HDX magazine review.

quote:

Originally posted by gary1:


Steve, Charlies comment at the bottom does make one think. Do you think that the Mac/Lavry is "upsampling" the 16 bit files that you are using. This might account for what you guys are hearing. Not to say that the Lavry isn't a very good piece of kit, but I would expect 24 bit to outperform a high end CDP. The final comments made by Charlie are also thought provoking since in 16 bit he prefers the SB3 to the Mac.

Hi Gary,

I think there is every chance that Charlie is right. The optimum MIDI settings on the Mac digital output seems to be 2-ch 24bit 44khz. The 2-ch 16bit 44khz setting simply doesn't sound as good, in the way Charlie describes. Nor does 2-ch 24bit 96khz with 16/44 music sound as good - no idea why. Obviously with 24/96 music - that setting is best.

Another thing I have observed is that taking the AE to different houses/systems results in variable results. In some places the AE sounds really excellent, nearly as good as directly connected - even though it's limited to 16/44. In other places, it sounds nowhere near.

But back to the original point, I do think that could be it.

Regards,

Steve

Doubtful - its only packing out the 16bit data to 24bit unlike 24bit original files. No more information is there but it could make a difference in how the DAC recovers the clock from the longer word. I can hear the difference between my Mac set at 16 and 24bit into the n-Vi and this has a 24 bit DAC - if it receives 16 bit data then again it should just pack out the lower bits.

James

quote:

Originally posted by munch:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
kuma,
The Lavry DA-10 with a Mac book comes very very close.

I am very sorry to say, it is not. Not even close to a CDS3 and XPS2. I had a chance to try several high-end audio DACs (Accuphase DC-101, Theta Generation VIII, several dCSs, Meitner, etc) and pro DACs (all the Lavrys, pro dCSs, Weiss, Mytek Digital, Protools, RMEs, TCElectronic, etc) with my Macs and compare them a CDS3/XPS2 and a CDS3/555PS (System: NAP500, NAC552, ProAc Response 4 speakers, Mana tables, Naim cabling and Audience Au24 for the non - Naim goodies) and in this Naim system, none of the Mac/external DAC solutions were comparable. In a non - Naim system you can get different results of course, but if you value the well known Naim values, it would be a bit strange to find the other equipments "better".

As my main job is pro audio and broadcast video system integration and planning, I got a chance not only to try everything I want in the pro world, but to live with them for a while as well.

Did you listen to the LavryDA-10 with a optic lead and the Macbook set up at its best at home in your Naim system?
Sorry you are talking shite.

More respect please...



I was using a Japanese SAEC glass Toslink cable custom made for the Mac optical connection on one end (costs some 400 Euros), and a proper Toslink connector on the other end. I tried it with my black MacBook, with my son's Macbook Pro as well. I have a TCElectronics Konnekt 8 Firewire pro audio interface too. I used it as a Firewire-coax SPDIF converter from my Macs to the Lavry (and to the other pro and high-end DACs) with Naim DC-1, Acrolink, Acoustic Revive coax SPDIF cables and with some pro 0.6/2.8 coax serial digital video cables (Bedea) as digital audio coax. This combination sounds much better than the Toslink from the Mac, but even this way I did not like it as much as I liked the CDS3 / 555 PS.

YMMV.

If you do not mind to build a 6.3 jack to RCA/DIN cable, you can try to comapare the Konnekt 8 from the firewire ouput of the Mac to the Lavry driven from the Toslink of the Mac. There is a chance you will prefer the Konnekt 8 to the Lavry in a Naim system, and the Konnekt costs some third of the Lavry...

I was living with these different d/a converters for weeks, so my opinion is based on real life, long term experience, listening through an ethernet connection from my MacPro server with some 6000 cds grabbed. I got a chance to listen hundreds of original studio master recordings, live recordings as well, some of them 96, 176.4k and few 192k/24 (converted from 5.6 MHz DSD) bit as well - of course not from the CDS3, but straight from the network. I tried the Macbook to operate from its internal drive plus I tried (and liked it a lot) it booting from a 8 GB Kingston USB memory and unmounting the internal hard drive completely, playing from memory only with no moving parts.

If you want I can give you more details, but you can be sure it was organized on a proper, almost scientific way

I tried to find a CDS3 killer, but I could not. Sorry.

