Benchmark DAC1: Hate it?

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325xi You can tweak the unit to make it sound any way you want. It may sound good, but it wouldn't necessarily represent the original signal. And the modded unit isn't necessary outputs "cleaner" signal, I'd even suggest the opposite, even though it sounds warmer. Do you really believe Benchmark engineers are so simple headed to miss something so obvious, for example other OP that would do so significant improvement? I don't judge the component by what I hear first - I prefer to know how it's build, why, and what exactly it does with the signal; then evaluate it in my system and then see where the bad things happen, and what component compromises the sound. If I know that DAC1 outputs the cleanest signal among the known DACs, I'd rather be looking for the problem among other components in my system.

I agree there is flexibility in tweaking the sound.

They are still a business and have to meet a price point. In that regard, the businessmen > the engineers. The DAC1 is not the most advanced build/design nor the best parts.

You say you don't judge the component by what you hear first but you do judge it by it's sound right? What else is there as it's a sound device? It's nice to know how it's built, the idea behind it, etc. but ultimately it still all comes down to how it sounds.

I'm not a fan of the asynchrnous resampling in this unit. It has a heavy influence in the sound to me especially in the treble.

 

[Ruach]

Inside a Benchmark DAC1

 

[325xi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan The DAC1 is not the most advanced build/design nor the best parts.

I don't know, may be you're right, although opinions of sound engineers using this DAC in the studios sound convincing, just as the tech explanation of Benchmark guy here on headfi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan You say you don't judge the component by what you hear first but you do judge it by it's sound right? What else is there as it's a sound device? It's nice to know how it's built, the idea behind it, etc. but ultimately it still all comes down to how it sounds.

I do, I just don't start with that. Who said it's the dac and not preamp that makes all the system sounds wrong? Or speakers? What I care about is whether this DAC outputs - is it correct or not, how clean the signal, not sound, etc. Then I wanna think what to do with this signal down-streams to make it more enjoyable. This approach doesn't work with most consumer DACs because they output already tweaked (read distorted) signal.

 

[Ruach]

There are a host of mods that you can do to the Benchmark. Check out http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/v...ic.php?t=15010

Steve has done extensive mods to it. His mods detailed in the link above can be used as a guide for tweak although most of the components are SMTs

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325xi I don't know, may be you're right, although opinions of sound engineers using this DAC in the studios sound convincing, just as the tech explanation of Benchmark guy here on headfi.

It is not a very advanced design, from a technical standpoint. It uses a permanent ASRC which converts jitter to random high-frquency noise (perhaps a cause of the treble issues). The output stages are a basic AC-coupled (with very cheap capacitors) opamp-only design. There is certainly room for technical improvement over both of those points, and others have done it.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer It is not a very advanced design, from a technical standpoint. It uses a permanent ASRC which converts jitter to random high-frquency noise (perhaps a cause of the treble issues).

I don't pretend to know what is going on in Benchmark's ultralock circuit design for jitter reduction. I am sure there is some trick in it, or other wise every other DAC that uses the same ASRC chip would get the same jitter reduction result, which obviously isn't happening. Since my knowledge of circuit is so limited, I really can't judge the advancedness of circuit designs.

 

[325xi]

Well, Caravelle speakers use cheapest tweater, but managed to achieve exceptional sound. From other sources it seems that Benchmark's design is not that straightforward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer There is certainly room for technical improvement over both of those points, and others have done it.

If you mean other DACs, not mods, I'd be very interested to hear what looks better exactly from a technical standpoint. You even dropped Lavry, so you must know something...

 

[Ori]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose I don't pretend to know what is going on in Benchmark's ultralock circuit design for jitter reduction. I am sure there is some trick in it

I'm not sure at all. The concept of asynchronous re-clocking assumes outstanding jitter performance from the local clock, but the picture above is not inspiring much confidence. Canned osc ain't it.

I'm not saying the ASRC is the source of the sonic issues with the DAC-1, just that it's not a high-quality implementation.
I read many comments about using clocks with low PPM rating. The PPM has nothing to do with jitter. Even a 100 PPM clock should be fine for audio reproduction, if it has extremely low noise (i.e. low jitter). You definitely don't need a $7000 dCS Verona "box" or a precision cesium frequency reference...

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose I don't pretend to know what is going on in Benchmark's ultralock circuit design for jitter reduction. I am sure there is some trick in it, or other wise every other DAC that uses the same ASRC chip would get the same jitter reduction result, which obviously isn't happening. Since my knowledge of circuit is so limited, I really can't judge the advancedness of circuit designs.

I have no qualms about the DAC1's jitter attenuation, however, the means by which it accomplishes said attenuation is, I believe, at least partially responsible for the slightly grainy treble I have noticed in comparison to other DAC's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325xi If you mean other DACs, not mods, I'd be very interested to hear what looks better exactly from a technical standpoint. You even dropped Lavry, so you must know something...

No, I'm not talking about mods. The Crystal-Lock buffered jitter reduction of the Lavry is an improvement (IMO) over the DAC1's, as the DA10 does not have the treble issue I have discussed. Also, at least in my experience, analog amplification stages built of discrete transistors in class-A generally sounds better than opamp stages. I have not abandoned the Lavry for its' design, only because I found a very similar sounding DAC that looks much better and has more I/O options.

 

[cmk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer I'd agree here, re AC1, since I've found the treble a tad grainy and not as revealing as some other DAC's I've tried. I could certainly see the Zhalou bettering it in those aspects, since the DAC1 is hardly supreme in such regards.

So far, you guys have not stated clearly the context in which you arrive at this conclusion. I heard contrary reports about the Zhalou, that it is grainy, so there, who are you going to believe?

I'm just curious as to why there is so much "anti-DAC 1" sentiment here?

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmk I'm just curious as to why there is so much "anti-DAC 1" sentiment here?

You won't hear it from me. I do prefer the Apogee MiniDAC in that price range, but I actually like the DAC-1 over the Lavry in one rig i heard - again, in the same price range, stock.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmk I'm just curious as to why there is so much "anti-DAC 1" sentiment here?

Look at what this thread title is called?

We're not hating on the DAC. It does sound better than many things out there. You must remember we're talking about very good things here. So you are in the back of the back of "the best". It's not a bad position to be in really.

 

[Ruach]

I think our opinions reflects our own sound preferences. Ian is right about the Benchmark being in the pack where they labelled as the "Best".

CMK, I see that you are using a Benchmark. Will you be keen to do a quick AB of your DAC1 with a modded Zhaolu D2?

 

[325xi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer No, I'm not talking about mods. The Crystal-Lock buffered jitter reduction of the Lavry is an improvement (IMO) over the DAC1's, as the DA10 does not have the treble issue I have discussed. Also, at least in my experience, analog amplification stages built of discrete transistors in class-A generally sounds better than opamp stages. I have not abandoned the Lavry for its' design, only because I found a very similar sounding DAC that looks much better and has more I/O options.

Did you look under the "hood" of Stello? Beyond the sound impression, which too often changes as time is going, can you say it represents better design technically?

 

[cmk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruach I think our opinions reflects our own sound preferences. Ian is right about the Benchmark being in the pack where they labelled as the "Best". CMK, I see that you are using a Benchmark. Will you be keen to do a quick AB of your DAC1 with a modded Zhaolu D2?

Ruach, if you have the modded Zhaolu D2 available, sure, why not. You can send me a pm to arrange the camparison.