I'm having trouble believing my ears right now so I wanted to put the question to the slut community.
I just bought a Lavry DA10 Digital to Analog convertor for my monitors. I assumed it would be a big improvement over my Fireface 800 converters. Especially in regards to detail and stereo image. To my surprise though the fireface sounds more open in the midrange. I'd almost go as far as to say the Lavry sounds "muddy" in comparison.... *GASP* Believe me I know that's the last description I'd ever expect to hear about Lavry converters.
Am I missing something here? The Lavry is connected with an optical cable (I also tried a coaxial spdif) and there is nothing else in the signal chain between the monitors (Dynaudio's) and the converters. The difference is even more pronounced on headphones, A/B'ing the two units.
what gives???
__________________
"I'm somewhere where I don't know where I am."
-homer simpson
what you are hearing is the true sound of your A/D for the first time
thats very possible. I've definitely tried to keep an open mind about that. My ears are so used to hearing the convertors on the FF for 5-6 years I know my brain will require some recalibration.
But still.... there is a very small, but noticeable difference on the clarity of the midrange between the two. Listening to my reference tracks (Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Peter Gabrial) I can really hear an openness with the FF. Granted, I also hear more digital artifacts in the top end (Lavry handles that much better).
I used the Lavry Blue DA (very similar to the DA10 from what I hear) for years and it sounds pretty damn good. It has a very deep low end and is pretty wide and clear. I'm quite sure it would be more full sounding than your ff convertors so this could be what you are hearing. It's all about combinations...maybe your monitors are muddy and you are just now finding this out. It is entirely possible that the thinner DA in your ff pairs better with your speakers. You should try mixing a track through the Lavry and see how it translates to the real world. If you get to a finished product quicker, and it sounds better, then your Lavry purchase is justified and you should let your ears get used to it. If it causes you problems that you never had before, you may want to hold out on a DA until you upgrade your speakers.
I'm having trouble believing my ears right now so I wanted to put the question to the slut community.
I just bought a Lavry DA10 Digital to Analog convertor for my monitors. I assumed it would be a big improvement over my Fireface 800 converters. Especially in regards to detail and stereo image. To my surprise though the fireface sounds more open in the midrange. I'd almost go as far as to say the Lavry sounds "muddy" in comparison.... *GASP* Believe me I know that's the last description I'd ever expect to hear about Lavry converters.
Am I missing something here? The Lavry is connected with an optical cable (I also tried a coaxial spdif) and there is nothing else in the signal chain between the monitors (Dynaudio's) and the converters. The difference is even more pronounced on headphones, A/B'ing the two units.
what gives???
I have Lavry black and blue ad/da but havent used a FF. Light pipe has sounded bad on any converter I've tried where there was an option for coax or AES. Brands of cable usually make a difference too, IMO. I like Monster 1000 best, so far.
As far as my preference for Lavry's is black in both directions.
I have Lavry black and blue ad/da but havent used a FF. Light pipe has sounded bad on any converter I've tried where there was an option for coax or AES. Brands of cable usually make a difference too, IMO. I like Monster 1000 best, so far.
As far as my preference for Lavry's is black in both directions.
OK, so I'm not really buying what you're saying. But, I'm willing to listen. First, I don't see any reason why lightpipe should sound "muddy". There's no reason the little 1s and 0s shouldn't be transferred just fine over lightpipe. The Lavry will have great jitter rejection, so I just don't see how the digital interface will make a difference unless something is truly broken. Even then, the result would not be anything "muddy". Second, brands of cables. I'll admit to hearing differences in cables in some (very limited) circumstances, but any decently engineered cable would do just fine. For digital audio cables, any competently engineered cable will "sound" the same as any other competently engineered cable. I personally stay away from Monster.
I'm having trouble believing my ears right now so I wanted to put the question to the slut community.
