[J-Pak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by music_man /img/forum/go_quote.gif i'm sorry tassie devil. i should not have insulted you. i apologize. if you like it thats all that matters. i cannot see how mr. nugent can mod it to be more accurate. maybe add a "flavor" that some people would like. i primarily use it as a reference tool. it is very clean. i'd rather add the coloration elsewhere in the signal chain. i think benchmark did a great job within it's price point. i wouldn't go saying it is a shame they didn't do better. they did as they intended. many products are made just to sell a product. some will take it. some will leave it. that makes enough sales for such companies. benchmark made what they felt was best from the onset i think. it is not trying to sound good or pleasent. it is trying to sound true to the source. it measures as such. other products have their own sound and also measure likewise. mr. gwinn, i used a 0dbfs 1khz solid tone. the sony is louder at nearly 1 volt less. i scoped it. you are correct that sony is full of distortion! so much for sonys flagship sacd player. i guess that is why i am using the benchmark,eh? music_man

The DAC1 could be more dynamic for one. If that's the only improvement the Empirical Audio mods offer, then it's still an improvement.

 

[Jetlag]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sure the engineers of the DAC1 could have made the DAC1 much better but would have made them raise the price

KBI - Curious as to what you might mean by "better"?

I am certainly not a paid Benchmark shill, but every technical review I have read about the DAC1 has essentially echoed the same thing that Elias mentioned in his earlier post. That is; this device converts digital audio to analog audio in the most precise and accurate way possible while completely blocking jitter and it's potential negative effects on this process. This is precisely what I want from a DAC (or really any audio gear for that matter).

Another thing I like about their design philosophy is the apparent complete lack of typical nonsense fluff so common in many "high-end" audio products. We've all seen and read the marketing BS that many of these companies include in their promotional materials. One would need to be somewhat naïve to accept these claims at face value.

I don't want to add or subtract anything from what the artist intended me to hear. I do believe some artists write and perform their music with a certain edginess for a reason. Am I to say I know better by trying to 'warm' the sound or attempt to make it sound 'smoother'? I wonder what the artist might have to say to me about that?

Yeah, maybe they could have built the DAC1 with audiophile brand named wire or made the volume knob out of "Cardas wood", but quite frankly I bought it because they went for accuracy. As always just my $.02 USD (which really isn't worth much these days).

 

[Crowbar]

Quote:

this device converts digital audio to analog audio in the most precise and accurate way possible

There are always ways to improve quality given any equipment, such as using multiple DACs and dithering the LSBs, as modern DAC chips are not accurate to the full 24 bits (an examle of this is the Anagram module which several high end DACs use). But of course, such things increase the price. Another thing is that most solid state amplifiers have thermal memory distortion which doesn't affect THD and IMD measures. See this AES paper: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7497 It's not new discovery; it's been known for long before by designers of vertical amplifiers in oscilloscopes. In the tube world, it exists but the time constant is far larger and below the audio band; it only affects DC there. It is worst in chip amplifiers such as op amps, where the input stages are thermally coupled to the output stages.

Quote:

while completely blocking jitter

Asynchronous resampling attenuates jitter and embeds it in the data; it does not remove it.

Quote:

Another thing I like about their design philosophy is the apparent complete lack of typical nonsense fluff so common in many "high-end" audio products.

Now this I agree with

Quote:

As always just my $.02 USD (which really isn't worth much these days).

Well, you got one out of three points correctly, so that's not too shabby ;P

 

[Jetlag]

I did not phrase my jitter statement very well, I simply meant to point out how the DAC1 deals with jitter. Your wording was much clearer.

Yes, realistically it could have been made 'better', but I think the law of diminishing returns would have rapidly set in for each tiny incremental gain in performance. For it's price point, can we possibly agree that it is a very precise DAC?

