[Shout It Out Lou]

Hey Elias, to get terribly unsimple for one second and ask a direct question - are there any plans to ever release a remote controllable Dac1? This is the only thing stopping me from buying one now (used to own one but missed being lazy!).

 

[lowmagnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audio_newb /img/forum/go_quote.gif Two questions, one for lowmagnet and one for Elias. Firstly, low, I was wondering how your new Benchmark setup compares to your Spitfire rig. Any thoughts would be great as I'm trying to justify the cost of the new Benchmark to myself.

It compares favorably. The little Spitfire and Cute Beyond (Class A) are nice, but they have their faults.

The Spitfire takes in coax or optical, and my upstairs system has a dead optical port on its main-board, so that was right out for when I'm at that desk. Also, it has signal locking problems on the downstairs system. It would play noise with no signal on.

The Cute Beyond had serious problems with its volume control that couldn't be corrected by the ganging switch inside. Left channel was way off until about 9 O'Clock, which is painfully loud even in low-output mode.

That said, on to the benchmark. It has a few features that are a big improvement over the Firestone devices:

• It takes power from a standard 3-prong power connector to well-designed power supply instead of a wall-wart.
• Both DAC and amp are in the same box, instead of stringing two boxes together.
• Multi-source selection is possible here, but I haven't used it yet.
• I can run my desktop speakers from the benchmark. When I pull my headphones, it plays over the desk speakers.
• The volume control is detented and balanced between channels well.
• The headphone amp gives me bass on Grado SR225 (which aren't well known for bass)

I hope that covers it. I'm not going to say anything about soundstage or anything, because I'm not a fan of fuzzy terms to describe equipment. It sounds really great, and doesn't miss a thing. I can hear more background chatter in "Light Up" by Styx, which is one of my tests for clarity of sound.

Plus, the thing tests well on the bench. I know you're going to read all of the above, and say "CURSE YOU HEAD-FI!!!", but you did ask for my honest opinion

(Unless you like tubes, warm sound and all of the other methods of listening to equipment instead of music. Some people roll that way.)

 

[lowmagnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shout It Out Lou /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey Elias, to get terribly unsimple for one second and ask a direct question - are there any plans to ever release a remote controllable Dac1? This is the only thing stopping me from buying one now (used to own one but missed being lazy!).

What would you remote control? Volume, source and mute?

Hm, that could be useful

Then again, mine sits right to my left when I'm using it.

 

[Audio_newb]

Thanks, low. No curses from me. I knew what I was getting into when I went a lookin and I always have my credit card out of reach when I'm trawling the boards. Now I just need to wait for a birthday.

 

[felicon]

For those who are interested, the deeper technical discussion on USB with 24/96 versus Windows (XP, Vista) and MAC OS X, takes place here:

http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewto...?p=25218#25218

 

[lowmagnet]

This occurred on my Dell system at work with a different device, but it's important if you are hearing clicks and pops with any USB device. You won't hear the pops and clicks on the DAC1 since it should catch them, but it's good to check this out anyway, as it affects the performance of the USB port you're plugged into:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lowmagnet I was having clicks and pops so I brought up the hardware manager, looked through the tree to find my iMic (on my work machine) and wrote down the USB bus number (27CB). I then switched to IRQ mode and found a USB bus without any shared IRQ (27CB was on the same IRQ as the onboard sound) and wrote the bus number down (27C9). Then I went back into the connection view, and started plugging my iMic in to various ports until it came up on 27C9, and isolation was achieved.

 

[lowmagnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by felicon /img/forum/go_quote.gif For those who are interested, the deeper technical discussion on USB with 24/96 versus Windows (XP, Vista) and MAC OS X, takes place here: http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewto...?p=25218#25218

Enumeration is interesting stuff, and yep the chip does 24/96. Thanks for the info!

 

[boggle]

I have a question for Mr Gwinn. What do you (or others) think of the price doubling Empirical Audio Benchmark mod? I have read that the dac1 has 'empirically' (no pun intended) perfect specs - so where is the improvement? The psychology here is as interesting as anything, I would love to see some serious (decent sized n) double blind trials go on, perhaps at a meet (then posted as a separate thread).

Also (for Mr Gwinn), have you read the comments about the design of the dac1 on the lessloss website? It certainly sounds like they know what they are on about - I wonder if anyone could hear the difference there also. I think there is a very real phenomena related to money spent, research done/time spent, cool looks feeding into how we perceive the sound coming out of some of these boxes.

