Lampizator DAC by Lukasz Fikus

I only want to say that I would like to clarify that I have been misunderstood with regards to paying hefty prices for an audio gear. I think that saying that it is foolish to pay heaploads of money for a hifi gear would be slapping a number of forumers here in the face. Because hifi plays music and enjoying music is a very emotional thing. There really is no price one can put on a quality of life such as enjoying music. So it is really how deep one's pocket is and how much one is willing to pay.

I too would be interested to hear one, if someone is to bring in a Lampizator Level 4 (or from what I am reading, Level 5 now) playing in a proper high-end system. I agree that there have been a lot of praise about this product here, with a high level of dedication by owners and fans of the product. But I feel, not that much more than what we have been seeing from owners/fans of other products like Harbeth, Krell, Naim, vinyl (records), high-res digital, etc.

Fair enuff WongKN.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I cant blame anyone for being skeptical. I just ask that you leave your mind a bit open for positive surprises.

Remember if products are too cheap, people dont trust them. If priced high, they complain about that too. Finding the perfect price to satisfy all concerned is near impossible!

Wisnon wrote:

VS126 wrote:Why don't somebody bring in a Lamp level 4 so that we can have a chance to listen to this world class DAC.

Talk is cheap. We have listened to people saying 'This is the best and that is the best and people giving up mega bucks system for it. (Latest being claims by Harbeth speaker owners).

If it does happen, I hope it is played in a proper high end system with full range floorstander.
Compare with DAC around it's price point ie Weiss 202, BAD Alpha, etc.
That wld be interesting.

Yeah, we all want to be tempted...Bring it IN.

Fair enuff, however, most of the owners I know are in the US. I am in Switz.

The people who i know switched have gear like Audio-techne, Avant-guarde horns, CEC transports, acapella speakers, shindo amps, einstein monos, and tops class analog rigs. Each started with USD50K plus rigs. These are serious enthusiasts that casually dropped 2 grand on 3 foot interconnects!


]quote]"VS126 "Besides the top class analog rigs, most of the gears mentioned are not every body's cup of tea. They represent gears that is more to the low wattage single ended ( not all) horns type of listener. I do not see people who owns Krell, FM acoustics, MBL's , Vitus who loves their sound big and fast and LIVE and neutral sounding to embrace it.


I believe the Lamb, in it's current incarnation is good but not everyone's cup of tea.

BTW, did you consider the possibility that the Lamp would sound as good as you have read? What would you do then? Scary but valid point to consider! LoL[/quote]

Bring in it, bring it in....We hope it is that good and we want to be tempted. If it is that good, I want one too.
(You can built the best mouse trap in the world but if you do not show people how it works, nobody will buy from you).

The most regular of forumers here would know that I am perhaps one of the most open minded persons here in this forum. In the sense that I am even very sceptical of the acheivements of our own scientific advances and our technology and I have often highlighted how we humans can sometimes be too over-confident -egoistic- about how much we think we have advanced, only to be humiliated again and again by nature who shows us how little we know.

Philosophy aside, having an open mind is certainly a very useful thing to anyone. So as noted, I would be eager to hear a Lampizator in a matching system, if there is one for open listening (asking to listen to owner's systems would be a private matter which I won't touch on here).

On another matter, owners, supporters, and fans of hifi can be a very opinionated lot IMHO. But that is not fully our fault. Obviously when we commit our hard earned money on something, it is because we have not heard anything better (that we can afford). So within our own, I would say, limited world of experience, whatever we have adopted is likely going to be the best we have heard and we can find.

But on the other hand, hardly anyone can claim to have experienced everything the world of hifi has to offer, not even a hifi reviewer. So the fact that different people will have different viewpoints of the 'best' is not surprising, because it is indeed the 'best' within our limited scope of experience. Consequently, we are definitely going to find different 'camps', in terms of brands, technologies, and all other things in hifi.

I think it is fair on both sides. The supporters and fans have the right to trumpet their praises and opinions that a certain product is the best there is. But once that is done, it is also fair and natural that some people will be moved to question or even challenge those opinions. It is like the kung-fu movies where when a master proclaims himself the best, then he/she has to expect that there will be challengers to his/her claims. So too is what has happened in various threads in this forum, not only here, but in threads talking about Harbeth (to give one example), or SET amps, or sensitive speakers, or high-res digital, and so forth. Fact of life. And of course it is also fair to ask doubters to have an open mind and not to put too concrete a judgement before hearing.