The Lavry gives you very different music reproduction than the CDS3. If you like, it is good for you. I did not like it as much.

The most musically satisfiyng PC-DAC combination I found is the Mytek Digital 8x192 AD/DA converter with the internal Firewire board option, running from a MacBook. In my non - Naim pro audio system it is really, really good. If you want to digiztize LPs, it is a very good solution as well, the A/D conversion quality is really execeptional, I got dozens of 45 rpm LPs digitized and they sound wonderful.

I soon will have roughly 5 years experience with all kinds of pro and home audio systems based on Mac computers.

Only one thing is for sure: if you want to maximize your listening pleasure and want a future proof, up to 192k sampling rate system, use a computer audio interface with USB2 or Firewire connection from the Mac, not Toslink and not USB. Use Toslink only if you have very efficient jitter reduction scheme, like Charles Altmann's JISCO system, Mytek digital's SuperLock or similar.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:
YMMV, of course. But there are increasing numbers with CDS3s that regard the Mac/DAC as better. In my case I have heard it now in three or four systems and results are consistently in favour of the DAC up to CD555 level where it is really close.

You will notice that a number of members (if you read some of the DA threads) have all found the same. Could be we are all deaf, of course.

Best regards,

Steve

FWIW, as someone who is running a Mac/Lavry combination and a CDS3 side by side, I can be counted as one of the persons referred to above. The former has completely replaced the CDS3 as my main digital source as it has brought an added level of enjoyability to my CD collection. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it has partially corrected the almost lopsided imbalance that existed before its arrival between my analog and digital listening.

I can only suggest that anyone who is mainly interested in getting (even) more musical enjoyment from their CD collection than they currently do should try this combination - the cost of doing so is minimal and the rewards are potentially very significant indeed.

Michael

ferenc,

Thanks for injecting your experiences here. It sounds like you have done a lot of listening, to a wide variety of gear. Of course opinions vary even in the same room, hearing the same music.... I can't help but be curious, though. Was it the Lavry Black DA-10 you were using? What speakers? I assume this was a Naim system in a home environment?

With all respect, when I read such differences of opinion, I wonder: Is he/they listening to a different aspect of thye music? Is he/they missing something? Or more importantly, what am I missing?

Maybe we will never know?


Regards,

Charlie

Oh dear,

A quite a *Lavry* discussion going on.

quote:

The danger here is that we end up not comparing like with like.

Steve,

Absolutely. When you get into separate DAC/transport/cable business, I quickly found that variables we need to manage are larger than dealing with one box CD or in this case, HDX type of thing.

Let alone, file ripping quality and sound of original CDs vary greatly.
Even on a *bare* HDX, on some program, off axis, I could not tell if it was CD playing or file playing.

But on a file ripped from a so-so sounding CD, it was pretty apparent. A CD playback was better. ( a side note: a vinly play of the same album trashed them all. :x)

I'm also aware that a computer ( a mac in my case ) as a transport is perfectly acceptable when I compared to some costly stand alone transports. They also vary in voicing unit to unit, too. In theory, they are not supposed to sound any different, but they did and it wasn't subtle. Sort of like the Toslink argument there.

It's been a long while since I fiddle with this computer thing, but I'm sure some progress must have been made. ( or maybe not. That's still TBD for me ) It seems that we have more choices than before, which is a good thing ).

Whatever the ripping method you used worked for a few members it seems.

If any of CD555 owners are ready to dump their players, that's good for somebody else, too.

My experiments so far is not quite methological as ferenc's ( hats off to you, sir ) , and on and off in a course of a year. I suspect subjective personal preference as well as ripping method influences the outcome hugely.

The last DAC I have tried at home was the much hyped Benchmark DAC1 and that didn't do it.

It's good that you found a magic combination that you are happy with.

Anyways, I'm sure that the day will come when Naim comes up with something that will exceed the performance of their flagship CD player. I'd rather wait till someone figure that out than doing the Lego® thing myself.

This is why I thought that the HDX was great. Nothing to figure it out and just rip and play. And for a first generation player, certainly it had an impact in a short demo. I couldn't say the same for the Naim Net.

It's tempting to get a hold of a Lavry, but, atm, I am too busy fiddling with turntables!

quote:

The most musically satisfiyng PC-DAC combination I found is the Mytek Digital 8x192 AD/DA converter with the internal Firewire board option, running from a MacBook.

Thanks ferenc.

