Lampizator Level 4 Gen 4 Tube Roller's DAC

[wisnon]

I was following the design of the Lampizator when the designer was using a Wolfson chip. I had no idea he had moved on since then.

I can't comment on how well the elaborate power supply in it compares to the elaborate power supply in my own product. I use some ultra low noise satellite and mobile phone components since they measure far better on my scope than the more traditional stuff used in digital HIFI equipment.

I can't comment on the analogue stage in the Lampzi either and how well the implementation of those expensive resistors and output valves compares against my own output stage. My design is based on abolishing the need for those parts anywhere in the circuit, which saves on complexity and cost.

It's the final sounding result in this difference in design approach that interest me most. That's why I am so keen to compare as many very expensive DACs as I can to the TC-7533. I am also trying to find out if the cost of diminishing returns are still valid or not.

I didnt say he uses expensive resistors, I said even the cheapest parts like resistors chosen can have a huge part to play in SQ. As you are well aware, we cant measure everything and maybe not even the most important things, so current measurements alone cant guarantee good sound. I also agree that sattelite tech, as used in the Calyx Femto Dac is useful for some parts in DAC design, so your DAC sounds promising.

I agree though that a listening comparison is best to indicate what is more pleasing to a person. Tell me, which Dac have you compared yours to so far?

Lukasz never used a Wolfson commercially. People just speculated about that.

[User211]

I shall ask someone to take a TC-7533 along with them to Bristol.
I have been led to believe that the Lampizator uses a Wolfson DAC chip as well. If that is the case I would be interested to find out what additional info can be extracted from the digital data in an audio file. I am not interested in the sound signature of the valves and caps in the analogue signal path. I just want to know what else there is left to convert in an audio file that I haven't managed to get to.

This post makes no sense. Sending someone else won't answer your question as you would need to be here to hear any differences. Someone else can't really do that for you. The two bolded sentences conflict with each other.

A few other points:

The default level 4 valve is an ECC40 which is cheap. It also uses Russian mil spec caps by default which are not expensive. I just decided to buy expensive ones.

The level 3 DAC uses cheap Russian components. According to Lukasz, making a good sounding DAC is hard with cheap components, but a lot easier with expensive ones. I believe I have paid for his experience - read his websites and think about the amount of time he has spent messing with DACs and assessing the results aurally.

I'm only interested in a Beresford comparison if you arrive with one personally, Stan. In which case I'll happily feed you well and treat you with respect!

[StanleyB]

This post makes no sense. Sending someone else won't answer your question as you would need to be here to hear any differences. Someone else can't really do that for you. The two bolded sentences conflict with each other.

I listen to what my customers say, and compare that to what I have found or managed to do. If they match up then I know if we are all on the same wavelength .
One thing that I picked up when I worked for a couple of companies in the electrical and electronic field is how quickly sales people tell you what you should be hearing, instead of listening to what the customers say they are hearing. (Anyone remembers those excited salesmen doing a LP12 demonstration?).
To give you an idea of what I might be referring to: those audible key differences between the Bushmaster MKI and MKII were the improvements I set out to achieve. But I did not tell anyone what they should be hearing. I waited to see if they had been able to notice those key differences. Once confirmations started to come in I knew whose hearing I could trust with blind faith.
And that's what makes it possible for me to trust what numerous owners of my products say.

[User211]

I bet it is a great DAC, Stan. I think the little Jolida Glass FX II is a great DAC. Neither are expensive. I take the point of your last post, but there's no substitute for you witnessing it with your own ears. You may even walk away convinced of Beresford superiority! And who would I be to tell you you were wrong?

All academic, however.

[StanleyB]

I bet it is a great DAC, Stan. I think the little Jolida Glass FX II is a great DAC. Neither are expensive. I take the point of your last post, but there's no substitute for you witnessing it with your own ears. You may even walk away convinced of Beresford superiority! And who would I be to tell you you were wrong?

I have faith in my customers when they tell me what they like, don't like, and would like. Similarly I have faith in my customers when they describe to me what they hear. I wish that more designers would trust their customers to that extent, rather than relying on just their own ears. Your own ears can deceive you without you realizing that.

It's not a case of superiority. It's about knowing where items converge and diverge. And once I have that info I can analyse it and compare the input from different people against each other to find any common denominators.

I would struggle to come up with the blue print for a £1K DAC, let alone a £3K one. And the simple reason for that is because I would spend a lot more time trying to get the same result for a fraction of the cost. An example of that is when I kept tweaking the £100 TC-7510 till it was a close match to the £3K Chord64 and £5K Naim CDP sound wise.

[NRG]

This post makes no sense. Sending someone else won't answer your question as you would need to be here to hear any differences. Someone else can't really do that for you. The two bolded sentences conflict with each other.

A few other points:

The default level 4 valve is an ECC40 which is cheap. It also uses Russian mil spec caps by default which are not expensive. I just decided to buy expensive ones.

The level 3 DAC uses cheap Russian components. According to Lukasz, making a good sounding DAC is hard with cheap components, but a lot easier with expensive ones. I believe I have paid for his experience - read his websites and think about the amount of time he has spent messing with DACs and assessing the results aurally.
......

Valve prices are usually dictated by fashion or rarity, prices can have no bearing on sound quality. Same can go for caps as well, circuit implementation is the hard part, if its poor then no amount of designer components will make it better.

[StanleyB]

According to Lukasz, making a good sounding DAC is hard with cheap components, but a lot easier with expensive ones.

It is hard for him.
And there is where someone like me excels. I don't use a blinkered approach when coming up with cost effective solutions.

[User211]

It is hard for him.
And there is where someone like me excels. I don't use a blinkered approach when coming up with cost effective solutions.

Well your ego is intact, Stan.

My money is on your DAC being pulverised by an L4G4, however.

[wisnon]

It is hard for him.
And there is where someone like me excels. I don't use a blinkered approach when coming up with cost effective solutions.

Stan, do you honestly believe that Lukasz is a blinkered designer???? Do you really think so low of his product when so many hold it in high regard? Do yourselff a favour and listen to one and then reassess.

[tonerei]

This is starting to sound like an avi thread. Is Stan related to Ashley? Justin how those the Jolida you have compare to the Level4? As badly designed as the lampizators are and blinkered as Lukasz is I would be aspiring to try the Level6 at some stage in life! Have to wait for that retirement windfall