In this instance, unlike other brands, unfortunately I really don't foresee any chance of listening to a Lampizator in the near future. I wonder if someone would take agency for this and open a shop, or exhibit in the KLAVS....

The voice of wisdom, WongKN.

Take a bow for this great post.

Hi WongKK,

how does the Lamp compare to the PDX with Jkenny interface ? I'm curious about the PDX for CAS playback

Hi Joe, I don't know if the PDX that was brought to my place had the JKeny interface or not. I can also tell you that both the Lamp and the PDX were not fairly compared. The Lamp was still new, and had less than 100 hours of burn-in. It was hooked up to my Playback Designs transport via a cheap RCA cable, and the PDX was hooked up to the owner's Micromega (I think?) transport via proper digital cable. So - the Lamp had a better transport but a terrible cable, and the PDX had a good transport and a good cable.

Under these circumstances it was not really surprising that SACD beat them all. Notwithstanding the inherent advantage of hi-res.

To answer your question - the Lamp has much more bass than anything I have ever heard. This is not just my subjective opinion - the subwoofers were so loud with the Lamp that my windows were rattling. None of the other DAC's did that. My system has already been tuned to sound neutral, and on my system the Lamp was too much. For me it was a simple matter of turning down the subs and adjusting the crossover to cut down bass - but if your system lacks such adjustment the Lamp will overwhelm you with bass. I do not think that a lot of bass is good - it clouds out the clarity of the midbass and makes the mids and highs seem recessed. Definitely not good.

The other difference between the two was the relative graininess of the Lampizator compared to the PDX and the SACD. The top end of the Lamp was more aggressive. Again I need to say - Lamp not burnt in, and it was being fed by a cheap RCA cable.

The one area the Lamp trounces everything else is dynamics and scale. And its not only because this thing is louder and has more bass. Music seems more exciting when heard through the Lamp.

I thought that the PDX was a decent and competent DAC but there was little for me to get excited about. The Lamp was a little bit too much and was flawed in my view, but I don't know how much of that to attribute to the cable or the newness of the Lamp at the time.

And no, I haven't had a chance to do a follow-up comparison.

Hi Wong,

Thanks for the insight. I am (still) looking for a DAC to complement my CAS. Last a couple of days, I took delivery of a DAC that does not do hi rez. The Reimyo DAP999 or something like that. So far, quire nice on RBCD.

This Lampizator is quite interesting.

Another one that may be interesting though when I heard it had distortion issue (dealer said it is a prototype with known issues) is the AMR DP777 (or is it DAP ?). Anybody heard ?

Regards,
Joe Ling

PS : of course compared to SACD, RB will be at a disadvantage

WongKK,

It would be great if you could do a follow up in the future. You have a great system that could be quite illuminating in terms of the Lamp's capability when fully broken and using a decent cable.

Did that DAC have Lukasz's new asynchronous USB port (Hong Kong design)? It seems to be quite feature filled.

Wisnon wrote:WongKN,

It would be great if you could do a follow up in the future. You have a great system that could be quite illuminating in terms of the Lamp's capability when fully broken and using a decent cable.

Did that DAC have Lukasz's new asynchronous USB port (Hong Kong design)? It seems to be quite feature filled.

Wisnon,
That was WongKK, not WongKN...

OOps , Sorry.

dixchen wrote:Got one from him already, one of the first 10
prototypes for evaluation and feedback trial, expensive? I can tell you
this much, beats anything commercial out there irrespective of
price...thus a lifetime bargain if you ask me...

Go for it guys if the budget allows you to..

You actually buy this from this man......???? for 900 ?????

is lukazs still using the generic ebay chinese dac or a newly develop dac board? If he's using the ebay dac then i would say the price is very expensive.

if you follow the development of lampucere as he called it from the beginning the cost to transform a cheap RM300 ebay dac to hot road tube stage dac is not that expensive with some exotics parts. i got mine around rm2xx and still enjoying it till now. it beats all other brands you could hear IMHO....

Wisnon my friend who owns the Lamp just bought a new house and everything is in boxes right now. I don't have the heart to go and kacau him when he is so busy But if I do a follow-up comparison I will post the result.

OK WongKK,

Let's consider it a medium/long term project. I for one look forward to the result from this test of a broken in Level 4 and your excellently constructed system.

