Originally Posted by music_man
so it is a sabre. it is interesting how they spend an entire page bragging about it but don't really give any specs. I also bet the ultralock(2) is not a femto.. the dac2 is alright as was the dac1 but there is better for not much more. perhaps even for the same price. what I really am liking about it is the size with the amp. it is by no means bad and at this size suits me well at the moment.
How bout we focus on the unit itself. It's not very useful to take issue with advertising copy, but, FWIW, I'll recap the ad copy issues and hope we can move on:
To recap, first there was an objection by MM to Benchmark's use of the word "analog" in a DAC2 ad, when he says he likes his earlier Benchmark DAC1 in many cases better than his $60,000 dCS Diamond IV dac (which, BTW, is a powerful positive testimonial for the Benchmark DAC1) -- and dCS even calls their dac the "analog dac". (He then buys the DAC2 stating he's heard better but by better "I mean better is like 5x the money.")
Then, there is objection (by MM) saying the ad "brags" about the sabre dacs but doesn't give any specs. Come on, this is an ad --has anyone seen much in the way of technical specs for a dac in an ad? Maybe Benchmark should brag about the specs of the DAC2 since they are superb.
Then, there is some issue taken with the ad copy when it's mentioned that the ad IS TELLING THE TRUTH in stating there are four 32 bit da-converters per channel. Has it come to the point where we now object to ads telling the truth?
To keep the focus on the sonic and technical aspects of the DAC2, and for those who don't subscribe or have access to the magazine, I will shortly provide a summary of the Stereophile review, including John Atkinson's test results. (Hint: He ends up the technical review with the following: "Summing up the Benchmark DAC2 HGC's measured performance is easy: It's simply superb."