[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hella Edwood - I'm interested in your thoughts on x-feed. How much of a difference does it make in imaging? Is this sort of thing easy to DIY? Should I be looking into this if I pick up a DAC1?

It would be basically impossible to use a hardware crossfeed circuit if you plan on using the DAC1 as an amp as well, since it has no analog inputs. You could use the crossfeed DSP of foobar or winamp, however.

 

[mjg]

How could the benchmark dac1 help with the channel seperation?

It's a great dac, makes a real clean source, very detailed, but the sound stage is very thin without an additional amp. The great sound stage happens when you get a second amp, such as the prehead and hr2 i used with it. The ra1 is an inferior amp to either of those. I still suggest with this system to use a second amp for a sound stage improvement.

I don't think you will find a superior soundstage(channel seperation) with the DAC1 alone, that is more dependant on the amp you use in addition. I doubt you'd like the 650s more with the dac1 alone.

 

[skitlets]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dip16dac The DAC1 matches up with the RS1 very well and even the SR225. I listened for over 12 hours almost continuously on Saturday with the RS1 without fatigue and another 12 hours on Sunday with SR225. Love the detail, quick clean clear sound, and strong bass. It has enough bass slam that I don't really need more.

have u compared the amp in the dac1 to that of the ra-1? im interested in hearing how the 2 compare, as im getting an ra-1 very soon, and planning to get the rs-1 soon thereafter, with the dac (maybe a dac1 if i can scrap the $ together) coming last.

 

[dip16dac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skitlets have u compared the amp in the dac1 to that of the ra-1? im interested in hearing how the 2 compare, as im getting an ra-1 very soon, and planning to get the rs-1 soon thereafter, with the dac (maybe a dac1 if i can scrap the $ together) coming last.

I just did a quick comparison to my RA-1 variant connected to the DAC1 rca output and it was not as clear and clean as the DAC1 amp. The bass was also much stronger on the DAC1. This was with the RS1 headphones.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hella In your experience have you found jitter to create an audible deterioration in the signal?

Nope!

I only brought it up because you mentioned a jitter box in your comparison system, which would be one more thing you wouldn't need to buy if you went with the Benchmark.

From what I've read, the real expert guys can hear jitter, and you and I could probably pick it out if we trained ourselves what to listen for. The best article I've read on the subject is here:

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule...er_page_id=28/

He talks about where jitter comes from, why it matters, and a bit about what it sounds like. Complicating matters is the fact that there's more than one kind of jitter, and they have different effects (and different severity of effects) on the sound.

The author of this article, Bob Katz, is a huge fan of the Benchmark. Safe to say that if you get one, jitter will be one of those things you just don't have to worry about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hella Any other suggestions for synergistic dynamic phones?

The engineers at Benchmark designed the unit for use with the HD600s, so I'd start there.

 

[Zoide]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 Nope! The engineers at Benchmark designed the unit for use with the HD600s, so I'd start there.

Has there been any mid- or high-end DAC designed for use with the CD3000s? I think this would be very useful to many of us....

 

[ampgalore]

The Benchmark DAC1 is designed to be used with studio monitors, not headphones.

 

[remilard]

They must have had headphones in mind when they designed it, regardless of exactly how good the headphone amp stage is, from what I am hearing it is probably one of the best that has ever been in a $1000 source.

 

[ampgalore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by remilard They must have had headphones in mind when they designed it, regardless of exactly how good the headphone amp stage is, from what I am hearing it is probably one of the best that has ever been in a $1000 source.

I don't know, I would caution against flavor of the month again, even though I own one.

 

[hella]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore I don't know, I would caution against flavor of the month again, even though I own one.

:dac-1smilie:

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hella clarke68 - You confirmed my thoughts about the importance of jitter resistance, but I must admit that the degree to which I can actually pick out jitter is questionable. I doubt that I would be able to A-B a jittery DAC over a non jittery one, but, as with all things hi-fi there's something to be said for peace of mind. In your experience have you found jitter to create an audible deterioration in the signal?

IMO, when two DACs are being A/B compared, the difference in sound quality can be influenced by incoming signal jitter, the jitter of their own clock, the quality of upsampling and DAC chips, power regulation and analog I/V conversion. The digital output of most sources are, I believe, bit-perfec, and therefore all their effects on eventual sound quality is caused by jitter. Hence, changing digital inputs is the most direct way to hear jitter-induced distortion. Since many people attested that some CD transports sound better than others, this means jitter-related distortions are quite noticeable through quality audio systems. The use of better digital cables to improve sound quality, if true, is another sign that jitter can be heard. Moreover, that many hi-end DAcs have phase-lock-loop circuits to attenuate incoming jitter is a sign that jitter affects sound quality. The same pllies for re-clocking or jitter-reducing devices inserted between a transport and a DAC. If you have experienced the sonic benefits of better transport, digital cable, re-clocking or jitter reduction devices with an extrenal DAC, then you have heard the benefits of lower jitter.

So, what does jitter sound like? From what I have read, it mostly depends on the exact nature of jitter (time errors). Total jitter measurement is sort of like THD+N. It is hard to predict its actual effect based on its average value (100-10,000 picoseconds) due to the complex patterns underlying these errors. Jitter induces undesired side-bands and also degrade the performance anti-alias digital filters used in over/up-sampling DACs. Both kinds of distortions are not harmonically related to the original audio signal and resemble intermodulation distortion (IMD). Jitter related distortions may be highly complex just like IMD and may be extemely audible even at very low levels.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 The only real solution to the jitter problem is a jitter-resistant DAC.

I agree. Just want add that it is improtant that the DAC itself has low internal jitter.

Also, digital audio would also greatly benefit if A/D conversion, be it from a microphone signal or analog master tape, is performed under low-jitter conditions. JVC uses an atomic clock (10,000 more accurate than ICs) to ensure insanely low time errors during A/D conversion to produce audiophile CDs (in the XRCD24 product line) that, to my ears, sound more like LPs than CDs. If only such clock accuracy would go into every digital music production...

 

[pbirkett]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoide What DAC did you use with those transports?

M-Audio SuperDAC, heavily modified.

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore I don't know, I would caution against flavor of the month again, even though I own one.

I second that warning.
I've demonstrated the Benchmark to 4 local audiophiles in their speaker chains.
One guy was really impressed, but he will keep his outmodded multiformat player.
Another one wasn't far away from throwing his expensive player out of the window, he'll purchase a Benchmark ASAP.
Two guys preferred what they actually had.
Obviously the Benchmark DAC isn't for everyone.
Try to listen through it during a meet, or at least buy used to limit potential loss in case you don't like it that much.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmopragma Obviously the Benchmark DAC isn't for everyone.

Very good point. Its helpful to keep in mind that the Benchmark was designed for use as a sonic microscope in the studio, where you *want* to hear every possible imperfection in a recording so they can be corrected.

That level of detail definitely translates into an enriching musical experience for some, but not necessarily for people seeking more...(what's the word here?)...euphonic listening.