 

[Tassie Devil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by music_man /img/forum/go_quote.gif i'm sorry tassie devil. i should not have insulted you. i apologize. if you like it thats all that matters. i cannot see how mr. nugent can mod it to be more accurate. maybe add a "flavor" that some people would like. i primarily use it as a reference tool. it is very clean. i'd rather add the coloration elsewhere in the signal chain. i think benchmark did a great job within it's price point. i wouldn't go saying it is a shame they didn't do better. they did as they intended. many products are made just to sell a product. some will take it. some will leave it. that makes enough sales for such companies. benchmark made what they felt was best from the onset i think. it is not trying to sound good or pleasent. it is trying to sound true to the source. it measures as such. other products have their own sound and also measure likewise. mr. gwinn, i used a 0dbfs 1khz solid tone. the sony is louder at nearly 1 volt less. i scoped it. you are correct that sony is full of distortion! so much for sonys flagship sacd player. i guess that is why i am using the benchmark,eh? music_man

Thanks Music Man - the Devil can be friends with Music again

I understand your scepticism and I shared it for years arguing that if the product could be improved, then the manuifacturer would have done it so mods are a con. Well I finally moved on and dabbled with some player mods via a technician in Mebourne. The improvement with better timing clocks & Black Gate capacitors was obvious, and one could see from the extra cost of these items the manufacturers could not afford to put them in and expect to sell against similar products, particularly if Joe Blow would never appreciate any difference.

Now the Benchmark is in a different league and have manufactured a class A product to begin with. But, in common with most other products it can be improved. Now you will have to trust me here - I hate colourations (which I believe tubes introduce heaps of) and am capable of detecting the mushiness they introduce (some refer to it as greater "musicality"). So NO, there are definitely not more colourations in the Nugent mod. What does come through is a dramatically cleaner soundstage and resolution AND a palatable front to back depth that I have not had here before. The bass is rock solid and everything falls into place on a well recorded CD. And of course that is a bit the problem (or a problem with the bits) with too many CDs - they are not well recorded. No player or DAC, modded or not, can turn mediocre input into glorious output. Garbage in -> garbage out applies with a vengeance.

So, although I understand your scepticism, it is misplaced. I think I have played around with a variety of gear for long enough now to be able to recognise a really significant product. Mating two together, the Esoteric UIX-1 and the modded Benchmark are generating superb sounding music here and that input is now justifying the stupifying money that has been spent on the McIntosh preamp, those Halcro amps and the Sound Labs speakers.

If you are interested in seeing pics of the listening room and flow charts of this system, have a look at my picture gallery on Audio Asylum at
http://gallery.audioasylum.com/ I'm there under the moniker John C. - Aussie Go down the right hand column and click on "anyone"

John

 

[Crowbar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetlag /img/forum/go_quote.gif For it's price point, can we possibly agree that is a very precise DAC?

Sure.

 

[Jetlag]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowbar /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure.

I need to refrain from posting after a 14 hour work day and wait until I am rested.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Warmth... detail... I don't know, but what I get out of my DAC1s is simply music. It's highly dependent upon the quality of the original recording. There are a lot of recording engineers I wish could listen to this, so they could clean up their acts. But... a good recording is purely enchanting.

 

[Tassie Devil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Chaos /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's highly dependent upon the quality of the original recording.

No arguement about that. That is one curse of a highly resolving system - warts and all come through. Unfortunately with all this, the result can be no better than the weakest link. Sadly that is often the recording. Past that I have found the DAC or speakers to be the next weakest points and regard amplifiers as the least offensive. Please don't misinterpret that, I know there are badly designed amps out there which can really cause chaos with the music reproduction. And yes, cables can be a problem, but how much of a problem depends on how good the other items in the chain are.

Putting together a nice sounding system is a bit of a black art

and the room acoustics often does not help - the reason a lot of you go for headphones.

Quote:

But... a good recording is purely enchanting.

And that is the bottom line - if you are enjoying music on what you have, then end of story.

John

 

[yourmando]

I've been watching this thread ever since the Benchmark Media Systems DAC1 USB was announced. I wanted to chime in to say "thank you" to Elias Gwinn, John Siau, and the other folks at Benchmark for providing so much useful, factual, and measurement backed information.

For example, I have been wondering for years about bit perfect playback using the computer as a source. Benchmark’s wiki is the only place anywhere that I have seen Audio Precision graphs with THD+N measurements for volume control in iTunes and other players on Mac OS X and Windows, plus "gotchas" such as static sample rate conversion settings on the Mac, etc.

