Please comment on Lavry/CraneSong DAC

[Chris Kress]

Can anyone comment on the sonic differences between the Lavry DA10 and the DAC in the Crane song Avocet?

I am also concerned about running the DA10 through the avocet (or anything other than straight to the amp). Right now I have the DA10 connected directly to my amp and it is stunning but functionally awkward. I really need speaker controls and switching.

Any advice? Thanks

[mosrite]

I too run the DA10 straight to amp but need more control. I am also interested in folks response to this. I would hazard a guess though that the Avocet DAC is a step up from the DA10.

[DSD_Mastering]

Originally Posted by Chris Kress

I really need speaker controls and switching.
Any advice? Thanks

Advice?... sounds like you need the Avocet.


Regards,

[thermos]

Do the Avocet and the Hedd have the same D/A? I MUCH preferred the D/A in the Hedd to the Lavry Black D/A I now have. Sigh.

[flurdee]

I made exactly this switch about a year ago. I loved the sound of the lavry but like you mentioned its a bit awkward in everyday use if you need speaker switching or more inputs.
The Avocet....well it blew me away. The ergonomics are great - and the sound seem even more open and natural than the DA10. I loved the mids on the DA10 but the top end when coupled to my ATC monitors seemed a tad (and I mean just a tad) dark. The Avocet sorted that out and I dont feel I lost any mid definition.

I meant to sell the DA10...but I didnt as its a fantastic box to have to have around as a AES to headphone amp.

[DSD_Mastering]

Originally Posted by thermos

Do the Avocet and the Hedd have the same D/A?

Yes...


Regards,

[mischa janisch]

Originally Posted by Chris Kress

Can anyone comment on the sonic differences between the Lavry DA10 and the DAC in the Crane song Avocet?

I am also concerned about running the DA10 through the avocet (or anything other than straight to the amp). Right now I have the DA10 connected directly to my amp and it is stunning but functionally awkward. I really need speaker controls and switching.

Any advice? Thanks

Can't say much about the DA10 - but from what I've read (by Dan Lavry himself) it's almost identical to the blue - which I have. I currently use the Avocet for monitoring with it's built in DAC. I A/B'd those two a couple of times (not double blind or ABX though) and for me the question which one is better is just a matter of taste. They are both great and it's a close match and both are better than the Benchmark DAC 1 and the older version of the HEDD 192's converters which we also have...

In terms of ergonomics, functionality and flexibility (and price!!!) the Avocet is tough to beat. I wouldn't want to miss the concept of level offsets (passive - no amps!) for all inputs plus the ability to listen and check the 'Side' signal. When looking for a new monitor controller we decided between the Dangerous Monitor (the one with the boilt in DA - we do have the cheaper SR in our Post Production room), the Avocet, Crookwood and Grace - the Avocet seemed to fit our needs the best - after 11 months we are still very happy with our decission.

[Chris Kress]

I would like to thank everyone for sharing their thoughts on this specific issue. I believe I'll demo the Avocet. I hope for a seamless transition. The only way to know is to try though.. I will report back with my detailed opinion after I have worked through one for 3-4 weeks..

But please, others continue to add thoughts..

[sonicsilk]

Chris: This is Harry, the guy in Dallas who purchased a couple of 1176's and distressors from you a couple of years ago.

Are you summing in the box or analog summing?

[Chris Kress]

Hey there, nice to hear from you. I hope the goodies are treating you well.. I moved into a new mixing/mastering suite and I haven't had time to commission my console here. Sadlly, there is no rush since I do not have any clients that can really work in a way that allows me to use the console. It's the recalls that kill and it is slower (more $$) in general..

I am (many times entirely) ITB for now. My new room is good enough that I am making it work..

[Chris Kress]

I finally tried the Avocet. I really prefer the sound of my Lavry connected to the amp. And I do not like sound of the lavry going through the Avocet. I was hoping that the dac in the avocet would have an advantage since it is built in, but not to me.

The avocet puts a slight veil on the sound when the lavry is played through it. It is not dissimilar to the sound of my lavry when I ran it into my trident 65 console 2-track returns.

