A DAC that crushes price vs. performance ratio

  
Is this the same DAC reviewed in monoandstereo 5 years ago (2013)?

@keithtexas 
Yes, that seems to be true. Unless there's more substance demonstrated to validate @teajay's thinking that there may have been some "subtle changes".

All non-oversampling designs suffer from sinus(x)/s loss resulting in more than 3dB reduction at 20kHz.

@andios

I’m pretty certain that you meant "sin(x)/x," short for "sine(x)/x." Which of course has nothing to do with sinuses :-)

I’m also pretty certain that research of published measurements of various non-oversampling DACs will show insignificant rolloff at 20 kHz.

Regards,
-- Al

Just purchased this dac and expect to have it in my system in a couple of weeks.  Will report back once I’ve had a chance to listen a bit.

I had received last week an Email from a GON member regarding his experience with the LAB 12 DAC.  

His experience of it was, " I've tried 4 DACS in the past 2 months and the LAB 12 is definitely my favorite." I asked him if he would be willing to share more information about what DACs he had auditioned compared to the LAB 12 and share on this thread.  He said he would when he gets back from traveling this week.  Hope, he does, I'm glad he likes the Lab 12, but am very interested what other types of DACs he compared it to.

@nonoise  Yes, I too believe Lewis will win the driver’s championship again in Austin.
However, my true colors are red so it pains me to say that. Lol.

So how does this DAC compare to the Terminator?

@ lordcloud

I am also curious about it.

My impression from the reviews is that Terminator has better scale and dynamics and Lab12 has more nuance like vinyl.

I placed an order for Lab12 two days ago but it is on 8 weeks wait.

It must be pretty popular or they can not manufacture enough or both.


Thomas

Let me add Lite Audio DAC-83 in this list , Fully discrete 1704UK Burr Brown R2R build like tank with massive external power supply , I have Denafrips Pontus and L.K.S. Audio MH-DA004 Dual ES9038PRO , DAC-83 run Circles around these DACS in every aspect , more open, imaging , well balance top to bottom with hefty dynamic Bass. if you lucky may find one used under $1K .

@solo8008 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/lite-dac-83-versus-audio-gd-ref-7-8-9.513759/

It is interesting.

Good things are coming from China.

If I were reviewer, I would have a chance to audition GD 7,8 

 I am curious how do they sound.

@solo8008 

Thanks for that recommendation. I will have to do some reading. As much as I read good things about the Terminator, it is always said that it is voiced towards the lusher side of things, even though it sounds great. I'm looking for more transparency than lush, so this may be interesting. 

@ srosenberg

Nice and detailed review!

I also plan to do tube rolling and put SR blue fuse in it.

I placed an order for Lab12 3 days ago but I have to wait 8 weeks to get it.



Are you still in Oregon or had left for Vietnam?

I hope that you enjoy your stay in Vietnam.


I am living in Northwest of Washington State, midway between Seattle and Vancouver, BC.


Thomas

@ shkong78

I am still in Vietnam - an amazing part of the world to be sure.  You've certainly settled in a spectacular part of the country... NW Washington state is STUNNING!!!

Enjoy the DAC and be sure to let us know what you think of it.  I was certainly shocked by how good it sounded.

The Lab 21 sounds like a great dac. I wish it were balanced, as my system is all balanced. 

@srosenberg

Enjoy your stay in Vietnam!

How long will you stay over there?

I have a beautiful view of Sound and Bay also Olympic Mountains from my home.

I may live here until I die especially I have a beautiful listening space here.

@lordcloud

My EMMLab Dac2 has balanced output which was one of the best Dac 8 years ago.

After inserting SR Blue fuse in it, it sounds more fantastic with lot of details, nice timber, wide and deep soundstage.

I have to wait 8 weeks to get Lab12, But it will be tough battle between those two excellent Dac.

I guess that EMM will have more weight and Lab 12 may be more nuanced.

One of them will have to go!


I also considered getting Total Dac MK2 tube version.

But Dac keep improving every year with new technology.

So I decided upon trying out Lab12 since it will cost me less even if I decide to sell Lab 12 after losing battle to EMMLab Dac2.

At this point, I am not sure which one of Dac will sound better in my system.

I don’t know why folks do things without verifying they make a positive SQ improvement against the supplied stock parts. Simply replacing a tube or fuse for what is the stock counterpart without verifying the replacement part actually improves SQ is blind faith at best and stupidity at worst. 

@celander

I had talked with the owner of Rogue Audio who makes excellent product at reasonable price.

He know that some NOS tubes provide much better performance but could not provide those as stock tube with limited price of product.

Thus it is upto each customer to try out NOS tube.