I just bought a Lavry DA10 Digital to Analog convertor for my monitors. I assumed it would be a big improvement over my Fireface 800 converters. Especially in regards to detail and stereo image. To my surprise though the fireface sounds more open in the midrange. I'd almost go as far as to say the Lavry sounds "muddy" in comparison.... *GASP* Believe me I know that's the last description I'd ever expect to hear about Lavry converters.
Am I missing something here? The Lavry is connected with an optical cable (I also tried a coaxial spdif) and there is nothing else in the signal chain between the monitors (Dynaudio's) and the converters. The difference is even more pronounced on headphones, A/B'ing the two units.
Light pipe has sounded bad on any converter I've tried where there was an option for coax or AES. Brands of cable usually make a difference too, IMO.
Agreed. I wouldn't believe it myself but I've done a blind test before. Lightpipe cables do make a difference, but it's hardly worth it. Lightpipe sounds bad for some reason or another. I've had 8 channels going over lightpipe and that was the most horrid sounding thing ever. It was great when it was the only cheap way to transfer 8 digital channels... but otherwise why transduce the signal into light for a 2-ft run? It makes sense if you're a cable or phone company sending a signal 200 miles... or even for digital stage snakes, but not from converter to recorder; not in this day and age. It's a nice feature to have for connectivity however.
__________________
For mixing, Voxengo SPAN is my most often used tool... it's great when your ears tell you there's something wrong but you can't quite turn the right knob (and it's FREE too!!)
Agreed. I wouldn't believe it myself but I've done a blind test before. Lightpipe cables do make a difference, but it's hardly worth it. Lightpipe sounds bad for some reason or another. I've had 8 channels going over lightpipe and that was the most horrid sounding thing ever. It was great when it was the only cheap way to transfer 8 digital channels... but otherwise why transduce the signal into light for a 2-ft run? It makes sense if you're a cable or phone company sending a signal 200 miles... or even for digital stage snakes, but not from converter to recorder; not in this day and age. It's a nice feature to have for connectivity however.
There's something else going on. Properly configured optical cables have a zero error rate for practical purposes. "Transduce into light": do you really know what you mean by that? The signal is being transmitted in the MHz frequency range as self-clocking digital pulses. There is no notion of "jitter" or loss in an ADAT transfer, unless you mean jitter in the receiver, but you don't mean that and it doesn't mean what you think in the case of a digital transmission anyway (there is no converter at work, it's more akin to a file transfer than to the clocking of a converter).
If the receiver really can't lock on to the incoming data, it will lose sync and tell you about it. If it has sync then it has the data. It's an all or nothing kind of protocol.
If the receiver really can't lock on to the incoming data, it will lose sync and tell you about it. If it has sync then it has the data. It's an all or nothing kind of protocol.
-synthoid
That makes sense, that's why I said "I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't heard it", and "for some reason or another" ... because I wasn't sure. It always made sense to me that whether a digital signal was sent in packets or streamed that the error rate should be zero. But then again things never work out the way they do on paper. And as for "transducing" ... I was merely saying that converting the signal into light is highly unneccessary when we have usb. It's a nice gimmick tho.
PS: "If it has sync then it has the data" - perfectly logical - otherwise it would be analog or just broken.
Agreed. I wouldn't believe it myself but I've done a blind test before. Lightpipe cables do make a difference, but it's hardly worth it. Lightpipe sounds bad for some reason or another. I've had 8 channels going over lightpipe and that was the most horrid sounding thing ever. It was great when it was the only cheap way to transfer 8 digital channels... but otherwise why transduce the signal into light for a 2-ft run? It makes sense if you're a cable or phone company sending a signal 200 miles... or even for digital stage snakes, but not from converter to recorder; not in this day and age. It's a nice feature to have for connectivity however.
Did the blind test use all the same hardware except cables? Obviously not or what are they plugged into? Not the same hole? What other factors were involved in the test? The answer lies there I think.