The dac in the avocet has a 1.5kish presence and a greater loss of focus above 5k (ish). My favorite mixes from top pros sounded a little disjointed due to changes in presence from 1.5k and below. There was a slight lack of stability below 100hz. The low frequency extension was excellent though. I probably just like the low end in the lavry and it is my preference.

Although I pre-wired for the Avocet, and I really needed it to work for me, I am sending it back. And although I'll bet I could work just fine with it, I prefer the lavry. So I am going to use 3 dacs for each of my speaker systems. I guess I'll look for a digital AES switcher.

I'll bet most people would be just fine with the Avocet. These are my thoughts and opinions.....

[Sunbreak Music]

I don't like monitoring through the HEDD, either. It's not just you.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by mosrite

I too run the DA10 straight to amp but need more control. I am also interested in folks response to this. I would hazard a guess though that the Avocet DAC is a step up from the DA10.

Why would you assume that? The quality of the Lavry gear is excellent. Regardless, if you send the DA10 into the Avocet it's going to go into the analog inputs so the Avocet DAC would have nothing to do with it. I'm using the Avocet DACs exclusively at this time and not missing anything but I'm very carefully balancing my budget at all times. I'd rather have 3 Weiss DS1 Mk3's and some high end analog processors and the Cranesong Avocet DACs than spend $10K on a Lavry Gold DAC---which choice is going to help me produce better masters? When I get the 10K and it's free and clear and I don't need any more processors or loudspeakers or amps, then I'll consider if there's a DAC that will do me better than the Avocet's and my first considerations would be the Lavry Gold and the Weiss. The Avocet's latest DAC is very very good, it even beats the Benchmark by a tiny hair in a shootout.

BK

[MattGray]

The Chris Muth DAC in the latest model Dangerous Monitor is excellent. I did a shoot out against my previous D/A which was a Benchmark DAC-1 & the Cranesong D/A & I much preferred the Dangerous overall although the Cranesong D/A was a reasonably close 2nd. Chris apparently used the Prism Dream D/A as a benchmark to aim for with his design.

Matt

[philip]

Originally Posted by Chris Kress

I finally tried the Avocet. I really prefer the sound of my Lavry connected to the amp. And I do not like sound of the lavry going through the Avocet. I was hoping that the dac in the avocet would have an advantage since it is built in, but not to me.

The avocet puts a slight veil on the sound when the lavry is played through it. It is not dissimilar to the sound of my lavry when I ran it into my trident 65 console 2-track returns.

The dac in the avocet has a 1.5kish presence and a greater loss of focus above 5k (ish). My favorite mixes from top pros sounded a little disjointed due to changes in presence from 1.5k and below. There was a slight lack of stability below 100hz. The low frequency extension was excellent though. I probably just like the low end in the lavry and it is my preference.

Although I pre-wired for the Avocet, and I really needed it to work for me, I am sending it back. And although I'll bet I could work just fine with it, I prefer the lavry. So I am going to use 3 dacs for each of my speaker systems. I guess I'll look for a digital AES switcher.

I'll bet most people would be just fine with the Avocet. These are my thoughts and opinions.....

If you haven't sent i back it's easy for you to do a valid comparison between the two. Use a high quality ADC and connect a CD player to it, play some nice, well recorded music and do a setup in your daw so you easily can switch between the DACs and the music feeding the ADC. Compare the dacs to the analogue source. Witch sounds closer to the source? Well, there you have your winner...





/P

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by philip

If you haven't sent i back it's easy for you to do a valid comparison between the two. Use a high quality ADC and connect a CD player to it, play some nice, well recorded music and do a setup in your daw so you easily can switch between the DACs and the music feeding the ADC. Compare the dacs to the analogue source. Witch sounds closer to the source? Well, there you have your winner...





