[Scrith]

I had a chance to directly compare the DAC1 (mine) to a DAC that was about as un-DAC1 like as any out there that I've heard...the one built into the Accuphase DP-85.

Both sounded great. But different. To me, sometimes the DAC1 sounded better, other times the DP-85 sounded nice. There is a thread on here somewhere with the impressions of NeilPeart, ayt999, and myself to this direct comparison (Santa Rosa meet threat, I believe it was called). I think it depends on personal listening preferences...if you have issues with clear and present treble, and all that means with a 44.1 digital source, you are not going to like the DAC1. If you really want to hear everything that is there in a digital recording...the DAC1 might be for you. And, because most people talking about a DAC1 seem to fail to mention this, there is a significant difference between newer DAC1s and older (which most people here at head-fi seem more familiar with) DAC1s (I have both).

 

[Ruppin]

To those who point out, with some justification, that the DAC1 is a bit bright, I would say the following:

With a lot of recordings, a bright playback is only (regrettably) accurate. The Benchmark and the Apogee, to name a couple, are designed by recording engineers for production use. It has to be accurate.

It is also regrettable, but true, that digital is bright by nature. Your biggest improvement will probably found at some cost, and some inconvenience, with vinyl. I always believed that the vinyl/cd debate was between very high end audiophiles, and was up there with "do you need $1000 cables?". That was, until I got talked into a turntable. It was the biggest improvement, dollar for dollar, than I've ever heard. Just my opinion.

 

[Alu]

I always read that the DAC1 was rather bright (accurate) and since I prefer my sound to be on the warm side I went with a bel canto DAC2. With the mods done by empiricalaudio I think you can pull out a lot of the hidden DAC1's potential as well.

 

[thomaspf]

Other DACs measure as good or better than the DAC1 and are as such equal or better in accuracy but they do not sound forward and light.

While this might be a great feature if you are listening for faults it is not necessary or desired for reproduction. In reproduction you want a recreation of the recording situation and tonal balance.

Benchmark should get credit for creating the first high quality DAC around $1K a couple of years back. Competition has surpassed them at this point. I would not be surprised if they launch a new model some time soon.

Cheers

Thomas

 

[mshan]

Anyone got any long term impressions vs. the Lavry DA10?

 

[Ruppin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomaspf Benchmark should get credit for creating the first high quality DAC around $1K a couple of years back. Competition has surpassed them at this point. I would not be surprised if they launch a new model some time soon. Cheers Thomas

Great, which ones?

 

[thomaspf]

Weiss DAC1, Univeral Audio 2192, lessloss audio ..

The key point being an AD1896/AD1853, a few basic op-amps and cheap pot is not exactly rocket science.

I remember the times when Japanese amps had 0.0005% THD. The DAC1 reminded me personally a bit of those times. Nice paper measurements but somehow they sounded wrong.

It just does not sound like going to a real concert independent of the recording.

Cheers

Thomas

 

[gerG]

As a DAC I like it so far (haven't listened long enough to offer details). As a headphone amp, well, I will be adding an external headpnone amp. As a preamp, it has problems. The volume control is not so good on mine. Below 25% the imbalance is severe enough to make it unuseable. I bought mine used, and this problem may be unique to the one that I have. The volume pot looks not so exotic (green panasonic, maybe?). No idea how it is implemented. Fortunately there are built in resistor jumpers, so I can pull the signal down far enough to keep out of the trouble zone, at least on the signal outputs. No help for the headphone out.

For those offering opinions on the sound, please distinguish whether you are listening through the built in headphone amp, through an external amp, or other.


gerG

 

[Ferbose]

It looks like Benchmark DAC1 has become popular enough around here that lots of digital sources are being compared to it. It seems that many of the digital sources are said to be better than DAC1, from $1k range products like AQVOX, Lavry, to cheaper ones like Storm, Zhaolu. Other DACs like Apogee mini, Bel Canto and Squeezebox are said to be at least as good. If I were to trust all the things I read, Benchmark DAC1 does not seem like a benchmark product at all, but a bottom-line product.