I'll make a note of that.

The German magazine STEREO tested the Lavry Black Series DA 10 in its november 2006 issue. They characterized the Lavry as beeing very emotional sounding with groove, but not not playing as exactly as some other DACs. They wrote that the DA 10 exaggerates a little bit in the bass region in comparison to a MBL 1531 CD player. Furthermore they tried the DACs in the test with different CD transporters as a source for the digital data and came to the conclusion that a rather cheap Harman/Kardon HD 970 was not as good sounding as a Teac Esoteric X-01. And they compared XLR and coaxial digital cables in the DAC test and liked XLR the best. Unfortunately they did not test toslink.

To me this might indicates that the Lavry is not immune to jitter.

Recently I compared three different computer drives for CD ripping: Always using the same computer and Exact Audio Copy (slow reading speed, no cache...)with the same settings I got different results. To my ears the clear winner is the Plextor Premium 2. This again shows with how many variables we have to deal when using PC/MAC and DACs. I then compared that WAV file ripped with the above mentioned CD drive stored on a USB memory stick to the same track my HDX made and for some reasons I do not know the HDX is clearly better soundwise when using its own rips. Before ripping that CD with the HDX and the Plextor I used my Furutech De Mag each time in order to demagnetize the CD. So I guess that this comparison was very fair.

Just my two cents in this emotional thread... and now I can be insulted for what I wrote:-)

quote:

Originally posted by kuma: But on a file ripped from a so-so sounding CD, it was pretty apparent. A CD playback was better.

That seems odd. From what I understand one of the important factors for the sound quality of the HDX is its ability to read data and do error correction more accurately than a CDP that has to it real time. Makes sense too. But this applies for every disk. And probably even more so with poorer sounding / older / scratched disks with more errors.

Richard.

Kuma

KTMax beat me to the punch. "Theoretically" the rip from a HDX should sound better. As a matter of fact many have equated (and it has been stated by Naim) that the HDX's CD playback is akin to a lower level Naim CDP while its ripped playback sits in between a CDX2/CDS3. If you are hearing certain silver discs sounding better than their subsequent rips than it seems to me that the HDX is not quite doing its job and justifying its reason for being (nor its price for that matter). I can only surmise this from your statements on your listening demo (has I have not been privy to a demo).

Regards
Gregg

quote:

Originally posted by John R.:
The German magazine STEREO tested the Lavry Black Series DA 10 in its november 2006 issue. They characterized the Lavry as beeing very emotional sounding with groove, but not not playing as exactly as some other DACs. They wrote that the DA 10 exaggerates a little bit in the bass region in comparison to a MBL 1531 CD player. Furthermore they tried the DACs in the test with different CD transporters as a source for the digital data and came to the conclusion that a rather cheap Harman/Kardon HD 970 was not as good sounding as a Teac Esoteric X-01. And they compared XLR and coaxial digital cables in the DAC test and liked XLR the best. Unfortunately they did not test toslink.

To me this might indicates that the Lavry is not immune to jitter.

Recently I compared three different computer drives for CD ripping: Always using the same computer and Exact Audio Copy (slow reading speed, no cache...)with the same settings I got different results. To my ears the clear winner is the Plextor Premium 2. This again shows with how many variables we have to deal when using PC/MAC and DACs. I then compared that WAV file ripped with the above mentioned CD drive stored on a USB memory stick to the same track my HDX made and for some reasons I do not know the HDX is clearly better soundwise when using its own rips. Before ripping that CD with the HDX and the Plextor I used my Furutech De Mag each time in order to demagnetize the CD. So I guess that this comparison was very fair.

Just my two cents in this emotional thread... and now I can be insulted for what I wrote:-)

Hi John,

Our tests here relate to the current box (2008) and the latest Intel Macs (not available in 2006).

So, back to the old chestnut. Comparing like with like. The magazine's tests are a couple of years ago - I would probably have thought the same then. Dunno.

All I can do is agree with Michael, Charlie, John, Tony, Peter, AllenB, Munch and anyone I've forgotten who has done the recent comparisons for themselves. My MacBook/Lavry is not only voiced very closely to the CDS3 it replaced, I actually prefer it and it's very, very close to the CD555 on direct comparison.

YMMV, of course. But do make sure we are comparing the same - the comparison you quote is well out of date. Hope you don't feel insulted by my pointing out that the tests are not the same. Why not get hold of an Intel Mac and a current Lavry - then let us know what you think?