/P

Not necessarily! While accuracy is the goal of the monitoring system, you have to consider the interactions of the DAC, the analog portion of the monitor controller, the power amp and the loudspeaker and the room and maybe even the interconnect cable! It's the sum total of how these components work together in the room that governs your choice of any one piece of gear that's part of the chain. I love the Avocet, I think it is very accurate, but I do know that Cranesong line amps have a sound, a very nice, slightly euphonic coloration. This seems to complement very well my Lipinskis, and my Lipinski amps and my room. The speakers are audio microscopes. The net result is a monitor system that's accurate yet more tolerable to the ear than say, the Lipinskis fed by a Bryston and a minimalist line amp or direct from a DAC.

BK

[matucha]

I hear similar things that some of you wrote here.

1) avocet rounds a tiny bit the input signal from the analog ins and gives it's own sound to these sources... just a tiny bit, but it still counts.

2) lavry - naked to the monitors sounds more direct (again splitting the hairs)

In my view it is a matter of taste. The level is the same to me. Avocet is a bit softer sounding and more pleasant. I don't think those differencies could have any significant influence on my results.


However I was very surprised with one thing. One day a one guy came here with his prototype of (very non-compromise) DAC. We tried it connected through avocet (together with lavry blue and minidac) and the results were blue-lavry-prototype were one level and minidac couldn't deliver what the others did.
But then we connected the prototype directly to the speakers and the sound was completely different. Maybe it was the impedance (but he told me there couldn't be any issue with impedance), but the result was very interesting. The soundstage was much better defined, all the range was much more alive. I quite liked it... but there was one major flaw. It sounded really harsh this way. So maybe we all vere fooled by this frequency tilt caused by some impedance related effect. But what was sure after that, avocet and it's buffer amps are not transparent.


But then... avocet stayed and I'm very happy with it.

[philip]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Not necessarily! While accuracy is the goal of the monitoring system, you have to consider the interactions of the DAC, the analog portion of the monitor controller, the power amp and the loudspeaker and the room and maybe even the interconnect cable! It's the sum total of how these components work together in the room that governs your choice of any one piece of gear that's part of the chain. I love the Avocet, I think it is very accurate, but I do know that Cranesong line amps have a sound, a very nice, slightly euphonic coloration. This seems to complement very well my Lipinskis, and my Lipinski amps and my room. The speakers are audio microscopes. The net result is a monitor system that's accurate yet more tolerable to the ear than say, the Lipinskis fed by a Bryston and a minimalist line amp or direct from a DAC.

BK

So you'll choose a not so transparent DAC over a transparent one just 'cause you got a incorrect monitoring system? Interesting...

[kjg]

Originally Posted by philip

So you'll choose a not so transparent DAC over a transparent one just 'cause you got a incorrect monitoring system? Interesting...

well, if you phrase it that way... :D
I would also reason that you get an as transparent as possible DAC and speakers that are a bit less fatiguing (or whatever is the term for what the Avocet mellows out).

I guess it is ok, as long as the sum of the monitoring chain is accurate and comfortable to work with, and the engineer knows what he is listening to.

Of course, balancing budget is an important factor. Mister BK found a blend of gear that works for him within the budget.
In theory it is all pretty simple... Just get the Lavry Gold, the 250K monitoring and have a room designed for you. Real life is slightly different, as we all now.

cheers,
kjg

[Chris Kress]

Originally Posted by kjg

.....as long as the sum of the monitoring chain is accurate and comfortable to work

This is my goal. I have mixed unsuccessfully on enough DACs that I know exactly what to listen for concerning a sound that will not work for me. If anything sounds uncomfortable to me, I can't get work done. It is horrible.

Originally Posted by bob katz

Not necessarily! While accuracy is the goal of the monitoring system, you have to consider the interactions of the DAC, the analog portion of the monitor controller, the power amp and the loudspeaker and the room and maybe even the interconnect cable! It's the sum total of how these components work together in the room that governs your choice of any one piece of gear that's part of the chain.
BK

I agree, I have a fully serviced Bryston 4b (just recapped), my hafler trans nova 300, zoalla and mogami cables. Each leans a slightly different way and I mix and match to suit.

