Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif my favorite part is "And for videos, see startling new color and detail."
I'm old enough to remember when they sold outside TV antennas (and twinlead) that was marked for COLOR TV. don't DARE use that on a black and white tv (lol).
the audio (and video) world seems MOSTLY filled with 'happy salesman'. ie, idyuts.
Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can lose most of that distortion, and get the dynamics (and then some) back, by switching to well-executed active systems. Passive crossovers and a general lack of good driver control are the bane of many an expensive speaker system. Good active implementation is the cure.
P
True to some extent (cabinet and other resonance needs to be considered
).
Either way both solutions at their proper implementations will cost a pretty penny while doing the job.
Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most headphones (even dynamic) have under 1% distortion anyway. When you get to speakers most dynamics have increasingly large distortion, at which time switching to a planar brings it back down to around that 1% level at a cost.
Yes, there is such a thing as an audibly transparent system
you lost me there...............transparency or faithfulness to the input is being evaluated via a distortion spec. Give me a break........try frequency response first my friend...........
Nothing wrong with your enthusiasm for a planar speaker, but many dynamic ones sound just fine thank you. As in many things in hifi there are no absolutes!
Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can lose most of that distortion, and get the dynamics (and then some) back, by switching to well-executed active systems. Passive crossovers and a general lack of good driver control are the bane of many an expensive speaker system. Good active implementation is the cure.
P
I would love to hear your actives. They sound like a brilliant concept with the built in dac and all. Some of the most memorable speakers I ever heard were actives. Triamped ADS L1011 (I believe) and some great Philips actives with motional feedback on the woofer.
In fact, I am presently trying to find that right, but not too expensive nearfield monitor for the office to replace my conventional Reyaud Twins. And active pro style are on the top of my list.
Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I would expect them to sound very much alike. In fact, I would expect them to be indistinguishable in blind listening.
P
With all due respect, I own both and they do not sound alike. But I have the advantage of living with them both for a long time. Throw one in my system and blindfold me and I will tell you which it is. Now....... granted the differences are subtle, but observable.
I will seek out the CA Dacmagic to audition, the Duet unfortunately does not have Toslink so will not work with my Apple TV. The 0404USB, perhaps not too good, but not sureo. Owned the 0404PCI own the 1212 PCI. Have not evaluated the 0404 USB. May be an issue since it might require software or a USB link to work. From what I have read, some have gotten it to work as a standalone DAC and some not. My friend Sherman should be able to help with that. In fact, it is a good suggestion and the only sub $700 dac that I have on my serious list.
That being said, there are probably lots of older units that would suit my needs, but they do not come up often and most do not have the excellent Headphone amp the DAC1 has.
So back to watching the used market in hopes for another DAC1 or some older unit that can be picked up for a song. I should have never sold my EAD 7000 III for $400 about 10 years ago.
Originally Posted by bixby /img/forum/go_quote.gif you lost me there...............transparency or faithfulness to the input is being evaluated via a distortion spec. Give me a break........try frequency response first my friend...........
Planars are usually quite flat so I fail to see what you're getting at. If you're complaining about extension consider the Magnepan MG series, any of which does a solid job in ~50hz (20.1 hits 25hz).
Regardless I'd use a subwoofer or tactile transducer for bass duty anyway. As long as I can protect the majority of frequencies produced from distortion while keeping them relatively flat I'm very happy.
PS:
For readability purposes consider using the trail offs like so, ". . ." Just a suggestion though
With all due respect, I own both and they do not sound alike. But I have the advantage of living with them both for a long time. Throw one in my system and blindfold me and I will tell you which it is. Now....... granted the differences are subtle, but observable.
OK, I'll settle for very subtle, perhaps distinguishable to those who have lived with them and listened too them for awhile. The point isn't that all DACs sound exactly alike, but that the differences between well designed and implemented DACs are not significant to most listeners, and that most of us have greater weaknesses in our systems to address. Like passive crossovers
.
By the way, one of the best nearfield systems I've heard was a DAC1/Pre and Dynaudio active monitors.
Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk /img/forum/go_quote.gif The point isn't that all DACs sound exactly alike, but that the differences between well designed and implemented DACs are not significant to most listeners, and that most of us have greater weaknesses in our systems to address. Like passive crossovers
.
