[showflash]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EliasGwinn /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for the DAC1 being capable of handling DVD-A, it is absolutely capable. DVD-A is nothing more then normal PCM digital audio at high resolutions. The DAC1 can handle resolutions above 192 kHz. The problem, as you all are noting, is many players do not actually stream the digital information at their true resolutions because of DRM. We've been testing many consumer-level DVD-A players to determine which, if any, play at full-rez. The only ones we found that do so are no longer in production. The DRM police have managed to ruin all the great benefits DVD-A was supposed to offer. AIX is one exception. (If I'm not mistaken), they are not including the copyright protection status-bit that causes the DVD player to engage sample-rate conversion. Thanks, Elias

Sorry that I didn't get my question in earlier. I've been reading every post and it took a couple of days.

Elias you said that you hadn't found any DVD-A players that played full rez and then said that AIX was an exception. Did I misunderstand you and that AIX is an exception to the rule in so far as recorded material goes, and they play at the full resolution regardless of the player? I think that is what you meant. I am looking at the materials others directed me to regarding AIX. It should play in any DVD-A player at full resolution correct?

This has been some thread and I am down to get a DAC from you as soon as I get out of school...Cisco networking related. My mind was pretty much made up on the Stereophile review when I read it. This has all been icing on the cake.

Thanks for your replies!

 

[puntloos]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EliasGwinn /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure how their anti-jitter technology works, but, as I said before, there is no plug-and-play chip that creates jitter immunity. We use an ASRC, as do many other manufacturers. However, the entire anti-jitter technology in the DAC1 (UltraLock) is very much propriety and individual to the DAC1. This is why we named it...because it is a very specific topology. I'm not sure why Bel Canto chose a name so similar to ours (BC's UltraClock vs. Benchmark's UltraLock). It reminds me of the Walkmans I used to see on the streets in NYC with the brand-name Coby, written in a font and style suspiciously similar to Sony.

Weeeeeellll, given the device goal and situation of the device, I wouldn't call 'Ultralock' or 'Ultraclock' that crazy a name to derive that Bel Canto obviously nicked it on purpose. If you guys would've called it 'Zarfglub 2.0' and Bel Canto has 'Zarfglib 2.1' then Id call shenanigans.

Quote:

An understandable interpretation.,.. Galvanic Isolation is just another way of saying transformer isolated. Both the BNC (coax) and XLR inputs on the DAC1 are transformer (galvanic) isolated.

Ah, as I suspected. One last question about the Benchmark DAC1 inputs: how resilient are they? Short of putting 220V on the input leads, will they be able to resist some punishment in the way of static shock etc? (my home has quite fuzzy carpet, for example)

Quote:

The difference between the BB 1796 (24-bit ladder network D/A) vs. the DAC1's AD1853 (Delta-Sigma) are: the former has better filtering and signal-to-noise ratio. But it has serious linearity issues. Linearity means 1 dB increase in digital amplitude results in 1 dB increase in analog amplitude (input vs. output). The Burr-Brown chips have serious problems with linearity. Also, intermodulation distortion is an more of an issue with these chips. They are also very sensitive to temperature fluctuations, so that these issues are amplified as the temperature fluctuates. In other words, take your choice: more distortion and less noise (1796) or more noise and less distortion (1853). Since the S-to-N of the 1853 is -117 dB, we chose this over increased distortion.

As crowbar indicated, the BB actually also uses Delta-Sigma (both the 1796 and 1792). Did you base your comparison on the differences between 'ladder' DACs and 'DS' Dacs in general, or did you base your comparison on your other knowledge of the two devices?

 

[EliasGwinn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by showflash /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry that I didn't get my question in earlier. I've been reading every post and it took a couple of days. Elias you said that you hadn't found any DVD-A players that played full rez and then said that AIX was an exception. Did I misunderstand you and that AIX is an exception to the rule in so far as recorded material goes, and they play at the full resolution regardless of the player? I think that is what you meant. I am looking at the materials others directed me to regarding AIX. It should play in any DVD-A player at full resolution correct? This has been some thread and I am down to get a DAC from you as soon as I get out of school...Cisco networking related. My mind was pretty much made up on the Stereophile review when I read it. This has all been icing on the cake. Thanks for your replies!

I don't really know too much about AIX's releases, or whether or not they will play on certain players. I know that the cheap (<$200) Panasonic, Pioneer, and Oppo players on the market won't put out full resolution, even with material that is not copy protected. AIX's releases my have some digital flag that manages to 'convince' the player to do otherwise, but I don't know. I have heard that they are trying to do things along those lines, but I really don't know.

Thanks,
Elias

 

[EliasGwinn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by puntloos /img/forum/go_quote.gif Weeeeeellll, given the device goal and situation of the device, I wouldn't call 'Ultralock' or 'Ultraclock' that crazy a name to derive that Bel Canto obviously nicked it on purpose. If you guys would've called it 'Zarfglub 2.0' and Bel Canto has 'Zarfglib 2.1' then Id call shenanigans.

You're right, I have no idea how or why they chose that name. It just struck us as....interesting...

Quote:

Originally Posted by puntloos /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah, as I suspected. One last question about the Benchmark DAC1 inputs: how resilient are they? Short of putting 220V on the input leads, will they be able to resist some punishment in the way of static shock etc? (my home has quite fuzzy carpet, for example)

They are very, VERY resilient. The transformer isolation is resilient to up to 1500V. Also, when we test for CE, we 'shoot' the DAC1 with a 'charge gun' that is equivalent to a VERY heavy static discharge. We shoot it at several points...the inputs, the outputs, the volume knob, the headphone jacks, etc... In no way was the DAC1 damaged from these static discharges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by puntloos /img/forum/go_quote.gif As crowbar indicated, the BB actually also uses Delta-Sigma (both the 1796 and 1792). Did you base your comparison on the differences between 'ladder' DACs and 'DS' Dacs in general, or did you base your comparison on your other knowledge of the two devices?