Otherwise, I just received a coleman m3ph mk2 today and I'll be staying here for a while. For those who love their Lavry DA-10 or any other dac, I would recommend this as a possible combination. I'll report back more definitely in a while after I finish a few projects.

[kjg]

Originally Posted by Chris Kress

Each leans a slightly different way and I mix and match to suit.

Yes, that is the real life scenario. You mix and match to end up with a chain that is comfortable to you personally. One that fits your ears, taste, budget, acoustics etc etc. Of course.
In the end, it comes down to the engineer knowing his monitoring; it'll always lean a certain way a little and have its deficiencies anyway.

Otherwise, I just received a coleman m3ph mk2 today and I'll be staying here for a while. For those who love their Lavry DA-10 or any other dac, I would recommend this as a possible combination. I'll report back more definitely in a while after I finish a few projects.

Great! Let us know how it's working for you.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by philip

So you'll choose a not so transparent DAC over a transparent one just 'cause you got a incorrect monitoring system? Interesting...

Really? What's your definition of "incorrect"? Not one SINGLE component of a monitor chain is ever perfectly CORRECT! You have to consider your monitor chain and room acoustics as a SYSTEM. Changing any one component affects the total sound quality.

I didn't say that one DAC is necessarily more "transparent" than the other. It's an interesting semantic exercise, but would you kick an Avocet DAC out of bed just because you bought a Lavry Black? Can't there be two devices which sound different, but both get the rating of "transparent"? I know that by definition "transparent" means "has no effect on the sound". But the fact is that every DAC has an effect on the sound, in different ways. And the way to get the most out of that DAC is to marry it with associated components that help to get the most out of it.

This includes: jitter, master clock, DAC, analog line amplifiers, interconnects, power amplifier, loudspeaker cable, loudspeakers, room, and room treatment.

It's also true that a certain amount of harmonic distortion may sound better and more "transparent" than vanishingly low THD. Because other components in the chain may be delivering excess of IM distortion or high order harmonics which sounds better when masked by slightly greater lower HD. You'd think: Well, I won't buy something that produces more than x percent of THD.

For example, for whatever reason I can't tolerate a Bryston amp in my system. The speakers reveal the graininess in it. Does this mean that a Bryston is not a transparent amp? Not true, in some other systems, a Bryston can sound fantastic and both systems can be of high quality (transparent) mastering grade if you pick the right complementary components.

So, what's incorrect about balancing the total system till it is correct! It's holistic and MUST be considered in toto. Have I made my point?

BK

[Chris Kress]

Originally Posted by kjg

Yes, that is the real life scenario. You mix and match to end up with a chain that is comfortable to you personally. One that fits your ears, taste, budget, acoustics etc etc. Of course.
In the end, it comes down to the engineer knowing his monitoring; it'll always lean a certain way a little and have its deficiencies anyway.

Great! Let us know how it's working for you.

Well, I decided to reconnect the Lavry right to the amp. It sounds like it is as close to the truth as I can get right now. God forbid I hear the gold series... and now my speaker selection process is very awkward..

[philip]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Really? What's your definition of "incorrect"? Not one SINGLE component of a monitor chain is ever perfectly CORRECT! You have to consider your monitor chain and room acoustics as a SYSTEM. Changing any one component affects the total sound quality.

I didn't say that one DAC is necessarily more "transparent" than the other. It's an interesting semantic exercise, but would you kick an Avocet DAC out of bed just because you bought a Lavry Black? Can't there be two devices which sound different, but both get the rating of "transparent"? I know that by definition "transparent" means "has no effect on the sound". But the fact is that every DAC has an effect on the sound, in different ways. And the way to get the most out of that DAC is to marry it with associated components that help to get the most out of it.

This includes: jitter, master clock, DAC, analog line amplifiers, interconnects, power amplifier, loudspeaker cable, loudspeakers, room, and room treatment.

It's also true that a certain amount of harmonic distortion may sound better and more "transparent" than vanishingly low THD. Because other components in the chain may be delivering excess of IM distortion or high order harmonics which sounds better when masked by slightly greater lower HD. You'd think: Well, I won't buy something that produces more than x percent of THD.