Regarding jitter immunity, isn't the Benchmark supposed to be? In which case, it doesn't make the difference to me, because the Lavry sounded better and I'd had a DAC1 for some time. It took one track to realise I much preferred the Lavry.

Mind you, if I'd measured the performance of a lot of kit I've enjoyed over the years - I'd probably find they didn't measure as well as stuff I didn't like - if you get my drift. That's why I only comment on what I've heard. I seem to remember in my vinyl days the Linn measured badly compared to DD rivals....

Kuma,

I agree totally about the Benchmark and sold it, the Lavry seems to work really well with the current Intel Macs - call it more Naim like, not something I mean as a criticism, I assure you.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by CharlieP:
ferenc,

Thanks for injecting your experiences here. It sounds like you have done a lot of listening, to a wide variety of gear. Of course opinions vary even in the same room, hearing the same music.... I can't help but be curious, though. Was it the Lavry Black DA-10 you were using? What speakers? I assume this was a Naim system in a home environment?

With all respect, when I read such differences of opinion, I wonder: Is he/they listening to a different aspect of thye music? Is he/they missing something? Or more importantly, what am I missing?

Maybe we will never know?


Regards,

Charlie

Hi Charlie,

I was using the Lavry Black DA-10. The systems I tried were the following:

System 1:
CDS3/555PS, NAC552, NAP500, ProAc Response 4, all Naim cabling, for the Lavry connection custom made Audience Au24 to the NAC552. Everyting on Mana table.

System 2:
CDX2/XPS2, NAC282, NAP250.2, Naim Allae. Naim cabling plus the mentioned custom made Audience for the Lavry.

I have two more systems, where I could compare the CD and Mac-based sources:

System 3:
Macbook, Konnekt 8, Altmann BYOB amp, Altmann Attraction DAC, Altmann Creation ADC, Hawthorne high sensitivity 15 inch dual concentric speaker based DIY speaker on spruce wood open baffle construction. Completely off the grid, running from a spiral cell car battery

System 4:
Macbook,Konnekt 8, different pro D/A converters (Mytek, Lynx, Protools, etc), Promitheus Signature TVC, DEQX room corrector and digital 4-way crossover, speaker management system (not used at the moment), MC2 Audio MC1250 1250W@4 ohm pro amp, Danley SH 100B pro audio speaker all pro cabling (Evidence Audio).

All the 4 systems are in different rooms in our houses. Dedicated mains for allt he rooms. I like them equally well, they have a very different presentation of the recorded music of course, but they give emotianally very similar music listening experience.


Make no mistake:

I did not say the Lavry is not good. It is good, but in a complete Naim system if you really prefer the "Naim" - way of presenting music, I do no think it can be in a better synergy than the CDS3 or CDX2 with the system. If you are looking something different, than the well known "Naim" presentation of the music, than you can be happy with it.

I personally prefer the Konnekt 8, the Altmann Attraction DAC, and the different Mytek DACs to the Lavry, in a non-Naim system. But it is me, you can have different experience of course.
In a complete Naim system, I think it is very difficult to beat the CDS3.

Hi Ferenc,

The system one interests me. We did pretty much the same comparison except the speakers were also Naim (SL2), and there were two active 500s and the CD player was the 555.

When did you try it? Did you use a current Intel Mac? Also what configuration was the Audience AU24 cable to the 552?

Our results were different as I'm sure you have read.

Regards,

Steve

Steve - When my Lavry arrives and has settled in i'll do a back to back test between my 2008 Mac mini and 2004 Powermac G5 - the only difference i could hear between them on the n-Vi was negated when i got rid of the mini toslink adapter and used a standard Optichord on the Powermac and the mini toslink version on the Mac mini. Both run different OSx (Tiger on the G5, Leopard on the Mini) and Core Audio gives more options under Leopard.

Cheers

James

quote:

Originally posted by james n:
Steve - When my Lavry arrives and has settled in i'll do a back to back test between my 2008 Mac mini and 2004 Powermac G5 - the only difference i could hear between them on the n-Vi was negated when i got rid of the mini toslink adapter and used a standard Optichord on the Powermac and the mini toslink version on the Mac mini. Both run different OSx (Tiger on the G5, Leopard on the Mini) and Core Audio gives more options under Leopard.

