any audio component, by a large margin. That same speaker which was designed to sound a certain way and most likely, pleasing to most, despite what it's hooked up to.
That's a far cry from what you stated in the previous post about practically everyone picking the best measured device.
remember the great power/spec wars with 280/300 watts and 0.0003 specs? they all sounded like crap, the only specs you need are power,input/output impedance, and YOUR EARS !
That’s not what Floyd Toole and Sean Olive has found. Toole said people picked the more ideal speaker every single time, no exceptions.
Now, bass preference between trained and untrained individuals is like a 10dB difference, it’s still keeping with non-jagged responses, low directivity, etc.
Preferring a better measuring device, is in no way the same as saying that you know what a device will sound like based on the measurements. Preferring a device doesn't mean it is transparent. Most people prefer more colored audio components, in my experience.
However, I do not believe, and have seen no evidence to suggest, that measurements dictate sound
Uhh, how about most every single double blind study that has been conducted in regards to psychoacoustics? Show me one double-blind study where the listeners did not pick the best measuring device as the most preferred.
I’ll ask again, give just 1 reason why the measurements don’t tell the whole story. What could possibly be related to the sound output of a DAC that cant be measured or deviates from what psycho-acousticians believe is ideal.
This is like saying two cars from different manufacturers, will deliver the exact same driving experience, as long as they have the same specs, and that we can surmise exactly how a car will drive, based on those specs.
I don’t care what anyone says, measurements and specs will not tell you how a piece of audio equipment sounds. They can tell you what to expect, and then expectation bias creeps in. However, I do not believe, and have seen no evidence to suggest, that measurements dictate sound.
That’s an extraordinary claim, and contradicts what many experienced designers of audio components think. Do you have a list of "all variables" that you would require to "accurately describe" what a component would sound like?
That’s odd, as every designer Inknow aims for measured excellence.
@janehamble
So what exactly are the variables that actually matter in order to achieve better sonic performance
It’s not something complicated, you simply want want distortion and other parameters below audible levels:
* Frequency response linearity: You want the frequency response to be flat within 0.5dB.
* Frequency response linearity with respect to volume: You want it to be flat regardless of what volume the content is at, with a 0.5dB tolerance most DACs top out at 16-20 Bits, there is no DAC to my knowledge that is linear down to 24Bit.
* Channel matching: You want the left and right channels to have matched output within 0.5dB.
* Channel separation/crosstalk: You want any bleeding to happen below audible in-room levels, so let’s say -80dB or better, even $100 DACs are around -100dB, the Benchmark and other go to -125db to -160dB.
* THD; You want any even order harmonics to happen below audible in-room levels, so again let’s say -80dB.
* IMD: You want any odd order harmonics to happen below audible in-room levels, IMD is more audible than THD, so let’s say -90dB, the $100 Khadas DAC is below -90dB from ~ -15dBFS. Now, this is with pure test tones, it will be further masked with music.
* Jitter reduction: You want jitter to be below audible in-room levels, so again let’s say -80dB, the same Khadas DAC has a Jitter-Test result of better than -130dB.
* Filter: You want the filter to cut off all frequencies higher than your Nyquest sampling rate, Chord’s filters are top notch.
* Impulse: You want a clean impulse that’s <7ms (the Benchmark is ~0.7ms), the type of filter used (apodizing is standard) is debated, but most people I’ve heard from is that it’s a minuscule difference.
* Undithered sine/square wave integrity: You want it to cleanly reproduce the waves, with any deviations being less than audible.
* Phase: You want phase error below audibility (audibility threshold changes with frequency), but most DACs aren’t even 1° out of phase, even with amps it’s not that much of an issue, the Hypex NC400 is near 0° up until the upper treble where it’s ~20°.
* Output: You want the voltage output to be able to drive any amp into its full rated wattage, most amps need about 1.5v to 1.8v, but 2Vrms is the standard for what 99.99% of the time will allow full wattage output.
And as I mentioned in the IMD bullet point, these are with test tones, real music masks all this, ~ -40dB is the audibility threshold for THD with music (as high as 0dB, 100% THS for deep bass).
Most people don’t listen above reference, which is typically 105dB peaks, and your average room likely doesn’t have a noise fooor lower than 35dBC, so that’s a 70dB range for dynamics. Unless the distortion, linearity errors, channel imbalances, etc. rise above that level (-70dBFS), any DAC will sound transparent, the notion of sterile, lifeless, midrange slam, wetness, dryness, airiness, etc. are all just placebo, they don’t exist other that in your own perception.