Razz,
Lukasz does not use any generic Ebay parts. They construct his PCB from scratch and by hand, using specific DAC and receiver chips hardly used in the audio industry. The whole DAC is assembled from the ground up with raw components, except for the USB module and the step resister volume module. Both those modules are separate stand alone devices that are integrated into his DAC as options.

Wisnon wrote:OK WongKK,

Let's consider it a medium/long term project. I for one look forward to the result from this test of a broken in Level 4 and your excellently constructed system.

Razz,
Lukasz does not use any generic Ebay parts. They construct his PCB from scratch and by hand, using specific DAC and receiver chips hardly used in the audio industry. The whole DAC is assembled from the ground up with raw components, except for the USB module and the step resister volume module. Both those modules are separate stand alone deices that are integrated into his DAC as options.

Wisnon

Sounds like a very serious build there. I would love to see a close pictures of the dac board pcb and wanted to know what kinda chips lukazs using. It's kinda mystery when he keeps everything secret.

It is said that amongst the chinese, the surnames of Wong, Chan, and Lee makes up the bulk of the population. So supposedly if you throw a stone at a chinese, there is a very high chance that you will hit either a Wong, a Chan or a Lee. So together with me, with a wongkk, a kkwong, a wongkw, and several others with very similar nicks, it is not a surprise people from outside of Asia can get confused. As long as we don't get accused of saying things we did not say...

To the serious part, I would like to touch upon SACD and how sometimes, or even often, it is not accepted as a high-res format. Perhaps it is because it came out a long time ago, and that those recent ones like flac are much more vocal. Maybe the idea of 'hi-res' digital is only become well known recently.

But basically the DSD format presents a bandwidth that transfer 9.2 Megabits per second and in stereo mode allows the transfer of a 24bit X 192kHz bitstream. One point of confusion I think I can see is that DSD is a bitstreaming format. I think basically because of the term -bit-streaming, people tend to think of it as a single bit format, versus say a 24bit word from the 24/192 format. However from the technical implementation point of view, ALL transfer of digital data is in the form of a bit-stream. In the sense that bits are always transfered one at a time, in a 'stream' so to speak. It is just how the receiver initially accepts the bitstream, whether as a stream of individual bits, or in words of 24bit sizes and so forth.

I did ask once but never did get anyone to commit, but from the technical point of view, SACD/DSD -IS- high-resolution and as good as the current popular highest resolution digital, i.e. 24 bit by 192kHz sampling rate. From the I/T guy's point of view however, DSD is a much more flexible and adaptive format in the sense that because it is conceived initially as a bitstream, the sender-receiver is able to format this 9.2Mbit/sec DATA transfer in several different format ON THE FLY, whether as 24/192 STEREO, or in terms of DTS-HD 5.1 channel, or even 2.1 channel and so forth (the last two in lower than 24/192 format).

Someone remarked to me that 'SACD is a DEAD format' over the weekend. His premise is that currently the flavour of the moment is those 'high-res' like flac files and so forth. But my point to him is that it is not true at all. New titles in SACD have continued to be produced till today. Acoustic Sounds issues many new SACD titles every month, the latest being Cat Stevens Tea for Tillerman album. In fact in terms of popular and mainstream artists, SACD has a much much larger selection than those newer hi-res formats and there is more new titles released in SACD than in those newer hi-res formats.

When SONY lost the battle in its betamax vs VHS battle, they learned a lesson they have not forgotten til today. And that is no matter how one argues from the technical point of view, the bottom line for everything always boils down to the -source- that is available. This is the reason why SONY bought over Universal and so today we have SONY Music and SONY pictures. As a result, those countless albums owned under SONY music will always be available in SACD first and probably mostly in SACD only. This is the reason why early on in the DVD-HD vs Blu-Ray battle, most movie studios smartly aligned with SONY and Blu-Ray. If you are anti-Sony, you best not be a fan of Spider man and many other movies.

To me, if I am to ever adopt digital again, I -need- to support SACD/DSD, plus I need a very good RBCD playback. There are just too much good music available -only- in both formats (and not even available in vinyl records) that IMHO, I am a much poorer man, music wise, without the chance of enjoying them in my life-time.

WongKN wrote:The most regular of forumers here would know that I am perhaps one of the most open minded persons here in this forum. In the sense that I am even very sceptical of the acheivements of our own scientific advances and our technology and I have often highlighted how we humans can sometimes be too over-confident -egoistic- about how much we think we have advanced, only to be humiliated again and again by nature who shows us how little we know.