Did the blind test use all the same hardware except cables? Obviously not or what are they plugged into? Not the same hole? What other factors were involved in the test? The answer lies there I think.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Gearslutz App
The blind test involved having someone switch the optical cables (or not) while I left the room. That was the only difference. I don't remember the brands, but the more expensive one didn't sound better. The cable connected the same CD player to the same DA converter.
Quote:
Nope -promise optical will not equal copper. I chalk it up to error rate--it's not a data transfer-it's real time.
Anyway...I also wouldn't go so far as to call it "horrid"...or even "bad"...but, it's not just subtlety the sonic step down from copper.
That said...I think this is either something miscpnfigured, or OP is hearing more than he used to...and not liking.
Yea optical definitely changes the sound for whatever reason. I talked to Rory at Benchmark about it actually... he didn't believe me haha ... but he suggested I use AES/EBU and that made a noticeable difference. Optical sounds a bit hissy/tinny. I really honestly have no clue why. Optical was simply way more convenient than juggling DA-88 and ADAT cables and their respective insert cards. Optical is a great format to have for connectivity but not so much to use as a main interface these days. Like I said it used to be the only way to transfer 8 channels at once without buying expensive adapter cards and cables for proprietary digital connections.
I've got one of these units via AES hooked to an apogee. I tried direct to mac optical and it was horrible. Anyway, i have an old mac and i think 44.1 was the max resolution on the optical out and after trying once i won't be trying that again.
With the AES connection I did have to use PLL wide mode, it wasn't working in crystal mode. Lavry support never did explain why but it sounded exactly the same but without bursts of noise, so i didn't really care.
The sound is quite transparent, I have never a/b'd the fireface - perhaps your lavry is broken (analog out does have an analog stage), perhaps its the way it is connected - either cables or the optical interface it is connected with. Or perhaps the FF has a high end lift that your ears are missing. Its a motley combination to expect anyone has ab'd these two units, but the result is suspect so i'd either try AES, or a different da10.
I have Lavry black and blue ad/da but havent used a FF. Light pipe has sounded bad on any converter I've tried where there was an option for coax or AES. Brands of cable usually make a difference too, IMO. I like Monster 1000 best, so far.
As far as my preference for Lavry's is black in both directions.
LOL.
Do this test: Play and record a source out of the light pipe and AES or Spdif on separate passes. Line them up to sample accuracy in your DAW of choice and make sure the levels between them are exactly the same. Now reverse the polarity on one of them, play back and listen to complete silence.
Now do the same test using expensive vs cheap cables at varying lengths and listen to the same thing happen.
I plugged my co-amp into my optical jacks, and condensed the low pass filters so I could hear more bass,
but since I mostly do rock, my butt fell off - and I lost all my data because I wasn't using Monster cables.
I honestly can't decide who's smoking more crack in this thread.
At any rate, I haven't been entirely unhappy with my FF800, and I'm looking forward to using my UFX when I get the advanced remote.
OP, as Headstack said above, it IS possible you're actually hearing the details in your program material for the first time.
The guys at Lavry don't **** around. Although, to be fair, RME is a serious company. Perhaps, not quite the same level?
I plugged my co-amp into my optical jacks, and condensed the low pass filters so I could hear more bass,
but since I mostly do rock, my butt fell off - and I lost all my data because I wasn't using Monster cables.
.
Yeah I had a similar experience and had to call the plumber.
But then again things never work out the way they do on paper.
There's no paper involved. What you're missing is that there is no realistic opportunity for an ADAT receiver to receive a "degraded" signal. It's transmitting frames of data in a fixed format; it either gets them or it doesn't. Not getting them doesn't mean that things sound muddy, haha. It means no audio, or a big pop as the receiver shuts down hard midstream.
If you download a file from iTunes on a bad internet connection, it doesn't lose its midrange clarity. You get half the file or no file or something.
If ADAT were an inherently lossy protocol as you describe it, it wouldn't have been used to connect Apogee converters to PTHD rigs in studios all over the world for the past couple decades.
