Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › New Benchmark DAC1 HDR released...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Benchmark DAC1 HDR released... - Page 2

post #16 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by emelius View Post
24/96 over usb is the biggy...
The existing DAC1 line (with USB) all offer 24/96 over usb. Main difference on DAC1 Pre compared to the DAC1 USB is that it uses the LM4562 chip on everything.
post #17 of 72
Thread Starter 
right...so why bother with the usb or pre?...

i guess to save money...figured they'd discontinue those two...
post #18 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by emelius View Post
right...so why bother with the usb or pre?...

i guess to save money...figured they'd discontinue those two...
Post copied from: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/3653999-post1201.html
-----------------------------------------------
The analog inputs of the DAC1 PRE are routed to both the unbalanced RCA outputs and the balanced XLR outputs.

The main differences between the DAC1 PRE and the DAC1 USB:

-DAC1 PRE has 5 digital inputs (USB, optical, coax(x3))
-DAC1 USB has 4 digital inputs (USB, optical, coax(x1), and XLR)
-DAC1 PRE uses teflon chassis-mounted RCA analog and digital connectors
-DAC1 USB uses PCB mounted RCA connectors
-DAC1 PRE has 3 gain ranges for the HPA2 headphone amplifier
-DAC1 USB has 2 gain ranges for the HPA2 headphone amplifier
-DAC1 PRE uses National Instrument LM4562 opamps throughout the analog circuits
-DAC1 USB uses 5532's every except the output drivers, which uses the 4562's
-DAC1 PRE has power button
-DAC1 USB does not have power button
----------------------------------

BTW, the LM4562 op amps are simply better chips
Also, the original DAC1 uses 5532 and the DAC1 USB circuit was redesigned to incorporate the LM4562 chip with 5532. And the DAC1 Pre is built entirely on LM4562.
post #19 of 72
Thread Starter 
i was hoping they'd redo the hpa2 altogether...imho, it isn't as good as they make it out to be...but the dac itself is solid...
post #20 of 72
Yes, I believe that's what some people said. The DAC is nice, but the HPA2 can use some improvements. If they'd fix it up, it's gonna be perfect.
post #21 of 72
When I tried dac1 pre (the unit belonged to one of my friends), I did not found it to be that analytical as people are putting sometimes as a con. It had a very nice synergy with my headphones and what I was listening to. This is why I was considering this unit and I emailed the guys at benchmark to ask the differences between pre and hdr. The reply was the motorized potentiometer and remote. Seems like there is no upgrade to the dac section. In that case, I will probably buy a pre, since I will be using it mostly in a computer-headphones setup, which won't require a remote... I will be saving $300 that way
post #22 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by artears View Post
When I tried dac1 pre (the unit belonged to one of my friends), I did not found it to be that analytical as people are putting sometimes as a con. It had a very nice synergy with my headphones and what I was listening to. This is why I was considering this unit and I emailed the guys at benchmark to ask the differences between pre and hdr. The reply was the motorized potentiometer and remote. Seems like there is no upgrade to the dac section. In that case, I will probably buy a pre, since I will be using it mostly in a computer-headphones setup, which won't require a remote... I will be saving $300 that way
Hi artears,
The remote might be handy If you're going to use the pre as a preamp. I have the Pre and find it to be a good preamp which means that it might be under used just as a DAC. I replaced my Tube Technology Prophet preamp (costed three times more)with the Benchmark DAC1pre and noticed a improvement in sound quality-possibly due to having one less thing in the chain. If you are going to use the Pre as just a DAC and don't need the extra inputs, you might as well go down one step and get the USB version.
Like you, I also didn't find the Benchmark too analytical.
Good luck wiith your purchase!
post #23 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by emelius View Post
seems that any dac that can do 24/96 over usb commands a premium...
the 0404usb is not expensive.

no reason on earth why dacs have to cost that much.
post #24 of 72
Thread Starter 
too bad most of us couldn't live with the 0404usb in our main rig...
post #25 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by emelius View Post
too bad most of us couldn't live with the 0404usb in our main rig...
I agree, too bad.

I've got the 0404 feeding my main rig, and it absolutely sings. It's even better if you run it balanced.
post #26 of 72
Thread Starter 
hey, whatever tickles your fancy...

did you sell your ecd-1 yet?...
post #27 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherwood View Post
I agree, too bad.

I've got the 0404 feeding my main rig, and it absolutely sings. It's even better if you run it balanced.
lol.

I used to be a big creative-hater due to their REALLY bad consumer sound card designs (forced 48k sampling and all that).

then I heard about emu and its 'not the usual creative junk'. its true.

the 'miracle dac' chip is in there and it IS affordable.

emu is a music company catering to pro audio guys (entry level pros but still).

as I understand it, benchmark is also (or used to be) pro audio focused but these prices are insane for even 'brand concious' pros.

if you have the money, its great; but its WAY too rich for my blood. the emu bang for the buck is really hard to beat.

just don't touch its plastic knobs and you'll be fine (yes, the physical construction is a bit more kiddie-city than pro audio).
post #28 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by denydog View Post
Early this year I chose a Grace m902 over a Dac1 Pre . . . . I doubt I'll get rid of the Grace, it's such a nice unit, and it may match up better with the AKG K701's. Would it be wrong to own both?
Yeah, I've had my eye on the DAC1-Pre, too. No, definitely not wrong to keep the m902! With computer as source, optical input, and GS1K (K701, too), it's unbeatable. I wouldn't part with mine. I can't see paying hundreds more for the HDR to get features that I probably won't use or that don't seem to be significant. My primary use is headphones. Dramatic improvement in the amp and the DAC -- and the overall appearance -- might make a difference, however.
post #29 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by emelius View Post
hey, whatever tickles your fancy...

did you sell your ecd-1 yet?...
Yeah, I did. Great DAC. By all means, it sounded better than the E-MU, but the dollar-for-dollar difference was more useful to me elsewhere in my system. I found a better distribution of my limited resources without i than I did with it. Not to knock it, though. It sounded (and looked) sweet.

The real point of bringing up the E-MU (for me) is not to blow a raspberry at fools who throw good money on overhyped gear. Far from it. We all know the diminishing returns in audio. I think the key here is that the E-MU illustrates the fact that 24/96 DAC technology is, in and of itself, not expensive. It scales with price, just like traditional 16/44.1 DAC technology. That it commands a premium price in audiophile products is not a function of greater difficulty of design or greater price of parts, but in the fact that people who want to indulge a niche market (audiophile-grade 24/96 playback) are also willing to pay through the nose for it.

Sad, but true.
post #30 of 72
Thread Starter 
well put...

let me just say that, while the e-mu serves its purpose well, it is not something most of us aspire to...

may we return to the topic at hand?...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › New Benchmark DAC1 HDR released...