[KingStyles]

Your term reference cracks me up. I have never seen an actual reference hi end dac ever compared to an benchmark. I have seen dacs compared to dcs, emm labs, playback design, ayon,etc, but never an benchmark. The only dacs which compare themselves with the benchmark is dacs in its price range trying to claim the same "transparency" like an lavery dac.

Have you ever listened to a benchmark? If you have, what was the front end and the headphone/amp that was used? Then please tell me what you liked in the combo. Quite telling me it is the best because of stats which a manufacture can manipulate to hide flaws and bring out strengths. Tell me its the best because you heard it and you liked what you heard. Then you will have something to stand on.

 

[sandslash]

Unfortunately subjective data is completely personal and cannot be generalized from person to person before it reaches a point where thousands of people agree with little deviation (Mean Opinion Score). This is because no ear is similar and no preference or point of view is identical. That is why measurements are a repeatable and comparable way to evaluate DAC and amp performance.

I personally have listened to DAC1 Pre + Genelec 1032A. I had no other DAC to compare to, but the sound in itself was excellent, and I have in another occasion heard the same speakers with a low-end USB interface which was not nearly as pure. There was noticeable noise floor and what sounded like distortion

Others have measured the Benchmarks to be excellent too, so they are quite a step ahead most audiophool brands, providing measurements which happen to be true too! You can keep any sense of superiority you get from laughing at a valid term like reference, you sound like you need it. There are other transparent DACs to use as a reference point when it comes to a transparent signal chain, non transparent DACs used as reference sound like a purely subjective "preference" kind of review which rarely are reliable (blind) or valid (listening and claiming things a DAC can't change like low frequency timing errors ie. Rhythm.). I would put my money elsewhere than on such humbug. High-end in itself is a hilarious dogma that assumes more money = more quality ad infinitum

 

[Sapientiam]

Quote:

No, but if the frequency response is not flat, then it cannot be "transparent".

The Benchmark DACs are not just the reference that other DACs are compared to because of a flat frequency response.

 
Right, so we're in agreement then that flat FR is necessary but not sufficient for transparency. Benchmark DACs in my understanding are designed to the numbers (THD+N, SNR) with in the case of the DAC1, opamp rolling for the best subjective effect. Hardly a design process that's focussed on getting audible transparency. It would be a total fluke if they did turn out to be audibly transparent, by accident.

 

[sandslash]

With in the case of the DAC1, opamp rolling for the best subjective effect.

Source?

 

[meat01]

Quote:

The only dacs which compare themselves with the benchmark is dacs in its price range trying to claim the same "transparency" like an lavery dac.

 
You're getting hung up on prices.  As stated before, more expensive doesn't mean better.  You get to a point of diminishing returns, where the extra cost is going into the chassis and boutique parts.  The ODAC is transparent and it sells for a tenth of the price of the Benchmark.  The ODAC doesn't have the features though.
 

 

[Hi Rez]

Quote:

what is best DAC in the world? I am talking about lowest distortion,cleanest sound ( no pre/post ringing ),perfect phase from 16-20.000hz,flattest freqency response...
 
I saw some Rowland DAC for 10.000  and this Ayre QA-9 usb for  4700 + some old 1999 Levinson 360s....  so whats best of the best? 

Just noticed this in your opening post.  The Ayre QA-9 isn't even a DAC - it's an A -> D converter....

 

[Hi Rez]

Quote:

Your term reference cracks me up. I have never seen an actual reference hi end dac ever compared to an benchmark.

Pretty funny.
 
In these forums, I also find it interesting that ODAC almost always pops up in discussions of high end digital sources.  I have no bias toward the ODAC one way or another as I haven't heard it, unlike many of the ODAC advocates who have never heard a high end DAC.
 
Seriously tempted to just go buy an ODAC and compare it to my Ayre QB-9 - not a reference in my mind - but definitely high end.  After comparing, I could end up with a $150 paper weight, or I might get to sell my QB-9 and get some of my "wasted" money back.  
 
Seriously tempted....

 

[Sapientiam]

Quote:

Source?