For example, for whatever reason I can't tolerate a Bryston amp in my system. The speakers reveal the graininess in it. Does this mean that a Bryston is not a transparent amp? Not true, in some other systems, a Bryston can sound fantastic and both systems can be of high quality (transparent) mastering grade if you pick the right complementary components.

So, what's incorrect about balancing the total system till it is correct! It's holistic and MUST be considered in toto. Have I made my point?

BK

Yes you made your point, I think you are wrong. Sure you have to balance your system as one but putting taste in front of science is just lazy.
There are some parts of mastering thats is subjective. Thats the art of mastering. But to be able to do this you'll have to have a system that you can trust 100%, choosing DACs cause they sound better is not scientific. Choosing speakers, amps, preamps or anything in mastering from recommendations is not enough. It is so easy to do valid tests on masteringqeuippment but no one is doing it. Why? I don't know, but it makes me a bit dissapointed when even you leave science for subjective nonsens. Well I think you get my point even though my written english sucks...
/P

PS. the Cranesong DAC is possibly much more transparant then Lavry Black, the threadmaker should easyly find this out with my simple test but...

/P

[thermos]

Originally Posted by philip

Yes you made your point, I think you are wrong. Sure you have to balance your system as one but putting taste in front of science is just lazy.
There are some parts of mastering thats is subjective. Thats the art of mastering. But to be able to do this you'll have to have a system that you can trust 100%, choosing DACs cause they sound better is not scientific. Choosing speakers, amps, preamps or anything in mastering from recommendations is not enough. It is so easy to do valid tests on masteringqeuippment but no one is doing it. Why? I don't know, but it makes me a bit dissapointed when even you leave science for subjective nonsens. Well I think you get my point even though my written english sucks...
/P

PS. the Cranesong DAC is possibly much more transparant then Lavry Black, the threadmaker should easyly find this out with my simple test but...

/P

I really don't think it's that cut and dry. You can disagree and that's fine, but I know not one of my peers would hire a mastering engineer who approaches it that scientifically because in the end, it's all about how it translates. I'd have to agree with Bob in this case in that if you have a hard sounding amp, hard sounding speakers/wire and a hard sounding dac all claiming to be accurate, then it's not gonna make you want to work and it probably won't translate. The goal is to make something you think sounds Its best and gets you stoked, and know how it translates to the outside world.
Bob, I noticed you have a Forssell monitor controller. Does it have his dac in it? I'm really enjoying mine, much more than the Black and possibly the Hedd (Didnt do a direct comparison there but from my recollection).

[Chris Kress]

Originally Posted by philip

Yes you made your point, I think you are wrong. Sure you have to balance your system as one but putting taste in front of science is just lazy.
There are some parts of mastering thats is subjective. Thats the art of mastering. But to be able to do this you'll have to have a system that you can trust 100%, choosing DACs cause they sound better is not scientific. Choosing speakers, amps, preamps or anything in mastering from recommendations is not enough. It is so easy to do valid tests on masteringqeuippment but no one is doing it. Why? I don't know, but it makes me a bit dissapointed when even you leave science for subjective nonsens. Well I think you get my point even though my written english sucks...
/P

PS. the Cranesong DAC is possibly much more transparant then Lavry Black, the threadmaker should easyly find this out with my simple test but...

/P

I truly appreciate your opinion but I am not a scientist. And how do you know that my tests were not valid anyway. Reguardless, I would be interested in the simple tests you propose. I will say that I have learned much from keeping an open mind.. Please explain further.......

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by thermos

I really don't think it's that cut and dry. You can disagree and that's fine, but I know not one of my peers would hire a mastering engineer who approaches it that scientifically because in the end, it's all about how it translates. I'd have to agree with Bob in this case in that if you have a hard sounding amp, hard sounding speakers/wire and a hard sounding dac all claiming to be accurate, then it's not gonna make you want to work and it probably won't translate. The goal is to make something you think sounds Its best and gets you stoked, and know how it translates to the outside world.
Bob, I noticed you have a Forssell monitor controller. Does it have his dac in it? I'm really enjoying mine, much more than the Black and possibly the Hedd (Didnt do a direct comparison there but from my recollection).