It either gets it or it doesn't...right? And what happens when it doesn't get it? Or it gets it at the wrong time? The oversimplified understanding of how digital audio works sometimes amazes me. There's so much more to ones and zeros than people here seem to get.
BTW...Apogee has always had AES, no? Coax SPDIF. And as far back as AD8000 has had TDM connections. WHy on earth would you assume optical is the way TDM studios would hook them up? But, like I said...it's not like it makes it "bad"...it's just not as good.
wow. thanks guys. this has become a very entertaining thread
one thing that was brought up that I'm curious about is the clocking. The FF800 is clocked to a Burl B2 AD. I wonder if the Lavry being 2 steps removed from that source is having some trouble with that.
Also, the FF800 doesn't have AES outs so my only options are lightpipe or coax. I guess I'll try coax next.
and lastly, I did buy the DA10 used recently off a gearslut. Maybe it's a lemon.
Fireface 800 has very very nice DA stage ! thats what you get !
Mr. L avry has very strange 'opinions' about digital audio.
i am not surprised by your discovery !
Quote:
Originally Posted by South Brokelyn
wow. thanks guys. this has become a very entertaining thread
one thing that was brought up that I'm curious about is the clocking. The FF800 is clocked to a Burl B2 AD. I wonder if the Lavry being 2 steps removed from that source is having some trouble with that.
Also, the FF800 doesn't have AES outs so my only options are lightpipe or coax. I guess I'll try coax next.
and lastly, I did buy the DA10 used recently off a gearslut. Maybe it's a lemon.
I'd suggest posting a diagram of how everything digital in your studio is connected to help validate your next set of listening tests.
__________________ James Lehmann
Voice-Over Artist - Project Studio Jockey www.jameslehmann.net
· Use your real name - keep Gearslutz authoritative, accountable and courteous. · Stop the superlatives madness - just say no to gear threads with the word 'best' in the title. · Words or WAVs? The former are interesting, the latter are convincing.
· Author of the unofficial GEARSLUTZ APPLICATION FORM
I'm having trouble believing my ears right now so I wanted to put the question to the slut community.
I just bought a Lavry DA10 Digital to Analog convertor for my monitors. I assumed it would be a big improvement over my Fireface 800 converters. Especially in regards to detail and stereo image. To my surprise though the fireface sounds more open in the midrange. I'd almost go as far as to say the Lavry sounds "muddy" in comparison.... *GASP* Believe me I know that's the last description I'd ever expect to hear about Lavry converters.
Am I missing something here? The Lavry is connected with an optical cable (I also tried a coaxial spdif) and there is nothing else in the signal chain between the monitors (Dynaudio's) and the converters. The difference is even more pronounced on headphones, A/B'ing the two units.
what gives???
Did you purchase this DA10 new? If so, is there a reason why you have not contacted techsupport@lavryengineering.com regrading this matter?
If not; have you considered that the DA10 might not be functioning properly?
It could be possible the lavry is simply not a good DA. I have never used one.
do you have everything clocked to the lavry?
This would be contrary to the experience of many DA10 owners. Thanks for stating that you have never used one.
The DA10 always clocks to the input (it has no digital outputs) and used advance design to minimize the effects of source jitter on conversion quality. This is why the DA10 and DA11 out-perform most other DA converters many different systems.
To my surprise though the fireface sounds more open in the midrange. I'd almost go as far as to say the Lavry sounds "muddy" in comparison.... *GASP*
I have a FF400 and a DA-10. I had the same experience as you... at first. Just get used to the DA-10 for a few months, then do an A/B if you can. What you might notice is that the FF sounds pumped in the mids, and harsh in the top-end, while the Lavry is just smooth, accurate and musical. It's not perfect but for me it is definitely good enough, and in my opinion, a whole lot better then the FF.
Also, I tried the difference between optical and rca on the lavry. I prefer rca, but the difference is very small to my ears. I don't think this is the reason for your surprise.
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
(and it's FREE too!!)
...Don't forget to tip your waitresses...