It is same with high end fuse.

There are not many stories of new stock tubes sounding better than their nos counterparts. Yes, it does happen, but it is more the exception than the rule.

The same can be said, in my experience, for many stock parts in general. Unless you're talking about the upper echelon stuff (MSB Select Dac, TotalDac 12, Aries Ceral Kassandra, etc...). And even then, you can make them sound better with better/different parts.

Most of the time, things are built to a price. Better parts usually mean better sound. Not always, but often enough to almost say always.

The audio Alchemy DAC/Pre MSRP is $2K and a sonic bargain. TAS reviewed it and the stereo amp in March of 2016

tweak1, The AA line is discontinued as Elac purchased AA, now the AA line is in Elac full size chassis with some improvements on the sonic side.

Teajay, I just heard from Paul Laudetti. He's barely hanging on

I have oen 8ft pair of double shotgun that I would sell

klh,

Thanks!

I was wondering why no one is carrying AA anymore. I even contacted AA direct to see about a PS-5 power supply, but they had no completed inventory

Then, I heard rumors, which your comment seems to confirm.

For anyone interested in the Lab 12 Dac1 SE, here's a review 

https://www.monoandstereo.com/2013/04/lab12-dac1-special-edition-test-and.html

Just skimmed te review. WTF? It only has coax or usb

How does one get to the tubes?

@lula 

There is only one tube, so you have to be sure that it is balanced and you have to screw the lid off to replace the tube.

Just wanted to share an amazing experience with the LAB 12 DAC concerning rolling tubes.

The type of tube the Lab 12 DAC normally uses is a 6922.  When I rolled 6922 tubes it definitely improved the performance compared to the stock tube that Lab 12 ships with the unit.  A NOS CCA Siemens gold pin was my favorite of all the 6922's I tried in my system.

Now, because of a different piece of gear that I'm reviewing that uses a 396 type tube I learned that a 396 can be used in place of a 6922 by using a very inexpensive (around 20 dollars) tube socket adapter.  The 396 that I rolled in is a WE396A D getter JW Military version which for my ears offers some of the best timbres/colors, transparency, 3D images, and overall space/air around individual players. These tubes are easy to obtain and are not very expensive (around 50 to 80 dollars).

This tube modification took the LAB 12 DAC to even a higher level of  musicality and the illusion of real music through my system.  This change of tube type added what I would describe as a SET quality to the sound, rich timbres, "meat on the bones" images, and a liquidity that allows you to relax into the music.  I would assume if your system is very warm and somewhat "slow" to begin with, this could be to much of a good thing.  It always comes down to synergy with your other gear and of course personal taste.  If you own the Lab 12 DAC you owe it to yourself to run this experiment, it costs pennies and gives a totally new sound with this DAC.  

@teajay 

I currently use a MHDT Labs Balanced Pagoda DAC that typically uses 5670 tubes. I had read though, that someone used a converter and used 6922 tubes and was loving it. So I got a converter and then started reading about the "best sounding" 6922, or one that sounded like it would work for the type of sound I wanted, and I came across the Reflektor '75 6N23P SWGP Silver Shields.

Not sure if you've tried that tube in your dac, but in mine, it sounds much better than any other tube I've tried. It doesn't sound like a tube at all. I would recommend trying one and seeing what you think. It really works perfectly in my DAC. I'd also recommend trying a MHDT Labs Pagoda and seeing what you think.

I also wish there was a company that was making high quality audiophile converters for these tubes.

Hey lordcloud,

Could you describe in more detail what you mean by, "doesn't sound like a tube at all".  There are sonic differences between the same type of tube and different companies "house sound" (Mullards, Bugle Boys, Telefunkins, TungSol etc), but don't understand what your description means.

MHDT Labs designer recommends his favorite NOS tubes to use his DACS.  You can 396 or 5670 tubes to flavor the sound of their DACS to your personal taste.  However, he does not mention the tube you are using in your DAC.

The 5670 is close enough to the 6922 that you can use an adapter and use a 6922 in the DAC instead of the 5670. That's what I do currently. 

The Reflektor '75 6N23P SWGP Silver Shields doesn't sound like a tube is in the DAC to me. With the other tubes I used, the sound erred in one direction, or there was something letting me know I had something in the signal path. But with these tubes, they just seen to get out of the way, and the music seems to come through. They're very clear and relatively transparent sounding.

I bet it wouldn’t sound better (more accurate) than a SMSL SU-8 or Topping D50.

@mzkmxcv
" I bet it wouldn’t sound better (more accurate) than a SMSL SU-8 or Topping D50 "
What's your basis for this statement, have you listened to his Pagoda DAC? Have you compared all 3?