The DAC1 USB is unique in that Benchmark has really taken ownership of the stated measurable performance from the source all the way to to the preamp/gain control and amplification stage (with the headphone outs)--talk about a clean signal path! I think it is amazing that this small unit can replace three potentially very large boxes--the old, inconvenient cd player, the "audiophile" quality preamp, and the headphone amp--and have better measured performance and potentially lower cost than any one of these!

Cheers,
Armando
P.S. You guys should consider blogging! I personally find myself waiting for any new nuggets that Elias and John post.

 

[EliasGwinn]

Hey Head-fi'ers, I hope everyone had a great weekend. I see there has been a flurry of activity since I last stopped by...always great to see...

First off, I would like to say that this thread has been a lot of fun for me, and I really appreciate all of your positive (and otherwise) feedback.

I'd also like to say that I am excited by all the analytical discussions we have had, but I'd hate to see them turn angry or combative. As much as we all love audio, we should try to keep our heads cool. Unlike tube gear, opinions don't sound better when they're hot.

Thanks!!
Elias

 

[Jon L]

I have to believe that a lot of the disagreement about the superiority of balanced headphones/amps comes from the Sennheiser HD6xx experience.

We have a very widely-used, well-known headphone that changes its sound character so drastically when driven balanced that most people who have heard it transform when balanced tend to become believers of balanced headphones in general.

I tend to believe that Senn's are a unique "anomaly" that has somewhat become representative of the superiority of balanced operation, which does not extend to many other headphones, at least not to any similar degree.

 

[music_man]

i have decided that the dac1 headphone amp is very good in it's own right. it is not fun or warm. it indeed allows one to hear things they will not with other headphone amps. it is very accurate and precise. the depth is what impresses me the most. of course that is if depth is present on the source. it only plays back what exists on the source. it adds or subtracts as little as possible. where other amps add their signature color/flavor. i think that is why people have mistakenly disliked it. it tells the truth. the truth is not always pretty. i see people said it is horrible with k701's. i can understand this statement. most people could not stand the brutal reality. the dac1+k701=elite surgeon's knife. this is no squishy teddy bear. no warm fuzzy feeling here. i mostly enjoy the warm fuzzy type of amps. i just discovered through critical listening the fine attributes of the dac1. try it. it is intresting to see that it is devoid of opamps also.

music_man

 

[s.a.b.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by music_man /img/forum/go_quote.gif it tells the truth. the truth is not always pretty. i see people said it is horrible with k701's. i can understand this statement. most people could not stand the brutal reality. the dac1+k701=elite surgeon's knife. this is no squishy teddy bear. no warm fuzzy feeling here. music_man

I have the DAC1 and k701 (as well as DT880 ('03) and DT990) and I wouldn't describe the reality as "brutal" at all.

I do have the ago old questions for Elias - at least when listening thru headphones, I (and even non-audiophile folks at my house) do hear a difference between transports and even digital cables. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks.

 

[Crowbar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s.a.b. /img/forum/go_quote.gif hear a difference between transports and even digital cables.

First of all, unless you've done proper blind testing, your results are simply invalid. Psychological bias is far more powerful than your best intentions to evaluate objectively.

Having said that, it may be possible there is a difference. I hope Wavelength won't mind me quoting from his emails here, as that will answer the question of how different USB cables and computers can plausibly produce different sound:
Quote:

First there is no error correction with ISO modes [isochronous is the USB Audio mode]. Only with bulk mode like they use in hard drives....In apple land many of the 2.0 complient controllers have ISO support built in. Windows does not take advantage of that but apple does. This means less over head and more consistent data in the pipe....I have a USB analyzer and depending on cables the error rate can get kinda high especially on lengths longer than 2m.

So, no error correction in the standard, as in theory error rate should be very low anyway, but with Windows computers it apparently may not be that low. That's actual data corruption, not mere jitter, and if the error rate is truly significant, it would seriously compromise audio quality. Solution: blame Microsoft, then use a Mac and/or shorter USB cable; I don't know whether Linux takes advantage of the hardware isochronous mode support.

SPDIF is unlikely to have actual data corruption, so then it comes down to the jitter rejection ability of the ASRC. The nature of processes such as rate estimation that the ASRC does are discussed in the third post here: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ind...t/17177/16575/