When I go searching for new products to buy, I look at the price, measurements, looks, and the company (in case I need to use the warrenty), what someone else says about it’s performance is irrelevant? Just because someone works at an audio magazine doesn’t mean they have good ears, especially the people >70yr that have lost all their high frequency hearing. I only look at a combination of reviews if there are no measurements present (I likely may not buy that product, but if someone asks me if it’s a product for them to consider).
I don't know anyone who listens to the test tones that reviewers use to determine how good, or bad, a piece of equipment performs. Those test tones are not representative of any piece of music that I know of. They're a metric that has been agreed upon as a standard to go by and are not, by any means, the last word. The final arbiter are our ears.
That's why most competent manufacturers do their final tuning by ear, using the tests as a starting point. One can reverse engineer a posit that a certain piece of gear will sound good based on a test tone but it is never conclusive.
Just look at all the caveats reviewers cite after learning that a lot of gear measured and tested doesn't correlate to how it sounds (or should). We've all read such reviews.
... if we measure all variables, we can accurately describe what it will (or won’t) sound like.
That's an extraordinary claim, and contradicts what many experienced designers of audio components think. Do you have a list of "all variables" that you would require to "accurately describe" what a component would sound like?
Is it wrong though, to suggest that a sensory "answer" can differ from reality? Cilantro tastes like soap to some, not to others. It's how we're wired to experience that specific stimuli. So you're basically the guy telling someone with that gene - "No, it doesn't taste like that; finite element analysis says it tastes like this, so you're wrong."
That you don't have the open mind to accept that, and let other people be and do as they please, is at least somewhat upsetting. Unless those other people are using your money to buy the things they want, regardless what the specs say. If that's the case, then by all means carry on.
Timbre is an inherent quality of real musical instruments, and a more correct analogy is that it’s what makes one piano sounds different than another piano. Timbre is not distortion; a piano is supposed to sound like a piano, not a pure tone from a frequency generator
Hi Teajay, I also have long ago grown tired of the measurements versus listening debates. Interestingly I heard a system that used a Benchmark DAC. My listening impression matches your description. You had the added advantage of hearing it in your own system. In my case I can’t pinpoint how much I heard that could be attributed to the Benchmark DAC. Nonetheless what I heard was clinical, sterile and lifeless. If some consider this type of presentation accurate and transparent okay, that’s their call and I just leave it at that. I acknowledge we all have our specific preferences.
I want to hear the full bodied tone,rich color/harmonics/overtones and vividness that’s so obviously present when listening to live musicians and vocalists. I want the life, excitement, engagement and emotion, not flat, colorless and analytical despite the stated excellent measurements. In essence I'm seeking a 'natural ' presentation/sound quality. It is certainly true, "to each their own". Charles
Tubes be damned, I do believe the Pagoda is relatively neutral. Not completely, but it isn't warm and it isn't sterile, and I do believe that I can get more information out of a DAC that's built to extract as much information as possible.
I have the standard Pagoda and I find it the same. I would say it sounds pretty balanced .. neither "tubey' nor, as you say, "sterile".
I do agree that, in general, most people are looking for the types of colorations they like most. Which is fine. It's why I don't really want a DAC that's described as being warm or lush, but don't necessarily run from DACs that are described as being sterile. My amps (Benchmark AHB2) have been described as such, and I couldn't disagree more.
However, I also don't want a DAC that makes everything sound or threadbare.
Tubes be damned, I do believe the Pagoda is relatively neutral. Not completely, but it isn't warm and it isn't sterile, and I do believe that I can get more information out of a DAC that's built to extract as much information as possible.
I really don't understand why anyone would say inputs don't matter, as though they're all equal. Outputs are definitely not equal, and if you're looking for transparency, you'd want the most transparent output to begin with. Which is going to be the i2s, in general.
... timbre is just about distortion, it’s why a guitar and a piano playing the same frequency key sounds different.
Timbre is an inherent quality of real musical instruments, and a more correct analogy is that it’s what makes one piano sounds different than another piano. Timbre is not distortion; a piano is supposed to sound like a piano, not a pure tone from a frequency generator.
It's good to know we don't have to listen to anything before we purchase it, as we only need to look at measurements. Not even who measured it, under what conditions those measurements were taken, or what equipment was used to take those measurements...... just look at the measurements.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