In reality, I have participated in instant A/B comparisons of DAC1 vs Esoteric DV50S, McCormack UDP1, Lavry DA10, AQVOX, modded Bel Canto DAC2. None of these digital sources seem to sound the same. But I don't feel any of them is really better than DAC1. DAC1 has less fullness but lots of clarity, and its treble has a slight bite and edge that brings out details. Its bass is extremely well-controlled but lighter in weight. Which is more accurate, which is more neutral, which is more euphonic and which is closer to live music? I don't know and I don't know how to tell. DAC1 certain has its sound signature, and it is possible some don't like its signature. I don't see any apparent flaws in DAC1. With proper matching of downstream equipment, my system has given me sounds very close to live concerts so I have no complaints. I was in a concert yesterday and the piano had pretty bad tonality due to half-closed lid and room interactions. Piano tone from my DAC1 to K1000 sounds more natural than that.

The fundamental and inevitable flaw of two-channel recording is the lack of ambience (it's the law of physics). This makes the midrange too lean, the treble too edgy and the bass too light and damped. My theory is that distortions from vinyl and tubes add back the sense of ambience for some ears and corrects for this fundamental flaw. This is why vinyl and tubes measure worse but to some ears they are indispensible. Therefore, technical accuracy has little to do perceived quality. While sound engineers need technical accuracy to make a living, audiophiles only need sound quality tailored to their perceived liking.

BTW, I will soon borrow a fully upgraded Zhaolu 1.3 for comparison to Benchmark.

 

[Scrith]

You bring up a very good point, Ferbose. As someone who has carefully compared several recent DACs using A/B tests, none of these DACs really sound all that different, as it turns out...some give a bit more detail in the treble (which I think is a quality inherent in true digital sound reproduction), and some are a bit "warmer" sounding (much like the effect that can be achieved by using a digital equalizer--hardware or software--to slightly reduce treble or amplifiy the midrange). This lack of a clear difference is something that everybody proclaiming the next DAC-du-jour seems to leave out (and I suggest you take any review of high-end DACs that promotes one as being vastly better than the other with a few grains of salt). In my experience you will hear MUCH greater differences between headphones or speakers, and even amps. In fact, I'd say, given a reasonable baseline of quality for the DACs in question, the difference between most DACs is somewhere between amps and the difference between headphone/speaker cables.

My comments are based entirely on comparing DACs as a source only (never as a headphone amplifier), by the way.

If you are really interested in achieving a particular type of sound from the headphone or speakers you own, I highly suggest investigating using small amounts of digital equalization before spending thousands on DACs, amps, and cables that someone claims will give you a slightly warmer or brighter sound. Even if it doesn't work out for you, the price is right.

 

[swt61]

I listened to the Benchmark a few months back when a friend brought one over for me to hear. I was blown away by the sound. I have a 10 year old CD player so the DAC was a big improvement. However another friend on this forum told me to audition the Lavry Black before buying the DAC1. Well I was not able to do so, but I bought the Lavry anyway, figuring that I could send it back if it wasn't my taste. It won't be going back!!! This DAC does it right. It's not as bright as the Benchmark, seems to have a smoother overall sound. More musical, less analytical. I think the Benchmark is a nice DAC, but for the same price the Lavry is better IMO.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrith As someone who has carefully compared several recent DACs using A/B tests, none of these DACs really sound all that different, as it turns out...some give a bit more detail in the treble (which I think is a quality inherent in true digital sound reproduction), and some are a bit "warmer" sounding (much like the effect that can be achieved by using a digital equalizer--hardware or software--to slightly reduce treble or amplifiy the midrange). This lack of a clear difference is something that everybody proclaiming the next DAC-du-jour seems to leave out (and I suggest you take any review of high-end DACs that promotes one as being vastly better than the other with a few grains of salt). In my experience you will hear MUCH greater differences between headphones or speakers, and even amps. In fact, I'd say, given a reasonable baseline of quality for the DACs in question, the difference between most DACs is somewhere between amps and the difference between headphone/speaker cables.

I agree with your observations. Except that I have not played with digital equalizers. As computing in equalizers get more powerful, it is a matter of time before I will get one.

 

[thomaspf]

No doubt, speakers or headphones make the biggest difference in sound.

I am not so sure about amplifiers unless you throw some tubes for euphonic distortion.