I think the poster who disagreed may not have worked in the real world. And the definition of "perfect" has many answers. If his favorite DAC has harmonic distortion "below 0.1" and another DAC has harmonic distortion "below 0.003%" does that mean that the latter DAC is more perfect? I wish it were that simple. Subjective judgments as to the quality of the chain are ultimately the only standard we can use, as long as we can also verify by measurements that the total chain meets certain acoustical and electrical specfications, it's all the acceptable variances and cumulative effects that make putting together an integrated system both an art and a science.

What is the definition of a "perfect" mastering monitor loudspeaker? Can this judgment ever be made by measurement alone? If the listening room is a little "lively" acoustically, then a loudspeaker with a wider dispersion (perhaps technically "better" or "more perfect" in the other poster's definition) may sound wrong in that room. That's why this is an application art and a science.

The professional acoustician knows what data to use and what data to ignore and how to weight that data. He listens first, measures second, listens again, and measures again. You're not going to get anywhere by citing nebulous claims that "you cannot justify a less than perfect speaker". Every mastering engineer will tell you that your reactions to a particular DAC or line amp or even interconnect cable will be directly related to your speaker and room combination!

Some people prefer tubes in their monitor chains. But tubes are "less than perfect". Does this make them unacceptable? There are a number of speakers that some would call "unlistenable" that take on a whole new life driven by tubes. It's not my bag, but enough, I think I made my point. I'm not going to defend the art of system integration to someone who thinks that "perfect" can ever be defined with individual equipment specs and not knowledge of how the equipment goes together.

BK

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by thermos

Bob, I noticed you have a Forssell monitor controller. Does it have his dac in it? I'm really enjoying mine, much more than the Black and possibly the Hedd (Didnt do a direct comparison there but from my recollection).

My Forssell is a line stage monitor controller ("preamp") with no DAC integrated. It's currently in an auxiliay listening room. When my Avocet blew (it was my fault, I was working on the circuit board and didn't realize the power was plugged in) I put the Forssell back in the main room and once again marvelled at the "transparency". But Philip would be dismayed to know that Forssell's opamps have only about 20-40 dB of open loop gain and under full negative feedback still exhibit meaningful amounts of harmonic distortion compared to a 5534. But I would NEVER kick a Forssell preamp out of bed. Yet I wouldn't marry it with a monitor chain that had certain speakers and certain power amps.

It IS all about system integration and balance!

BK

[tengu]

Originally Posted by philip

If you haven't sent i back it's easy for you to do a valid comparison between the two. Use a high quality ADC and connect a CD player to it, play some nice, well recorded music and do a setup in your daw so you easily can switch between the DACs and the music feeding the ADC. Compare the dacs to the analogue source. Witch sounds closer to the source? Well, there you have your winner...
/P

Isn't the ADC another variable which limits the affectiveness of this test?

Sure it is a high quality ADC that you are talking about but so are the DAC's and in these tests the differences that are so minimal that putting another converter in the test increases the inability to accurately isolate the differences between DAC's?

Not to mention the converter in the CD player.

Couldn't the CD DAC introduce certain jitter that already exists in one of DAC's but not in the other. This jitter would show in both DAC's after the CD output is recorded through the ADC. It could possibly disadvantage one of the DAC's in this test, the one that has better accuracy in the area where the jitter is introduced in the CD DAC.

Hopefully this makes sense to people. Basically there are 3 variables now instead of 1.

[MattGray]

It's amazing how many ME's claim to have "transparent" or "flat" mastering rooms & yet they all sound completely different from each other. Sure some are going to be more accurate than others, but a lot of it is still down to budget & personal taste.

The main thing is that you know your room & monitoring intimately & that your work translates well outside the room. I doubt there is such a thing as the 'perfect' room.

Matt