 
John Siau (originally on here I believe) said the NE5532 was selected in the DAC1 on the basis of transparency, not cost. So I interpreted that to mean he listened to a few. But I might be mistaken there - here it says 'carefully designed for the 5532' (whatever that might mean) : http://repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=17105.35;wap2

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
John Siau (originally on here I believe) said the NE5532 was selected in the DAC1 on the basis of transparency, not cost. So I interpreted that to mean he listened to a few. But I might be mistaken there - here it says 'carefully designed for the 5532' (whatever that might mean) : http://repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=17105.35;wap2

 
 
Like any component it has operating limits and when asked to do too much it's performance worsens. However when operating at modest gain it delivers a flat FR, low noise and low distortion. There are loads (including one whose name I cannot mention) of pages measuring this and similar chips. It is pretty damn good if used properly. Given the very good Benchmark measurements one can infer that they are using it properly.

 

[sandslash]

Component it has operating limits and when asked to do too much it's performance worsens. However when operating at modest gain it delivers a flat FR, low noise and low distortion. There are loads (including one whose name I cannot mention) of pages measuring this and similar chips. It is pretty damn good if used properly. Given the very good Benchmark measurements one can infer that they are using it properly.

.. which to me says it is built with care, and designed well. Opamp rolling is an absurd concept that you could just swap an IC component with another one, completely disregarding their specifications and requirements. There is no clue of that nonsense in here.

A device is always built AROUND the important components (opamps, ADC or DAC, microcontroller) requirements, otherwise it cannot be expected to work according to it's lab measurements and performance. Sapientiam's comment "whatever that might mean" implies he has no understanding how are these devices made, or how do they operate.

Furthermore, trying to discredit DAC1 with your own misinterpretation of what someone said somewhere is really not helping to get your message through, or have it taken seriously, Sapientiam.

 

[Sapientiam]

Quote:

 
 
Like any component it has operating limits and when asked to do too much it's performance worsens. However when operating at modest gain it delivers a flat FR, low noise and low distortion. There are loads (including one whose name I cannot mention) of pages measuring this and similar chips. It is pretty damn good if used properly. Given the very good Benchmark measurements one can infer that they are using it properly.

 
Yes - its fine when used properly - as I/V converter for a wideband RF (>100MHz) signal out of a DAC isn't included in 'properly' for an audio part with around 10MHz bandwidth.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
Yes - its fine when used properly - as I/V converter for a wideband RF (>100MHz) signal out of a DAC isn't included in 'properly' for an audio part with around 10MHz bandwidth.

 
 
How do you explain the very good measured performance of the circuit with the opamp in it then ?
 
Also benchmark are far from the only manufacturer extracting good audio performance from this modest chip 

 

[Da5Id]

Moderator, please kill this thread. Thank you in advance.

 

[Sapientiam]

Quote:

 
 
How do you explain the very good measured performance of the circuit with the opamp in it then ?
 
Also benchmark are far from the only manufacturer extracting good audio performance from this modest chip 

 
Because the measurements do not tax the chip in the way that music does. Easy to get full scale THD measurements good.
 
You omitted a word 'good measured audio' not 'good audio' performance - the OP clearly heard some of its audible deficiencies. By far the majority of manufacturers use this audio chip in audio applications - for example its a popular one in studio consoles where it does a fine job for the money.

 

[sandslash]

Because the measurements do not tax the chip in the way that music does. Easy to get full scale THD measurements good.

You omitted a word 'good measured audio' not 'good audio' performance - the OP clearly heard some of its audible deficiencies. By far the majority of manufacturers use this audio chip in audio applications - for example its a popular one in studio consoles where it does a fine job for the money.

Interesting theory, but you got any data to back up the theory that music would load a system more than test tones and square wave (which is very complex)? That sounds like audiophile nonsense with no basis on reality, I'd like to see a paper on that.

Also how on earth is the bandwidth of audio 10 MEGAhertz when it only spans several tens of kilohertz? Even hi-res sampling rates are only few tenths of a megahertz.