Cheers

Thomas

 

[K2Grey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose It looks like Benchmark DAC1 has become popular enough around here that lots of digital sources are being compared to it. It seems that many of the digital sources are said to be better than DAC1, from $1k range products like AQVOX, Lavry, to cheaper ones like Storm, Zhaolu. Other DACs like Apogee mini, Bel Canto and Squeezebox are said to be at least as good. If I were to trust all the things I read, Benchmark DAC1 does not seem like a benchmark product at all, but a bottom-line product.

This is my impression as well. Every time a new DAC comes out, people instantly go and claim it is better than the DAC1, with the resulting conclusion (presumably) being that the DAC1 sucks and is horribly overpriced. Nevertheless this always happens anyway so that people can say that the DAC is a great value since it's as good as the $900? Benchmark.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose It seems that many of the digital sources are said to be better than DAC1, from $1k range products like AQVOX, Lavry, to cheaper ones like Storm, Zhaolu. Other DACs like Apogee mini, Bel Canto and Squeezebox are said to be at least as good. If I were to trust all the things I read, Benchmark DAC1 does not seem like a benchmark product at all, but a bottom-line product. But I don't feel any of them is really better than DAC1. DAC1 has less fullness but lots of clarity, and its treble has a slight bite and edge that brings out details. Its bass is extremely well-controlled but lighter in weight. Which is more accurate, which is more neutral, which is more euphonic and which is closer to live music? I don't know and I don't know how to tell. DAC1 certain has its sound signature, and it is possible some don't like its signature. I don't see any apparent flaws in DAC1. With proper matching of downstream equipment, my system has given me sounds very close to live concerts so I have no complaints. I was in a concert yesterday and the piano had pretty bad tonality due to half-closed lid and room interactions. Piano tone from my DAC1 to K1000 sounds more natural than that. The fundamental and inevitable flaw of two-channel recording is the lack of ambience (it's the law of physics). This makes the midrange too lean, the treble too edgy and the bass too light and damped.

I don't think one can ever say DAC1 is bottomline or read it that way. I'd put it in upper mid-fi sound. It's in the back of the pack in a high tier IMO.

I would say people prefer those other DACs because of x, y, z reason. It's how they prioritize their sonic preferences. Given that more people like other units, there must be something going on there. Maybe people can't describe why they prefer it. It could be subconscious, they don't have experience, whatever it may be.

Quantisizing the quality of sources (or equipment in general), is a complicated task. I agree in saying it's hard to say others are better than DAC1 on objective level. There are some things other sources do better and worst. How it pans out depends on your preferences.

One thing that can take precesence is naturalness. Maybe DAC1 doesn't sound natural to most people now that they've heard other things. To me it's treble is not natural. Such tight bass is not natural. As for system matching, I can consider that hiding it's flaws, or enhancing it's strengths. The only time it's not is if the components in the system are as neutral as possible and that will be a difficult task for most people to acheive/acquire.

For your concert yesterday, the piano may have been off but there are characteristics in reality which should be taken note of. I try and match these to my reproduction system. Reality is the benchmark for me.

I believe lots of edgy treble and little bass is just a character of the component. Digital components have a greater tendency to have these trait IMO. It can be made not to sound like this though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrith As someone who has carefully compared several recent DACs using A/B tests, none of these DACs really sound all that different, as it turns out...some give a bit more detail in the treble (which I think is a quality inherent in true digital sound reproduction), and some are a bit "warmer" sounding (much like the effect that can be achieved by using a digital equalizer--hardware or software--to slightly reduce treble or amplifiy the midrange). In my experience you will hear MUCH greater differences between headphones or speakers, and even amps. In fact, I'd say, given a reasonable baseline of quality for the DACs in question, the difference between most DACs is somewhere between amps and the difference between headphone/speaker cables.

In practicalness, many things do sound the same I believe because there's a bottleneck somewhere. I dont' really think things should sound this way. Most people cannot find or remove these bottlenecks.

I find treble glare a trait of digital reproduction. I find it highly unnatural. I think it's different than EQ. I could EQ down the treble to reduce this glare but since I'm attuned to what it sounds like, I'd just notice it is still there just less. I rather not have the problem as oppsed to fixing it later.

Yes there are greater differences in sonics between headphones since it's shaping the sound in a larger fundamental way.