Lonicera is the botanical name for honeysuckle.I Googled Lonicer and got a botanist of note. Was that what they were going for? Maybe organic sound or something.
Lonicera is the botanical name for honeysuckle.I Googled Lonicer and got a botanist of note. Was that what they were going for? Maybe organic sound or something.
I don't really know the specifics of your example so can't comment on that, but what I am saying is that the job of DACS in terms of what we here at audiosciencereview generally want, is transparency...ie the DAC is not adding any of it's own colour to music....so you're talking flat frequency response, high SINAD, flat linearity, low distortion. Once all those variables have been satisfied to 'good/excellent' levels then there is no audible difference between DACS, which should be the goal if you're striving for a transparent sound with no colouring coming from the DAC, it's job should be to deliver music as is without any additional colouring. Not everyone likes that approach, ie tube amps, but on this website the measure of a good DAC is complete transparency. That's my understanding, and I'm a proponent of that dogma.Maybe good DAC chips can deliver very similar output, but there is also output stage.
Do you want to say, that one opamp output stage powered with opamp (switched) ps regulator will sound the same, as the output stage built from very good high quality parts (paired transistors, good resistors and very good caps) powered with shunt power supply ?
I doubt very much. I have build the Buffalo DAC and compared to it KTB is very good, no doubts, but Buffalo performs in all areas better. Deeper bass, better resolution, better dynamics, softer, warmer more analogue sound, better 3d stereo.
Come on man don't go there. lampizator buffalo DAC? This is audio science review right here, not subjective head-fi review.Maybe good DAC chips can deliver very similar output, but there is also output stage.
Do you want to say, that one opamp output stage powered with opamp (switched) ps regulator will sound the same, as the output stage built from very good high quality parts (paired transistors, good resistors and very good caps) powered with shunt power supply ?
I doubt very much. I have build the Buffalo DAC and compared to it KTB is very good, no doubts, but Buffalo performs in all areas better. Deeper bass, better resolution, better dynamics, softer, warmer more analogue sound, better 3d stereo.
Do you want to say, that one opamp output stage powered with opamp (switched) ps regulator will sound the same, as the output stage built from very good high quality parts (paired transistors, good resistors and very good caps) powered with shunt power supply ?
Given your comparison was sighted, and you are heavily invested in the Buffalo, you will forgive us from not placing any credibility in your comparison.I doubt very much. I have build the Buffalo DAC and compared it; KTB is very good, no doubts, but Buffalo performs in all areas better. Deeper bass, better resolution, better dynamics, softer, warmer more analogue sound, better 3d stereo.
Its said to be confirmed. Scheduled for release October if i recall correctly.Dear Soncoz,
you have mastered the first level of "audio mfg game", now let's move to level 2 (not easy):
"Design and manufacture ofbudgetreasonably priced golf panther power amp/integrated amp".
Do you dare?![]()
Looking forward to your Buffalo DAC to be reviewed by Amir.Maybe good DAC chips can deliver very similar output, but there is also output stage.
Do you want to say, that one opamp output stage powered with opamp (switched) ps regulator will sound the same, as the output stage built from very good high quality parts (paired transistors, good resistors and very good caps) powered with shunt power supply ?
I doubt very much. I have build the Buffalo DAC and compared it; KTB is very good, no doubts, but Buffalo performs in all areas better. Deeper bass, better resolution, better dynamics, softer, warmer more analogue sound, better 3d stereo.
Usb c is actually pretty sturdy , i would say more sturdy than small diameter barrel connectorsThe Balance Khadas Tone Board finally arrives.Congratulations!
Maybe nit-picking but a couple of things I noticed.
Lack of a display for sample rate. Thus no way to verify if your player is outputting the correct sample rate or transcoding DSD to PCM without your knowledge.
Why not a barrel connector for power? Then supply a USB adapter if you power from your computer. USB connectors are not very robust.
Spoiler: it won't.Looking forward to your Buffalo DAC to be reviewed by Amir.
Barrel connectors are much better.Usb c is actually pretty sturdy , i would say more sturdy than small diameter barrel connectors
Does the DAC remember the filter setting ? If not, would it be possible to get (one day ...) firmware with different filter settings and max. volume ?LA-QXD1 does not remember the volume. We provide different firmware with the default volume. The factory setting volume is currently the minimum volume.
I wonder how these Soncoz Dacs will sound compared to the Toneboard too. Given this review and that both this DAC and the Toneboard use the same output op amps., I am expecting the sound to be the same or very close to the same. I look forward to hearing how they compare.I am using Khadas now and i am waiting for the delivery of LA-QXD1. I hope, that LA-QXD1 will sound better, but maybe the simple Khadas Tone Board with no frills will deliver the better sound, who knows ... I am using KTB with very good linear ps, 30cm USB-Cable + Pi4/Mezzanine/Picoreplayer. What are the distortions peaks between 20 and 500 Hz ? Maybe it comes from the power supply ? The preproduction model was measuring in this area better, or ?
Dear Soncoz,
you have mastered the first level of "audio mfg game", now let's move to level 2 (not easy):
"Design and manufacture ofbudgetreasonably priced golf panther power amp/integrated amp".
Do you dare?![]()
Or with Google Chrome.The English shop button on their website doesn't work with Firefox. :-(