@facten

Because those two are only a hair worse then the Benchmark DAC3, and the Benchmark is considered to be totally transparent (John Atkinson of Stereophile even said “Benchmark’s DAC3 HGC offers state-of-the-art measured performance. All I can say is "Wow!"”), and likely more accurate than the Pagoda.

Also, it’s a tube DAC, so it already will be colored, by initial comment was about accuracy. The Pagoda also doesn’t list any specs except of a crappy frequency response deviation, totally a joke for a >$1000 DAC, would be even a joke at $100, Schiit even provides the whole AP report for their $100 Magni 3.

Tubes don’t offer anything that can’t be done with EQ/DSP, so I’d rather have transparent gear and tune their sound to my preference rather than buy colored gear and hope it sounds good. 
 
For those that want to tune but can’t do it upstream and don’t want say a MiniDSP, the RME ADI-2 DAC has a good amount of tuning capabilities and is a good DAC.

Because those two are only a hair worse then the Benchmark DAC3

So many people mess this up for some reason ... 

Than

Than is a conjunction used in comparisons:

Tom is smarter than Bill.

It’s warmer in Florida than in North Dakota.

Is she taller than you?

Yes, she is taller than I..

Then

Then has numerous meanings.

 At that point in time I wasn’t ready then.

Will you be home at noon? I’ll call you then.

Next, afterward I went to the store, and then to the bank

Do your homework and then go to bed

@mzkmxcv

" Because those two are only a hair worse then the Benchmark DAC3, and the Benchmark " - based upon what?
" and likely more accurate than the Pagoda. " - sounds like you actually haven't heard one to really know one way or the other

@facten  
 
I am 98% certain the Pagoda is not more accurate than the Benchmark. If you have proof otherwise (as the company selling it sure doesn’t state anything meaningful), I would like to see it. I have proof that the <$300 DACs mentioned are pretty much audibly transparent.

I don't understand statements like this: "I am 98% certain the Pagoda is not more accurate than the Benchmark. If you have proof otherwise (as the company selling it sure doesn’t state anything meaningful), I would like to see it. I have proof that the <$300 DACs mentioned are pretty much audibly transparent."

If you are this certain, you should be the one with the proof. YOU'RE the one that made the claim of one thing being more accurate or better sounding than the other, yet you think it makes sense to then ask for proof of a claim that you made. 

I would love to see this proof of any DAC being audibly transparent. I imagine you must have recordings you've made, along with a transport, cables, line stage, amplifiers, speakers, and a room that are also audibly transparent.

It would seem to impossible without these things to say that one piece of equipment is audibly transparent. But maybe I'm incorrect. I would very much like a way to know if a component is truly transparent, as that is what I'm looking for.

And I'm 98% certain that you have to no idea exactly how transparent the Pagoda is, if you have no experience with it. Not that there was a claim made of it being transparent.

My problem with the Benchmark DACs, is all of the extra things in them. I don't need a preamp or headphone amplifier, I just want a purist's DAC that is transparent, neutral, and information rich. I also wish they had an i2s input, as I'm dying to take advantage of that output of my Jay's transport.

@lordcloud

The new Benchmark DAC3 B is for you then, no volume control and no headphone out, $1700 I believe.

Measurements of Topping D50:

* SINAD (Signal over Noise & Distorion, more challenging that S/N) of 109dB
* Channel matching within 0.1dB
* Jitter-Test score of better than -125dBFS
* Linear performance within 1dB down past -120dB, so better than 20Bit
* THD below -107dB
* IMD at or below -65dB for content down past -55dBFS, and below -90dB for content down past -15dBFS
* 3rd and 5th harmonics below -115dB for a 1kHz tone


Show me where it audibly colors the sound. Keep in mind even the best rooms only allow for a dynamic range (loudest sound in the music down to the room’s noise floor) of like 60dB to 70dB, which is also why 24Bit usually has no audible benefit over 16Bit (which has >95dB or dynamic range).

Also, I^2 S offers no benefit over traditional connections (just like how DSD has no advantages over PCM), so it’s shouldn’t be a must have feature.

I state I am 98% certain as the Pagoda as effectively no specs and is a tube DAC, so near improbable that it would be as transparent as the DACs mentioned.

The DAC3 B has no AES/EBU input. And while I'm sure the coax is great, I would much rather be using the best output of my transport (which is the i2s, but I'm more ok with the balanced out than I am the coax out).

I'm afraid that measurements don't tell us if something is uncolored or not.  Measurements aren't really the entire picture. There's no way to no if a component colors the sound, without knowing exactly what the source sounds like, and then having a completely uncolored playback system as well, in an uncolored room.