This has been a very enjoyable thread by the way. I am currently saving up for a dac1 and am sure i will love the sound, not just because of the time I have spent researching, thinking, talking about it

 

[audioengr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boggle /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a question for Mr Gwinn. What do you (or others) think of the price doubling Empirical Audio Benchmark mod? I have read that the dac1 has 'empirically' (no pun intended) perfect specs - so where is the improvement? The psychology here is as interesting as anything, I would love to see some serious (decent sized n) double blind trials go on, perhaps at a meet (then posted as a separate thread). Also (for Mr Gwinn), have you read the comments about the design of the dac1 on the lessloss website? It certainly sounds like they know what they are on about - I wonder if anyone could hear the difference there also. I think there is a very real phenomena related to money spent, research done/time spent, cool looks feeding into how we perceive the sound coming out of some of these boxes. This has been a very enjoyable thread by the way. I am currently saving up for a dac1 and am sure i will love the sound, not just because of the time I have spent researching, thinking, talking about it

If you come to the Head-Fi meet in San Jose you can hear for yourself. I can give you technical explanations about the improvements in person and you can listen to the modded DAC-1. You can hear my new headphone amp mod for it.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

 

[EliasGwinn]

First of all, sorry for my absence on the thread lately...things have been pretty busy around here with our new products getting up on their own feet. So far, so good!

Lord Chaos, Low Magnet (and anyone/everyone else), I'm glad to see your enjoying your new DAC1 USB's!

Now, to answer some questions:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamNOISE /img/forum/go_quote.gif EliasGwinn Wow the dude's been one patient cat in answering all of these audiogeek questions! I suggest you post an address that we can send a bottle of fine Vino & our best chocolate to! I'll attempt to diverge slightly from the topic that is being hammered to death: What is your take on using the BenchMark DAC1 as a simple preamplifier / DAC? In my case, I have been musing over a combo-DAC / Preamp such as Benchmark's product between my CD player or laptop and the power amplifier (PSAudio HCA-2). Many have suggested that this is not an idea situation as they feel that the preamp stage in products such as the DAC1 would be inferior to a 'classic', stand-alone preamplifier. Now, I'm not one to use bass / treble / balance etc controls - nor do I care about input switching etc. That said, do you feel that the built-in preamplifier in combo products such as the DAC1 are every bit as 'transparent' as any high-end preamplifier? Tnx. for your time man. Andrew D. www.cdnav.com

First of all, I'll premise by saying that not all D-to-A's have pre-amp quality output stages. However, the DAC1 is designed to operate as a pre-amplifier for the purpose of avoiding that extra stage (and extra cables, electronics, etc). We recommend using the DAC1 USB without a pre-amp simply because ANY device in the audio chain, no matter how well designed, will add some noise and distortion. Since a pre-amp is not needed with the DAC1, you will enjoy better performance by leaving it out of the signal path. With that said, there are people who particularly enjoy the sound shaping that a specific pre-amp achieves. For those people, using that pre-amp is a subjective decision.

I'd like to also add that the new DAC1 USB has specially designed high-current output drivers that will rival most any stand-alone pre-amp. These output drivers can drive almost any load impedance, capacitance, or inductance imaginable without any loss in THD+N performance.'

Thanks,
Elias

 

[EliasGwinn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Quick question about the new DAC1 USB: Other than the USB support, is there anything new (or improved) about the DAC section of the DAC1? I am a previous DAC1 owner (both a 2004 and an early 2006 model, which sounded different, by the way) that switched to another DAC that, in my opinion, sounded slightly better than the DAC1 (which I attributed to the resampling that was happening in the DAC1 in order to deal with jitter). I am using an external box to convert USB to S/PDIF (and wouldn't mind eliminating this USB box from the chain if I could replace my box+DAC with a new DAC1 USB and get sound that is at least as good). By the way, I always found that resampling up to 96K using a high-quality resampler (such as the Secret Rabbit resampler in Foobar2000) improved the sound with the DAC1, which I also attributed to the (relatively) poor job the DAC1 was doing in resampling music from 44K all the way to 117K (a guess...I don't remember the exact value of the data rate the DAC1 uses internally). Has the hardware that is being used to resample the data to the internal rate changed at all?

The DAC1 USB has several new features as compared to the DAC1. These are:

* True native 24/96 bit-transparent USB audio interface
* High-current output drivers (read end of previous post about this)
* Two gain ranges for headphone amplifier for more/less sensitive headphones
* Main outputs mute on headphone insertion (this feature is defeatable)

Thanks,
Elias

 

[EliasGwinn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audio_newb /img/forum/go_quote.gif Elias, thanks for answering all our questions so far both here and over at the stereophile forums. I was wondering whether, now that there is a usb connection we might see future firmware updates and whether you guys were still working on anything like that. Thanks.

Firmware updates will be addressed when it is apparent they are necessary. So far, the device seems to work flawlessly.

Thanks,
Elias

 

[EliasGwinn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shout It Out Lou /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey Elias, to get terribly unsimple for one second and ask a direct question - are there any plans to ever release a remote controllable Dac1? This is the only thing stopping me from buying one now (used to own one but missed being lazy!).

We currently have no plans to incorporate a remote control into the DAC1 design, but we appreciate the suggestion and will keep it in consideration.