Agreed. The difference between Benchmark DAC1 and a $300 Sony CDP was initially subtle to me. Definitely NOT night and day (like one speaker versus another). However, once you know what to listen for then it gets easier to spot the improvement that a higher quality DAC and output pre-amp can bring. Bear in mind, that both companies seem to design for the same thing => transparent uncolored sound at a good price. Obviously, Sony is mass market while the DAC1 caters to a "limited market" at a much higher price point - so Benchmark can put more quality into the DAC and amplification aspects of their product. So it is not fair to expect them to perform identically - although as far, as these things go, the differences are mostly small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk /img/forum/go_quote.gif
By the way, one of the best nearfield systems I've heard was a DAC1/Pre and Dynaudio active monitors.
The high end Dynaudio lines are excellent speakers mainly because they make their own good quality drivers with decent sized voice coils. Dynaudio does make some low cost stuff to meet price points but their high end stuff is excellent.
ATC is another company making seriously high quality drivers.
These companies are unfortunately swamped by speaker manufacturers that use cheap mass produced poor quality drivers in high quality cabinets with gorgeous veneer. Since most people only hear what they see, there is only a very limited market for high quality transducers - usually made for professional market for use in studios.
I don't doubt for a moment that there is a lot of quality engineered into a Benchmark DAC. I simply wonder how much of it is audible. It is an over-engineered product, in which noise and distortion is designed well below audibility. Nothing wrong with that, And in the studio environment they are intended for, that kind of insurance is a good thing. At home, though, a well-chosen DAC at a fraction of the price can do the same job at the same level of fidelity. Or at least close enough for what will be masked by most systems' passive crossovers.
To my ears, really good dynamic headphones driven by amps with lots of headroom, or really well engineered and implemented active speaker systems are the stuff.
Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't doubt for a moment that there is a lot of quality engineered into a Benchmark DAC. I simply wonder how much of it is audible. It is an over-engineered product, in which noise and distortion is designed well below audibility.
To my ears, really good dynamic headphones driven by amps with lots of headroom, or really well engineered and implemented active speaker systems are the stuff.
p
The DAC1 headphone amp is very good compared to standard receiver type stuff - a very audible difference is apparent. This aspect is definitely audible.Whether it easily audibly defeats other high quality dedicated headphone amps is debatable. Dynamics is where the DAC1 headphone amp excels - although not many headphones may actually fully exploit these benefits. I found that when driving old studio AkG 240's the difference of DAC1 versus a $2000 DSP pre-amp is rather significant.
I suspect Active ATC's might interest you if you are convinced about Active designs - there are only a few special speakers that can cover full range at 121 db SPL with 10 db of headroom and all at less than 0.3 % THD (This is as good as the best headphones and is competing with a lot of electronics for accuracy - see review)
Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif Afaik, all digital cables have to be built and tested according to certain standards, e.g. CAT5/6 for ethernet ... and there isn't anything 'better' above that. If the cable fulfills the standard it can do its job perfectly, i.e. transmit 100% of the data.
Besides that, USB, ethernet, (S)ATA, ... all have error-checking mechanisms built in. That means that if some bits flip (data gets corrupted) the receiver will for example throw the data packet away and rerequest it. This however should be and normally is a very rare case.
edit: If you're a believer and don't want to hear about go read the standards..
USB audio generally does not have any error-checking and correction, which is one of several arguments against it[size=xx-small] (neither do SPDIF or I2S, so there)[/size]. Better cables certainly could transfer better, but I doubt such a test would be done in a way to help prove a sound difference with USB cables. I'm also not sure how much used bandwidth on the bus makes a difference[size=xx-small] (does 150kB/s v. 30MB/s affect how well all the data gets there? Hell if I know)[/size]. My prediction, from seeing substantive cable differences in other areas[size=xx-small] (external HDDs)[/size]: Belkin and Monster would be around the top, and the differences would be almost negligible all-around.
Let's take the PCM2702 for example, it supports Isochronous Transfer.
Isochronous transfer has CRC error-checking, guaranteed access to USB bandwidth and bounded latency ...
It also uses its own clock and has an internal storage buffer for audio packets.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