No, I just mis-spoke when I said it was a 'ladder-network' D/A (perhaps I should go back and edit that). We based our comparison on actual bench-testing with the evaluation boards from these companies. We tested with the factory-configured circuit, and then tested with tweaks for more in-depth charting of the characteristics. It is the only way you can know what a chip really does in use. The datasheets give a lot of information, but they won't necessarily tell you the worst case scenarios.

If the BB chips would have tested better then the AD1853 in distortion and linearity, as well as filtering and noise, then we would have used the BB. But, the tests showed that the BB had serious distortion and linearity issues - enough so that we chose the AD1853 instead.

Thanks,
Elias

 

[Scrith]

This thread is great, but it's just crazy. I think people have started asking the same questions again because the thread is so huge that it has become impossible for anyone to fully appreciate.

Please consider starting a manufacturer forum so we can have separate threads for all these great topics! I think this can be done here, at audioasylum.com, or at audiocircle.com for very little expense (monetary or time).

 

[showflash]

When/If you start a manufacturers forum area just move this and related discussions to that area.

 

[puntloos]

Elias: thanks again for your insightful and patient messages.

One last and very important question:

What are you guys @ Benchmark up to right now? Built a cool dac, now sitting on your behind raking in the cash? Chatting on forums?

Or can we await a DAC2 anytime soon? (two more and you've caught up with Bel Canto! *ducks*)

 

[music_man]

i hope mr. gwinn shares everyones "sense of humor". i am surprised he stuck around for all this. even though you are making funny i wouldn't push it. he has been very nice to us.

music_man

 

[Regnad]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread, particularly since I just added a DAC1 to my Squeezebox and it sounds great! The music is in FLAC on a computer in another room and I have used both wired and wireless connections.

My question:
How would this setup compare to a local computer feeding a USB DAC-1? What would the differences be, both digitally and sonically?

I would really appreciate any information from those who have experience with both.

Thanks a lot...

 

[tonygeno]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wavelength /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tonygeno, What os level are you on with your mac mini? There was a change in the usb subsystem that was fixed in 10.4.9. This was a kinda goofy thing in that it did not effect most audio usb controllers but did with the TAS1020 that is also used in the DAC1. You may simply have to upgrade the os. You can also look at the USB chain in the system profiler and see what the DAC1 is coming in as. Sometimes if there is a problem the info here will be garbled. Thanks Gordon

I am using 10.4.9. I spoke with Elias over at Benchmark and there was a setting in the Audio Midi Utility that I needed to change: the audio output to 44100 format (it was set a 96000) as Elias described above. After I did that, it worked.

 

[eyeteeth]

I'm throwing in my thanks to Elias Gwinn as well.
Thanks for taking the time Elias!

My DAC1 is a few years old now and this is the thread I keep an eye on.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have really enjoyed reading this thread, particularly since I just added a DAC1 to my Squeezebox and it sounds great! The music is in FLAC on a computer in another room and I have used both wired and wireless connections. My question: How would this setup compare to a local computer feeding a USB DAC-1? What would the differences be, both digitally and sonically? I would really appreciate any information from those who have experience with both. Thanks a lot...

Great question. I have the same set up (coaxial to DAC1) and as I'm well due for a computer upgrade I'm also wondering if I stay with the same configuration or get a laptop or other in the living room device and USB DAC1.

 

[little-endian]

@Regnad

If this squeezeboxe doesn't change the data on its way to the DAC1, the sound will be the same.

Within the claimed jitter performance by Benchmark, there is the simple formula "same data - same sound". Period.

@Elias

Hi there Elias, I answered your private message here in post #518 at Page 26. I suppose it was masked by the amount of postings here, just like a tiny little LSB while an explosion occurs.

 

[EliasGwinn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by puntloos /img/forum/go_quote.gif Elias: thanks again for your insightful and patient messages. One last and very important question: What are you guys @ Benchmark up to right now? Built a cool dac, now sitting on your behind raking in the cash? Chatting on forums? Or can we await a DAC2 anytime soon? (two more and you've caught up with Bel Canto! *ducks*)

The answer to this is highly classified.

Seriously, we don't talk about the products which we are currently developing for lots of reasons. But we have just released a 4-channel microphone pre-amp that has better performance then any mic-pre we can find. That is, it has the lowest distortion, noise, and RF susceptibility then any mic pre we know of.

As I said, we can't talk about future products, but hopefully we will have another audiophile product release soon.

Thanks,
Elias

 

[EliasGwinn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have really enjoyed reading this thread, particularly since I just added a DAC1 to my Squeezebox and it sounds great! The music is in FLAC on a computer in another room and I have used both wired and wireless connections. My question: How would this setup compare to a local computer feeding a USB DAC-1? What would the differences be, both digitally and sonically? I would really appreciate any information from those who have experience with both. Thanks a lot...

I have not tested the Squeezebox, so I can't tell you whether or not it is bit-transparent. But, if we assume that it is, then the Squeezebox->DAC1 should have the same sonic performance as a local PC->DAC1 (save for any signal drop outs with either the Squeezebox or local PC.)

Thanks,
Elias

 

[Lord Chaos]

I bought my first DAC1 to use with a Squeezebox; this combination worked so well that, when I got the Email about the new USB version I promptly bought one to use when I'm in the living room. Listening to the same songs from the same computer that serves the Squeezebox sounds the same: a sonic delight.