Cheers

James

Hi James,

Good idea. Have a listen to the different output settings too. I found the same as Charlie.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by glevethan:
Kuma

KTMax beat me to the punch. "Theoretically" the rip from a HDX should sound better. As a matter of fact many have equated (and it has been stated by Naim) that the HDX's CD playback is akin to a lower level Naim CDP while its ripped playback sits in between a CDX2/CDS3. If you are hearing certain silver discs sounding better than their subsequent rips than it seems to me that the HDX is not quite doing its job and justifying its reason for being (nor its price for that matter). I can only surmise this from your statements on your listening demo (has I have not been privy to a demo).

The disc is question was a Nice Price bargain Columbia pressing of Stanley Clarke's School Days, and, most importantly, the HDX playback (sans power supply) was compared to a CD555. Any other questions?

(Methinks I hear the sounds of axes grinding.)

David

Sorry this thread has lost me. Are you saying that with this CD - the ripped sounded better or worse than the CD on the HDX.

Previous comments are correct. Theoretically - rips should always be better.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:
Hi Ferenc,

The system one interests me. We did pretty much the same comparison except the speakers were also Naim (SL2), and there were two active 500s and the CD player was the 555.

When did you try it? Did you use a current Intel Mac? Also what configuration was the Audience AU24 cable to the 552?

Our results were different as I'm sure you have read.

Regards,

Steve

Hi Steve,

I used a roughly one year old black Macbook 2 GHZ and my son's very latest few weeks old MacBookPro with 2.4 GHz CPU. Heard no difference. The balanced output of the Lavry was set internally to unbalanced, and I was using a custom made XLR to DIN Audience cable to connect the DAC to the 552. By the way the 552 is connected to the 500 using a custom made Audience XLR cable as well, I do not use the original Naim cable at this point. All the mains cables were Audience as well. The Lavry clock was set to Narrow mode.

On the other hand I think it is meaningless to search the reason of our experience on this level. The difference was much more essential.

Let me find few reasons.

1. Our perception could be very different. Every music listener has her/his own "internal" "reference" so we are all different.

2. My room, where the system 1 is, a really well sound proofed, very dry as I am using an adjustable diffusor and bass trap system built on the walls. The ProAc Response 4s with the NAP500 show real life weight of the instruments and the space of the recording ( if it has one and I have lots of original stereo live recordings as I mentioned earlier). I do not talk about the so called "3D SPACE" artificially generated by all sorts of electronics while the post-production is done. The sound of the NAP500/Resp 4s is very balanced in this room, you can not hear any part of the reproduced spectrum screaming for special attention. The weight is deeply woven in the texture of the instruments and the space of the live event, not an artificial upper bass coloration. In this environment the Lavry exaggarated the upper bass a little bit more than I liked. It required an attention, you could think: well very nice rounded bass, how smooth it is..., and I do not like this kind of extra attention requiring feature. If you know what I mean. It just made the notes a little bit blurred, smoother, but little bit blurred and took the spectrum a bit apart, lost the coherency a little bit I got from the CDS3 as a source. Please note, I am talking about very small difference.

3. There is a chance that a system with an active SL2, depending on the installation of the SL2 would welcome a bit more weight, even if this weight is a bit artificial (For ME, YMMV!!). If the Lavry can give you this, you can find it better this way. I can understand if you like it, in my environment I do not need it.

I do not have a problem if you like the Lavry in your Naim system. Good for you. But please accept other's view and experience easily can be different.

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

In this environment the Lavry exaggarated the upper bass a little bit more than I liked. It required an attention, you could think: well very nice rounded bass, how smooth it is..., and I do not like this kind of extra attention requiring feature. If you know what I mean. It just made the notes a little bit blurred, smoother, but little bit blurred and took the spectrum a bit apart, lost the coherency a little bit I got from the CDS3 as a source. Please note, I am talking about very small difference.

There is a chance that a system with an active SL2, depending on the installation of the SL2 would welcome a bit more weight, even if this weight is a bit artificial (For ME, YMMV!!). If the Lavry can give you this, you can find it better this way. I can understand if you like it, in my environment I do not need it.

I do not have a problem if you like the Lavry in your Naim system. Good for you. But please accept other's view and experience easily can be different.

Hi Ferenc,

I have no problem accepting other's views.

