Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Inside the latest Benchmark DAC1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inside the latest Benchmark DAC1 - Page 3

post #31 of 179
i always thought it would be wrong to sell clones but not to just copy it for yourself


selling anything that has "hi-fi" tagged on it for prices that border on extortion is unethical


the 320$ price tag of a new RA1 is extortion
post #32 of 179
Good engineering in the industrial world isn't about throwing the most expensive parts into it, but to look for a good synergy of affordable parts and gaining a nice profit.
("Throw like Gilmore" might be the name of the first head-fi movie, Iron_Dreamer modding a borrowed Wadia, some problems, happy end).
post #33 of 179
Thread Starter 
It's not extortion since you're not forced to buy it. Businesses can charge as much as they like and it is up to the consumer to decide if it is worth it or not.
Lets not get too far off topic with this as previous ra-1 debates have.
post #34 of 179
Thanks a lot for your reply dip16dac, I will order one for the heck of it, getting some power to it and putting it in a case is right at my DIY skill level .
post #35 of 179
Don't forget about layout --- DACs are mostly about implementation, and not so much about the parts used inside, if they are sufficient for what they do. In order to clone the DAC1, you'd need to copy its PCB layout, or design a PCB with similar design goals. From examining many supposed high-end digital components, the concept of good implementation is apparently unknown to most high-end audio companies. Benchmark has done this very well. Changing a component in the DAC1 could actually lower its performance if the design has been optimized to what's used in it.

--Andre
post #36 of 179
Well, I can safely say that this DAC1 is blinding fast, with incredible detail, it most certainly sounds great, regardless of the cheapo opamps contained within. Now you could theoretically make a clone, but I doubt it would be as well-built and overall nice as this unit is. Sure it has a few features I could live without, but for even the new price ($975) I think it is a bargain, considering it sounds this great to me, using a stock power cable, and generic audio RCA IC as the digital cable from the HDSP and EMU. It could only sound better once I get my glass toslink and Quail power cord. It is definitely not bright in a derogatory sense, there is a lot of treble, but it is the most beautiful treble I can recall hearing, no problem at all with the CD3K. The dynamics are great, everything comes on and off with Barry Sanders like quickness. My only complaint so far is that the bass seems just a touch lean on the CD3K, but it sounds much fuller on the DT 531. Using the Gilmore as a headamp made the bass a touch better. Maybe I need to stack a few more buffers into the headphone stage for more current...
post #37 of 179
Thread Starter 
Which features are those?
I also notice the difference in bass with RS1 and X16 (Gilmore amp). The DAC1 does have quick clean sound overall. It's the ASRC that makes a difference from my DIP16DAC.
post #38 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by dip16dac
Which features are those?
I also notice the difference in bass with RS1 and X16 (Gilmore amp). The DAC1 does have quick clean sound overall. It's the ASRC that makes a difference from my DIP16DAC.
Well all the possible volume adjustments for the analog outputs are a bit much and I don't need AES/EBU. That's all.

The bass is not as different as I thought at first, it seems much better now. The DAC1 seems a bit cold for the CD3K, which is also pretty cold, though it has pretty nice synergy with the DT531. I love thi "quick clean" sound you describe, it would be perfect, if only it were a bit warmer, but perhaps that is just the distortion missing, so it's really my recordings, not my gear, that is to blame.
post #39 of 179

UltraLock™ technology?

Any idea what makes up their UltraLock™ technology?

Is it in the receiver, or the ASRC? Could the trademark be on their particular arrangement of the AK4114, AD1896A, D1853 and four 5532As? Does it still use a Pierce Oscillator, or is there a more sophisticated clock?

Besides the sound, it's the Benchmark's jitter immunity that makes it such a remarkable unit. AFAIK, the other features (like the built-in headamp) are nice-to-haves.

What DAC is on that AD1896 eval board? If it is the ASRC that's helping with the jitter so much you could get the eval board, add a squeaky-clean ps and something like an LC Audio ZAPfilter class a output stage...it wouldn't necessarily sound like a Benchmark, but it could be one butt-kicking DAC for relatively little money!

Units like the DAC1 and the RA-1 prove that there's more value in parts' synergy than parts' cost. It takes brilliant, creative engineering...not just to make a great sounding unit, but to make one that people can afford and the company can still make money on.
post #40 of 179

Comparision with 1212M

Can't resist ... Iron_Dreamer, since you have both 1212M and Benchmark, how do they compare?

(Hope my 1212M is not the flavor-of-the-month)
post #41 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwong
Can't resist ... Iron_Dreamer, since you have both 1212M and Benchmark, how do they compare?

(Hope my 1212M is not the flavor-of-the-month)
I wouldn't say that fact that the DAC1 is on a whole different level of sound quality from the EMU (stock or modded) makes the latter a FOTM. I think both components are awesome in terms of bang/buck. I will make a few sound comparisons of the DAC1 to stock EMU.

The DAC1 has:
tighter bass
much faster transient response
smoother, more natural treble
more overall detail (macro & micro)
more natural sounding vocals
slightly more accurate imaging

Again, this is with a POS RCA IC as the digital cable, and stock power cable on the DAC1. The difference might widen with a glass optical and Quail PC.

I think they are both great deals, because I have heard (or heard of) no other components that offer their respective levels of performance at competetive prices. The EMU is in the range of $500-$1000 CDP's. Stereophile compares the DAC1 to $10000+ DAC's.
post #42 of 179
Another headphile myth shattered.
post #43 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampgalore
Another headphile myth shattered.
Exactly what myth would that be?
post #44 of 179
1212M surpasses the Benchmark.
post #45 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampgalore
1212M surpasses the Benchmark.
Hehe, who ever thought that? The two aren't even in the same class, I'd think most people could tell them apart pretty easily. I knew what the DAC1 was all about right off the bat, "WHOA!"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Inside the latest Benchmark DAC1