There are some things about the post above that confuse me. Seems like you're comparing apples to oranges here.
The Qutest is a DAC, and it has no volume control, and no HP amp. The recent Stereophile review of the Qutest looked pretty favorable, but it seemed to settle in at the Brooklyn/iFi Pro level of DAC performance (with is very good). But Stereophile seems to consistently rate the Benchmark DAC3 to be at a higher level of performance than the Brooklyn/iFi. (I realize the Stereophile reviews are just a data point and aren't always to everyone's tastes.) Too bad the Qutest is limited to unbalance outs, but not the end of the world.
The M Scaler is just an upscaler that sits between your digital source and the Qutest - correct? And of course, it has no volume or HP amp. So I assume you're piping the output of your M Scaler/Qutest combo into some kind of HP amp so that you can listen via your HD800 phones?
And from everything I've read and heard, the Benchmark DAC3 is a definite improvement over the DAC2 - so it's unfortunate that you're not comparing your Chord stuff with the DAC3.
The way I see it, there might be some advantage in putting an M Scaler in front of a DAC3/HPA4 stack if the upscaling would produce a notably more accurate (realistic?) sound. That would be a fun thing to try out. But given the way the DAC3 is designed, I'm not sure how much the massive upstream upscaling would get you.
As for the HPA4 - it's not really relevant to your comparison, since it's neither an upscaler or a DAC. Both the DAC3 (HGC) and the HPA4 have volume control. The HPA4 is just a superb HP amp and preamp that, when combined with the DAC3, works really well with the HD800S phones. The great thing about benchmark is that you can get all of their stuff and try it out for 30 days risk-free and hear for yourself.
For $5K, the Chord M Scaler would need to produce some pretty amazing digital source improvements in my Benchmark stack for me to justify buying it. But I've said that before, and ended up spending the money.
Hello Yooper Audio, and thanks for your take on this.Yes my post may seem a bit confusing.And that is because I am a bit confused especially regarding those SNR figures I quoted from that review.
But I am generally interested in THE BEST POSSIBLE SQ with acoustic music.
Nice to read that you feel the DAC3 is better than the DAC2.
I also want to audition it.
But at the end of your post it seems like you are basically asking almost the same questions I did?
We don't know which sounds best until we have actually auditioned things right?
In my case the DAC3/HPA4 would need to be a very clear and obviously audible improvement over my DAC2 HGC to begin with.
And if that is clearly established, then it would need to take on the Chord M Scaler which I can only describe as so far on my journey in digital audio to be the most obvious and clearest improvement with acoustic music I yet heard.
I heard it first in its orginal form in the BLU2/Dave combination and have now heard it extensively with the new TT2 as well and Qutest which I own.
And with complex heavily scored symphonic or for that matter any well recorded acoustic material it is in a completely different league than my DAC2.
I am very familar with the DAC2 having owned one for over 5 years.
The DAC 2 tames digital glare compared to many other DAC combos like the one you mention, but is not as resolving as the M Scaler which upscales 16/44.1 to 705.6 khz and 24/96 and anything above to 768khz.
I am not sure there would be much, if anything, to gain from adding an M Scaler to a Benchmark DAC?
Benchmark have their own way of upsampling internally,don't they?
But an M Scaler with a compatible Chord DAC even makes well recorded 16/44.1 sound very good to me. No other digital reproduction link or cd player has managed to do that!
16/44.1 does NOT sound good via my DAC2.
I still suspect that for digital to sound as close as currently theoretically/technically possible to live acoustic music in a real hall, 24/192 which is the limit with Benchmark's DACs even with DAC3 as well, may not be enough?
I may be wrong.
But having both heard DXD 24/358.2khz raw at recording sessions and now what M Scaler does by upsampling DXD to 768khz I still suspect that the target may need to be set at 768khz?
Back on topic.
Anyway my interest in HPA4 which is the actual topic of this thread is because I already have the DAC2 HGC and the headphone amp in it is already one of the better I have heard.
And I have even heard its headphone amp used at classical music recording sessions as monitoring amp with the HD800 but bypassing its digital section.
The sessions were recorded in DXD.
And if the HPA4 clearly and audibly improves on my HPA2 I might be interested in using it with my Qutest /M Scaler instead of the DAC2 headphone amp.
The partnering ABH2 power amp is also an amp I would want to audition.
But those SNR figures still remain an open question.
Cheers Controversial Christer