Thanks,
Elias

 

[EliasGwinn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boggle /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a question for Mr Gwinn. What do you (or others) think of the price doubling Empirical Audio Benchmark mod? I have read that the dac1 has 'empirically' (no pun intended) perfect specs - so where is the improvement?

If you are considering having your DAC1 modified, please read Benchmark's official statement regarding modifications to Benchmark products (copied directly from Benchmark DAC1 USB manual, page 2 - http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/manual...USB_Manual.pdf ):

Benchmark’s official statement regarding modifications:

"CAUTION: DO NOT SUBSTITUTE PARTS OR MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BENCHMARK MEDIA SYSTEMS, INC. MODIFICATION MAY CREATE SAFETY HAZARDS AND VOID THE WARRANTY.

NOTICE: CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS NOT EXPRESSLY APPROVED BY BENCHMARK MEDIA SYSTEMS COULD VOID THE USER'S AUTHORITY TO OPERATE THE EQUIPMENT UNDER FCC REGULATIONS."

John Siau, the director of engineering, and chief designer of the DAC1, has addressed this, so I will copy his response here.

John Siau: "I have not seen, measured, or listened to a modification that I would recommend. Modified units usually perform more poorly. We have measured modified units and have found the following problems:

a) Distortion due to opamp substitutions
b) Phase errors between channels due to capacitor changes
c) UltraLock(tm) rendered non-functional due to IC change
d) Frequency response problems due to substitution of incorrect capacitor values.

We have fixed several modified units at customer expense after they failed. This has given us the opportunity to measure the performance and inspect the workmanship. In all cases the performance was degraded. In all of these RMA cases, the modifications caused failure of the product. I do not recommend the services of modifiers. We had good reasons for using the parts that we used. Our reasons had everything to do with performance and nothing to do with cost.

OPA627 vs. NE5532:

The OPA627 will offer no advantage over the NE5532 in this application. High-frequency THD+N may actually be slightly higher with the OPA627. We are using the new LM4562A in the DAC1 USB. The LM4562A is pin-compatible with the NE5532, but you can't just drop it in and get all of the advantages of the DAC1 USB. We changed all of the resistors in the XLR output pads to take advantage of the high drive capability of the LM4562A."

Pay particular attention to items B and D in the list above. The modified units we have seen have incorrect capacitor values substituted for the original parts. Substituting incorrect capacitor values will result in serious deficiencies in sound field accuracy and also freq response accuracy.

Thanks,
Elias

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EliasGwinn /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you are considering having your DAC1 modified, please read Benchmark's official statement regarding modifications to Benchmark products (copied directly from Benchmark DAC1 USB manual, page 2 - http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/manual...USB_Manual.pdf ): Benchmark’s official statement regarding modifications: "CAUTION: DO NOT SUBSTITUTE PARTS OR MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BENCHMARK MEDIA SYSTEMS, INC. MODIFICATION MAY CREATE SAFETY HAZARDS AND VOID THE WARRANTY. NOTICE: CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS NOT EXPRESSLY APPROVED BY BENCHMARK MEDIA SYSTEMS COULD VOID THE USER'S AUTHORITY TO OPERATE THE EQUIPMENT UNDER FCC REGULATIONS." John Siau, the director of engineering, and chief designer of the DAC1, has addressed this, so I will copy his response here. John Siau: "I have not seen, measured, or listened to a modification that I would recommend. Modified units usually perform more poorly. We have measured modified units and have found the following problems: a) Distortion due to opamp substitutions b) Phase errors between channels due to capacitor changes c) UltraLock(tm) rendered non-functional due to IC change d) Frequency response problems due to substitution of incorrect capacitor values. We have fixed several modified units at customer expense after they failed. This has given us the opportunity to measure the performance and inspect the workmanship. In all cases the performance was degraded. In all of these RMA cases, the modifications caused failure of the product. I do not recommend the services of modifiers. We had good reasons for using the parts that we used. Our reasons had everything to do with performance and nothing to do with cost. OPA627 vs. NE5532: The OPA627 will offer no advantage over the NE5532 in this application. High-frequency THD+N may actually be slightly higher with the OPA627. We are using the new LM4562A in the DAC1 USB. The LM4562A is pin-compatible with the NE5532, but you can't just drop it in and get all of the advantages of the DAC1 USB. We changed all of the resistors in the XLR output pads to take advantage of the high drive capability of the LM4562A." Pay particular attention to items B and D in the list above. The modified units we have seen have incorrect capacitor values substituted for the original parts. Substituting incorrect capacitor values will result in serious deficiencies in sound field accuracy and also freq response accuracy. Thanks, Elias

6moons reviewed a modded DAC1, & the reviewer thought it was much improved over the stock DAC1. A lot of owners seem to love their Empirical Audio modded DAC1. I'm sure you frown on modding ingeneral.. I am a DAC1 owner by the way.. & think it's a fantastic DAC..