Philosophy aside, having an open mind is certainly a very useful thing to anyone. So as noted, I would be eager to hear a Lampizator in a matching system, if there is one for open listening (asking to listen to owner's systems would be a private matter which I won't touch on here).

On another matter, owners, supporters, and fans of hifi can be a very opinionated lot IMHO. But that is not fully our fault. Obviously when we commit our hard earned money on something, it is because we have not heard anything better (that we can afford). So within our own, I would say, limited world of experience, whatever we have adopted is likely going to be the best we have heard and we can find.

But on the other hand, hardly anyone can claim to have experienced everything the world of hifi has to offer, not even a hifi reviewer. So the fact that different people will have different viewpoints of the 'best' is not surprising, because it is indeed the 'best' within our limited scope of experience. Consequently, we are definitely going to find different 'camps', in terms of brands, technologies, and all other things in hifi.

I think it is fair on both sides. The supporters and fans have the right to trumpet their praises and opinions that a certain product is the best there is. But once that is done, it is also fair and natural that some people will be moved to question or even challenge those opinions. It is like the kung-fu movies where when a master proclaims himself the best, then he/she has to expect that there will be challengers to his/her claims. So too is what has happened in various threads in this forum, not only here, but in threads talking about Harbeth (to give one example), or SET amps, or sensitive speakers, or high-res digital, and so forth. Fact of life. And of course it is also fair to ask doubters to have an open mind and not to put too concrete a judgement before hearing.

In this instance, unlike other brands, unfortunately I really don't foresee any chance of listening to a Lampizator in the near future. I wonder if someone would take agency for this and open a shop, or exhibit in the KLAVS....

A rather lengthy one from Wong Suk again . Oopps, better not to confuse Wisnon with the name again.

I have been following this thread as well as other DAC thread since I am also looking for a good DAC to match with my 'amateurish' system . Yes, there is simply no best product. One man's meat is another man's poison. That is why we ended being spoiled with choices for almost everything. Else, Ford T will do, eh?

Thanks to a generous forum member who lend his DAC to me to experiment more than a month ago. In short, I believe that with a proper matched DAC, the improvement should be perceivable or pronounced.

Lamp for KLIAV? That's a brilliant idea!!! Any owner here kind enough to lend his to me for this annual 3 days event?

LoL

I grew up in Jamaica and we have about 5% ethnic Chinese population. I am very much aware of the popularity of Wong, Chang, Chin and Lee as surnames.

WongKN was making most of the recent posts and I assumed it was him instead of paying attention to the poster's name.

Razz wrote:

Wisnon wrote:OK WongKK,

Let's consider it a medium/long term project. I for one look forward to the result from this test of a broken in Level 4 and your excellently constructed system.

Razz,
Lukasz does not use any generic Ebay parts. They construct his PCB from scratch and by hand, using specific DAC and receiver chips hardly used in the audio industry. The whole DAC is assembled from the ground up with raw components, except for the USB module and the step resister volume module. Both those modules are separate stand alone deices that are integrated into his DAC as options.

Wisnon

Sounds like a very serious build there. I would love to see a close pictures of the dac board pcb and wanted to know what kinda chips lukazs using. It's kinda mystery when he keeps everything secret.

Lukasz wont say what exactly his chips are, as he does not want people copying his discoveries. Even though we talk regularly, he wont tell me and I am fine with that.

Here are some pictures of the innards (without the DAC chip on the PCB):

https://www.facebook.com/mobileprotection#!/media/set/?set=a.166625953375657.30648.100000847605447

WongKN,

I thought SACD format is 1 bit word length and 2,847kHz sampling rate!
Whereas current top hi-rez is 24 bit 192khz sampling rate.

Wisnon, I think DSD is 1 bit at 2.8MHz (not 2.8kHz).

Let me do another search to refresh my memory and I will explain.

Wisnon wrote:WongKN,

I thought SACD format is 1 bit word length and 2,847kHz sampling rate!
Whereas current top hi-rez is 24 bit 192khz sampling rate.

2,847 khZ is 2.8Mhz ma...

Can't seem to find those websites I was referring to last time when I was checking out the SACD format. The sampling rate is for 1 bit but the DSD format allows the sender-receiver to package those bits in anyway it sees fit. This is why you can get 5.1 channel or 2 channel SACD.