I'm not i2s has no advantage over other connections. I'd much rather be able to communicate with the DAC without having to go through an extra step of conversion, if I don't have to. I prefer as little on the signal path as necessary. It also makes sense to take advantage of the source as untouched as possible. 

When you have empirical proof of the transparency if the Pagoda, or any DAC, versus another DAC, I'm all for it. Again, I want transparency, not "good sound". 

mzkmxcv -

You made the claims as to what DACs sound better than others, I did not.  I've asked you what your claims have been based upon and  guess I now understand that they are based upon published measurements.

@lordcloud

@facten

Coloration from source equipment, source material, interconnects, etc. are all identical regardless of what DAC is used, so if any inherent coloration of the DAC itself are below audible, then there is nothing else to consider.

And again, none of those connections offer any benefit over coax/USB/Toslink. Benchmark set out to make the most transparent DAC without costing $10,000 like some other company’s products, if they believed it made a difference, they would have added them, as it doesn’t cost much to do so, there are DACs less than $100 that support I^2 S, it is nothing special, “bypassing conversion” offers no benefit, it is just marketing. If it were truly the best, every reputable high end DAC would have it, yet it’s a scarce feature.

And yes, my claims are on measured performance, which are way more telling than human reviews. Let me ask you, did you hear Yanny or Laurel, did you see a white+gold dress or a black+blue dress? Our brains are easily fooled. There is also hard proof that people review items better if they like the looks and/or know it is expensive, it’s the same reason people think $5000 Toslink cables are better than $20 ones. 
 
Unless talking tube gear, meaning only solid state, the concept of “system synergy” does not exist, a DAC either performs well or it doesn’t, what speakers you have or what your RCA cables cost is irrelevant.

Frankly gentlemen,

I did not start this thread to argue over specs or other DACS in comparison to the Lab 12.  Just wanted to inform readers that the Lab12 offers reference level performance at a reasonable price point.

I'm kinda tired of the same old argument regarding measurements can tell you how a piece of gear will sound.  I have had in-house many pieces that had great measurements and sounded like crap. Others did not measure great but offered terrific performance.

Finally, since one of you loves the Benchmark DAC performance, I had one in for review, found it so sterile and mechanical sounding, yes it was burn-in, that I refused to waste my time on listening to it. So, please this hobby boils down to synergy and personal taste, not measurements. 

@teajay

You finding the Benchmark sterile is a compliment to its transparency. If you want to add colorations, that’s your preference (just like how there are countless reviews raving of its performance, that’s why I don’t trust reviews with measurements as back up), I am merely stating that if you want to hear how the song is mastered, no hiding any blemishes or “improving” the songs by adding coloration, the Benchmark is an excellent product.

As for gear measuring good but sounding like “crap”, since you don’t prefer accurate reproduction, I wouldn’t suggest giving product endorsement unless you state that coloration is your preference. Since you recommend this product as a steal of a price, if someone favoring accurate reproduction bought it, I would imagine they may be disappointed.

Sterility does not equate to transparency. Tone, timbre, sound staging, fullness and realism can most definitely point to transparency if that is in the original recording. 

The lack of those qualities can take a natural and pleasing production of a real event and render it lifeless, or sterile, as teajay pointed out. 

All the best,
Nonoise

@nonoise

Tone: Frequency response.

Timbre: Distortion.

Soundstage: Channel matching and channel separation.

Fullness: Frequency response.

Realism: Nonsense description.

The DACs I mentioned all do those well, behind human audibility.

MQA you can see, using terms like sterile or lifesless causes confusion, it’s best to actually talk about what the product is doing good or doing bad, rather than make up description words that actually don’t directly describe, like calling a Samsung TV’s picture as feminine and a Sony TV as masculine.

tim·bre/ˈtambər/noun

1. the character or quality of a musical sound or voice as distinct from its pitch and intensity."trumpet mutes with different timbres"synonyms:tone, sound, sound quality, voice, voice quality, color, tone color, tonality, resonance"the timbre of the reeds"

tone/tōn/noun

1. 1. a musical or vocal sound with reference to its pitch, quality, and strength."the piano tone appears monochrome or lacking in warmth"synonyms:timbre, sound, sound quality, voice, voice quality, color, tonality"the tone of the tuba"

I could go one but It will sound like I'm talking to some silly AI program which cannot hear but "knows" measurements.

All the best,
Nonoise

@nonoise  
 
If you read more about it, timbre is just about distortion, it’s why a guitar and a piano playing the same frequency key sounds different. 

@mzkmxcv, 

You have a peculiar way of seeing (hearing?) things.