I got the impression you thought the differences were much larger, now you have explained more fully - it seems we are getting into quite small differences after all - not bad for £600 v £7000 eh?

Probably explains other people seeing it differently. Thank you for explaining. FWIW I use crystal lock, not narrow - the brochure seems to indicate it shouldn't make a difference but I might try it. I did find the Mac setting of 24/44 to be better than the others.

Best regards,

Steve

Well this has been an interseting 18 hours since I last logged on. Aside from personal musical interpretation, there is alot going on with all of the separate components (Computer,DAC, ripping software,music playback software,connection cables) and the latest if you read the Linn forum--differences of musical presentation depending on external NAS used!!! Seems like too many variables to obtain consistent results and I'm not even throwing in room acoustics as Ferenc points out.

I do agree with Ferenc that that little Konnekt8 ($300US)with firewire is a gem and produced excellent results with both ripped CDs using professional software and playback of 24/96 A/D recorded vinyl recordings. You should have heard it with a HC2 attached--really impressive.

It appears that this will continue to be a hotly debated subject. One thing for certain as opposed to Naim CD playback which from forum threads produces considerable agreement and consesus among forum reviewers(not all) with respect to quality as you go up the ladder, this issue with digital playback surprisingly seems to be all over the place. That is readily apparent in the short time that the DA Forum was started.

Interesting thread.

I heard the HDX at a Naim Summer Sounds show. It was only really impressive when it had an XPS2 attached.

I read the Hi Fi Choice review a couple of days ago. Malcolm Steward certainly loved the HDX.

I have been using a Mac, AE, and a Beresford DAC into my Naim system for a year. It sounds as good as my CD5.

I'll upgrade to a better DAC, and NAS set-up, that I can control via an iPhone or iTouch.

Whether this will be as good as a CD5x, CDX2 or CDS3 is kind of irrelevant. Either way I know it will sound excellent. Plus it will cost me a lot less and store more than an HDX.

If Naim release a standalone DAC, I'd buy it in an instant. I'd rather keep my system Naim instead of giving the money to Benchmark or Lavry.

Jack

Jack

I don't suppose you have tried connecting the Mac directly to the Beresford have you ( ie missing out the AE) ?

Just wondering.....

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:

I got the impression you thought the differences were much larger, now you have explained more fully - it seems we are getting into quite small differences after all - not bad for £600 v £7000 eh?
...

Best regards,

Steve

Actually the price difference is a bit misleading.

Soundwise the difference was small, but I could not live with the Lavry for long. If I would have to spend roughly 600 GBP, I would buy an Altmann Attraction DAC with the JISCO option or for a balanced XLR system a stereo Mytek 96DAC, depending on the surrounding equipments or a Konnekt 8 if I have a PC only source. Something which has a bit tighter bass and lot better jitter reduction mechanism than the Lavry, mainly if I would be forced to use the Toslink. But these are different solutions not substitutions for the CDS3 level CD source.

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:
But these are different solutions not substitutions for the CDS3 level CD source.

That's where we differ, the CDS3 I had was not better, given the huge difference in price it would be the minimum I would expect. It will be interesting to see what others think as they try different options.

Best regards,

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by John R.:
The German magazine STEREO tested the Lavry Black Series DA 10 in its november 2006 issue. They characterized the Lavry as beeing very emotional sounding with groove, but not not playing as exactly as some other DACs. They wrote that the DA 10 exaggerates a little bit in the bass region in comparison to a MBL 1531 CD player. Furthermore they tried the DACs in the test with different CD transporters as a source for the digital data and came to the conclusion that a rather cheap Harman/Kardon HD 970 was not as good sounding as a Teac Esoteric X-01. And they compared XLR and coaxial digital cables in the DAC test and liked XLR the best. Unfortunately they did not test toslink.

To me this might indicates that the Lavry is not immune to jitter.

It's not clear to me why the above would indicate the possible presence of jitter but I would agree that, when fed directly by the MacBook, the Lavry DA10 brings out the emotional content of the music very well indeed. I would also agree that it is a little fuller in the bass than the CDS3 and that has also added to my enjoyment of its presentation.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by paremus:
Previous comments are correct. Theoretically - rips should always be better.

Always?

Not a chance. There always would be variables just as not all CDs sound the same.

One thing I have noticed with the files is that they have a tendency to smooth things over and that's prefer by some because it does not sound bright.