WongKN wrote:Can't seem to find those websites I was referring to last time when I was checking out the SACD format. The sampling rate is for 1 bit but the DSD format allows the sender-receiver to package those bits in anyway it sees fit. This is why you can get 5.1 channel or 2 channel SACD.

Wong Suk,

Answer :

DSD signal is stored as delta sigma modulated digital audio, a sequence of single bit values at a frequency sampling rate of 64 times the CD Audio sampling rates of 44.1kHz, for a rate of 2.8224 MHz (1 bit times 64 times 44.1kHz).

CDSACD

Format	16 bit PCM	1 bit DSD
Sampling frequency	44.1 kHz	2.8224 MHz
Dynamic range	96 dB	120 dB
Frequency range	20 Hz – 20 kHz	20 Hz – 50 kHz
Disc capacity	700 MB	7.95 GB
Stereo	Yes	Yes
Discrete surround	Never Implemented	Yes

Yes, I did see all that. But I distinctly remember somewhere stating the format possible for SACD in two channel and the other supported formats (5.1 channels for e.g.) and it was hi-res. I thought I remember 2 channel mode in SACD as 24/192 but the values don't work out when I checked them just now.

Whatever it is, if I want Dire Straits on HD, three of their albums including their two best ones (the original and Love Over Gold) are on HD along with Brothers in Arms. Also two of carole king's albums are on SACD as is James Taylor's JT (his best album). All of the mainstream artists are represented on SACD. Acoustic Sounds alone has over 3000 SACD titles.

But it still cannot challenge the diversity of CD for the more recent music, especially the 1990-mid2000 era, just like CD too cannot challenge the diversity of vinyl LPs for the early years (1940-1990). So the truth is that there is a place for all formats.

KN I have not said too much in this thread about SACD since it is off topic. Do you think this thread would benefit from the discussion on SACD split into a seperate thread?

Ya, that is a good point WongKK.

This might be the first proper Lampizator DAC review/shootout done. Eventual I guess everybody know which is the winner. But I frankly suggest to read until the 2nd page of this review specially the conclusion section. This is kinda interesting...

http://www.stereomojo.com/Stereomojo%20Six%20DAC%20Shootout.htm/StereomojoSixDACShootout.htm

Hi Razz,

WongKK posted this link on page 3 from June 15.

Look out for the StereoMojo dedicated review coming soon, as they promised a couple weeks ago. That should be an interesting read.

Yeah,

I think the review is due in a day or 2. Keep checking...it should be a good read.

I was actually hoping to have the good fortune to sample one (Lampizator) at the recent KLAVS but no-one seem to be carrying it. Or did I miss it ?

Well the long awaited first pro review of the Lampizator is here:

http://stereomojo.com/Lampizator%20Level%204%20DAC%20Review.htm/LampizatorLevel4DAC.htm

Hey Wisnon,
You beat me to it, was just about to post it up after Lukasz sent it to me earlier.

The review explains the strongest point of his dac, which is this below :

This is
not a rarity…well, yes it is. Placing those instruments and their
players is one thing, seeing them in distinct three-dimensional images
makes the listening experience far more exciting. We know at that
moment that something really special has just been presented to us.



Whether I
played CDs on the AA transport or listened with the Lampizator hooked
up to my computer, the sound leaped from the quietest of backgrounds.
Let’s Move on Pat Metheney’s Day Trip contrasts Metheny’s light, sure
touch upon the strings of his guitar against McBride’s bass. Lightly
played, we hear Metheny’s fingers as he first contacts each string.
Each note decays naturally; the composition is lighthearted and the
sound wraith-like when needed. Strong, powerful sounds by the bass all
but bullies Metheny’s guitar, yet the method by which the piece was
recorded does not allow it to overwhelm Metheny or his listeners.

Playing the same cut with the
Lampizator in the big-rig was as beautiful as the computer had been,
but possessing even more contrast between those two instruments. CD
after CD I was able to hear things I may have taken notice of before,
but but I didn’t recall doing so. The Lampizator grabs you and pushes,
pulls, shakes and makes you quake as you listen, destroying myths you
held sacred about just what was happening in a recording you knew well.




Enuf said!!

Wah, this sound like the mother of all DACs!!! hmmm, any free audition?

Dixon, it's interesting anyone own a unit in Malaysia? If it's really so good, I may want to own a unit.

