I find your posts in this thread absolutely amusing.
........................................
I'm sorry, but it really looks you are not interested in learning about the product, but rather - only interested in bashing the Lampi brand, for reasons known only to you.
really?? As I have read in the title this is a thread to discuss The very best DACs today...
and in the last 3 pages all of you exalt Lampi products and fight me for posting a dammed foto and for having some doughs about a very high cost DIY product!!..
has anyone here got another dac machine??
The photos have already been shown to you. Instead of asking someone to open it and take a photo, you might want to place it next to an MSB stack, Trinity, Vivaldi, Playback design, PS Audio, Weiss, Meitner, etc and have a listen, which many on this thread and others have done. Quite happy to have this as second best, next only to the $400 Chinese dac.
really?? As I have read in the title this is a thread to discuss The very best DACs today...
and in the last 3 pages all of you exalt Lampi products and fight me for posting a dammed foto and for having some doughs about a very high cost DIY product!!..
has anyone here got another dac machine??
Nobody is 'fighting you for posting a photo'. We just try to put the facts straight. That is quite a difference.
You spead false information. You have posted a photo of a different product, claiming it to be 'Lampi costing 1000s euro'. Worse still, you failed to acknowledge that.
As for 'another DAC machine' part of the question - I own the $56k Trinity DAC, and before that I have had the $43k MSB stack and dCS Scarlatti. Are those good enough for you ?
I don't doubt it, I doubt anyone is going to question that statement, nor have we been trashing them. However, you have been trashing a dac you haven't heard with a pic that doesn't belong to the dac
I don't doubt it, I doubt anyone is going to question that statement, nor have we been trashing them. However, you have been trashing a dac you haven't heard with a pic that doesn't belong to the dac
I am kindly trying to focus to the thread's theme and you continue, and continue, and continue to tell me the same storry about the foto.. how many more times you gonna tell it???????
I am kindly trying to focus to the thread's theme and you continue, and continue, and continue to tell me the same storry about the foto.. how many more times you gonna tell it???????
Depends how they are used, but the point is your list were all over sampling designs, it would be more valid to compare the Lampizator to other NOS designs with valve output stages.
Keith.
Initially it might be worth comparing NOS and over sampling designs, once you have decided you prefer the absence of a reconstruction filter surely it would be more useful to compare dacs of the same design?
Keith.
OS or NOS converters - they are all based on chipsets (be it ESS, Crystal, AKM or BB).
The main difference between those 'regular' DACs and Lampi Big 7, is that the later does not use the decoding chipset at all. This is the main reason it sounds so good IMO.
Ofc, we are talking about the DSD decodong (PCM has to be upconverted to DSD in the computer to be palyable 'chipsetless').
Initially it might be worth comparing NOS and over sampling designs, once you have decided you prefer the absence of a reconstruction filter surely it would be more useful to compare dacs of the same design?
Keith.
Hi Adam, what Keith is trying to lead the thread to, as he has tried before on other threads on other forums, by pointing out the stereoPhile review of Zanden 5000, where the review showed poor measurements, is that NOS dacs have poor measurements and distort sound, so the big 7, which he hasn't heard, must be doing so too.
Do you have any measurements for the Lampizator dac, I only use the Zanden as it is a 'classic' NOS design, some 'NOS' dacs do over sample , I believe the Trinity does?
Keith.
Do you have any measurements for the Lampizator dac, I only use the Zanden as it is a 'classic' NOS design, some 'NOS' dacs do over sample , I believe the Trinity does?
Keith.
AMR DAC/processors offer both NOS and oversampling modes with multiple filters.
In theory NOS could be great for native hirez (by this I mean where the digital is derived from a minimum of 24/96 from the ADC onwards).
However measurements on the AMR and a couple of others that can handle hirez still shows some measurement challenges.
That said it comes back to then; do they sound good because of their poor measurements or despite poor measurements, but I really would like to stress that is for a different thread/topic, Keith
Minimum phase and slow rolloff also do not necessarily measure well traditionally with regards to frequency-alias rejection-etc (but good at not having pre-ringing), but their poor measurements are not identical to that of NOS.
My preference is for some kind of minimum phase reconstruction filter rather than internal default brickwall, or prefer a coefficient design that is a "mix" of minimum phase/linear (scope of such design is to improve measurements/combine benefits of both solutions), others prefer certain brickwall fast rolloff, but it is fair to say this is one area preferences can divide listeners even if differences can be subtle (putting aside the sin(x)/x droop vs flat to 20khz specific design comparison). - emphasis is long term preference rather than untrained abx comparison testing (comes back to much already discussed in the past on other subtle testing and training in various topics and threads on here).
Initially it might be worth comparing NOS and over sampling designs, once you have decided you prefer the absence of a reconstruction filter surely it would be more useful to compare dacs of the same design?
Keith.