My unit sold to a fellow friend and that was only the initial prototype that Lamp made and already he bought it off me immediately after first listen. To what I know there is only 2 la, a friend of mine have built another based on the Behringer ( my input design from the learnings through Lampizator's unit ) but the sound is even better than that prototype due to the very high end components being used in there. I can arrange for audition on that one if you interested then perhaps you can decide if you want to get one from Lamp.

There is also a unique experimental TDA1541 based version of the Level 4 that he put on sale for half the price of a normal level 4 via Ebay.

If I had the cash, I would snap it up.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/200643974730?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.com.au%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm570%26_nkw%3D200643974730%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

dixchen wrote:My unit sold to a fellow friend and that was only the initial prototype that Lamp made and already he bought it off me immediately after first listen. To what I know there is only 2 la, a friend of mine have built another based on the Behringer ( my input design from the learnings through Lampizator's unit ) but the sound is even better than that prototype due to the very high end components being used in there. I can arrange for audition on that one if you interested then perhaps you can decide if you want to get one from Lamp.

Wah Dixon, no joke. U mean that there is ones the best DAC is made by a Malaysian? Yeah, Malaysia boleh!!

Since I don't see any sustainable competitive advantage in the product, I don't really interested in it now.

Cheers,

noodle
Its not in that way la, the approach is not possible by just anyone la, his level 4 today is way above what I had from him earlier, the prototype and is the actual one in review above.

Can only copy cannot design la..where got so capable le.. LOL!!

But the sound even on what we have today here will be beyond anything you have heard from any other DAC la, that I can be sure of. The approach to the design is just beyond common sense sometimes..

Really? LOL!

a RM900 Behringer DAC is not a fair comparison vs a supposedly "no hold barred" DIY box.

Perhaps one should compare it with a truly hardcore DAC like a Wadia or Esoteric unit. If anyone is keen, this could be easily arranged perhaps at a shop location.

Then we'll know for sure if the Lampizator DAC is truly "The Mother of all DACs".

Based on the Behringer only because 2 things are utilized as a basis in that unit, the AKM DAC and its upsampling function capability ( though not anything to shout about compared to the likes of DCS ) everything else is just not used at all. Convenient way to have an AKM chip based DAC board used as a basis to BEGIN building the DAC with.

Not comparing a Behringer SRC with anything le, its kinda hopeless in standard form on its own.

All clearly stated here to begin with

http://lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/TRANSPORT/behringer/Behringer.html

Wadia and Esoteric? Was hoping you mentioned DCS le

Anyone here has a budget for a level 4 Lampizator DAC for the comparison perhaps??

noodle88 wrote:Really? LOL!

Yup, just enough to make you go

Better still if using your super system to evaluate la..

I dont think anyone in Malaysia has the latest generation 3 level 4 DAC.



This DAC has the latest semi-active summation circuit and other optimized operating points.



That is what should be compared to the Wadia and other quality commercial offerings.

dixchen wrote:
Wadia and Esoteric? Was hoping you mentioned DCS le

Anyone here has a budget for a level 4 Lampizator DAC for the comparison perhaps??

OK, dCS then !

Someone arrange for a level-4 Lampazitor, I think i can arrange for a Wadia and dCS unit ...

dixchen wrote:

noodle88 wrote:Really? LOL!

Yup, just enough to make you go

Better still if using your super system to evaluate la..

Wanted so much to test it in my system unfortunately I'm working on new home for my system. Why not test it at ur place? Let me know when u ready.

Cheers,

My room not any bigger than your listening area leh..

But my friend's is, will arrange so and let you know la..

mugenfoo wrote:

dixchen wrote:
Wadia and Esoteric? Was hoping you mentioned DCS le

Anyone here has a budget for a level 4 Lampizator DAC for the comparison perhaps??

OK, dCS then !

Someone arrange for a level-4 Lampazitor, I think i can arrange for a Wadia and dCS unit ...

Got any chance of a Scarlatti ar??

Dixon,



I am quite puzzled....

If you feel that the Lamp 4 is so good (or one of the best, if not THE Best) even without audition, why don't you own one???

Knowing that you can easily afford one.

Or you already owned the Lamp 5??

I gather that those who spoke of how good the Lamp is are not owners. Why???

If the Lamp 4 is as good as what you guys think, I wld like to buy one too.



When is the Audition???



And why do you sell off yr Old Lamp without upgrading to the new Lamp..knowing that it is better than most other commercial DAC at many times the price?