[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowmagnet /img/forum/go_quote.gif People don't like the DAC1 because it's not made by Brand X and doesn't cost 4 times what it's selling for. If it was, it'd be the second coming of Mark Levinson or something.

I agree. Some people claim they don't like the DAC1 because of what it sounds like. Some say it is bright. This is flat wrong. I have the ability like you to read other people's minds, to know their preferences, and to determine what is right for them. I thought I was the only one who had this skill, but I'm glad to have company. Anyway, it is clear that the DAC1 is perfect, that nobody could have any basis for not liking it, and that people are basing their judgment on things that have nothing to do with the sound.

 

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree. Some people claim they don't like the DAC1 because of what it sounds like. Some say it is bright. This is flat wrong. I have the ability like you to read other people's minds, to know their preferences, and to determine what is right for them. I thought I was the only one who had this skill, but I'm glad to have company. Anyway, it is clear that the DAC1 is perfect, that nobody could have any basis for not liking it, and that people are basing their judgment on things that have nothing to do with the sound.

Oh man, there is no way possible anyone could have said that better.

 

[lowmagnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree. Some people claim they don't like the DAC1 because of what it sounds like. Some say it is bright. This is flat wrong. I have the ability like you to read other people's minds, to know their preferences, and to determine what is right for them. I thought I was the only one who had this skill, but I'm glad to have company. Anyway, it is clear that the DAC1 is perfect, that nobody could have any basis for not liking it, and that people are basing their judgment on things that have nothing to do with the sound.

Of course I can take it

all in good fun I suppose.

I can't understand why people consider something that's accurate over the entire range of human hearing is 'bright' to people when it's just reproducing the source material accurately. This isn't any mystery to it, it's a measurable phenomenon.

When people say "I don't like the DAC1 because trumpets are too bright when they hit high notes" I just smile and nod. In fact, why not just say, "I don't like going to live jazz performances because trumpets are too bright when they hit high notes." I used to frequent a tiny little jazz club and the trumpeters actually sound that way. Shrill little instrument. Trumpets are bright and in some cases they ring.

I guess I'm a purist in that I want to hear what was recorded with as little interference as possible. I choose equipment based on how they perform not how they suit my subjective preferences. If 80% of my recordings sound great, 15% sound muddy, and 5% sound too harsh in the high end on the same equipment, then maybe it's the recording. Just me?

 

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

People’s preferences, system, and ears are all different, and anyone who mentions the DAC 1 in same sentence as Mark Levinson should be slapped.

 

[lowmagnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRESCENDOPOWER /img/forum/go_quote.gif People’s preferences, system, and ears are all different, and anyone who mentions the DAC 1 in same sentence as Mark Levinson should be slapped.

Slap John Atkinson then (I don't know if ellipsis counts as the same sentence in this case, so you may not want to have him slapped):

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Atkinson "one audio product that has floored me in the past 12 months' listening was a D/A processor, the DAC1, from pro-audio manufacturer Benchmark... In level-matched comparisons with my long-term reference DAC, the Mark Levinson No.30.6 ($17,500), I found it surprisingly difficult to hear differences. "

in Stereophile

I'm flabbergasted that John level matched before comparing them. Maybe there's hope for Stereophile yet.

So either DAC1 is the deal of the century or ML gear isn't as magically delicious as people hold it up to be. But heck, it weighs 85 pounds, and costs 17 grand, it must be great.

 

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowmagnet /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe there's hope for Stereophile yet.

Probably not, and that is the #1 reason why I haven't had an audio magazine sent to my house in years.

What Srajan Ebaen said about the Benchmark DAC1:
“There are plenty of DACs I'd rather listen to.”
“The Benchmark is somewhat overrated and not exactly what I'd ultimately want in my reference system.”


http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/b...rk/dac1_2.html

 

[rsaavedra]

Ah! The Benchmark DAC1 you've been talking about; not the Bel Canto DAC1, predecessor of the Bel Canto DAC2.

For a while I was confused under the impression you were talking about the DAC1 from Bel Canto and not from Benchmark.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowmagnet /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't understand why people consider something that's accurate over the entire range of human hearing is 'bright' to people when it's just reproducing the source material accurately. This isn't any mystery to it, it's a measurable phenomenon. When people say "I don't like the DAC1 because trumpets are too bright when they hit high notes" I just smile and nod. In fact, why not just say, "I don't like going to live jazz performances because trumpets are too bright when they hit high notes." I used to frequent a tiny little jazz club and the trumpeters actually sound that way. Shrill little instrument. Trumpets are bright and in some cases they ring.

Some people don't agree that measurements tell the full story. Some people don't agree that the DAC1 makes trumpets sound exactly like a live jazz performance.

 

[Inzane]

200$ audioquest cables on 100$ pair infinity primus 150 speakers.

Not very wise, but they look and sound damn nice.

 

[lowmagnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some people don't agree that measurements tell the full story. Some people don't agree that the DAC1 makes trumpets sound exactly like a live jazz performance.

Not to beat a dead horse, but recordings by definition can't sound like a live jazz performance, no matter how much you fake the darkness or whatever. It's all in the recording. To me, the recordings that sound most live with headphones are binaural recordings. I honestly don't think you can get 'live' with multiple mics and tracks or even a Decca array (though that comes close enough in orchestra recordings)

 

[lowmagnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRESCENDOPOWER /img/forum/go_quote.gif Probably not, and that is the #1 reason why I haven't had an audio magazine sent to my house in years. What Srajan Ebaen said about the Benchmark DAC1: “There are plenty of DACs I'd rather listen to.” “The Benchmark is somewhat overrated and not exactly what I'd ultimately want in my reference system.” http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/b...rk/dac1_2.html

And of course the full quote is "There are plenty of DACs I'd rather listen to - but they all consume in sales tax alone what the Benchmark DAC retails for. This from a high-profile reviewer who recommends this piece to anyone on an insanity-deprived budget." Whatever.

Also, they added "Bybee devices" to which the author comments:

Quote:

On the subject of Bybee devices, we're entering into deep audiophile voodoo mostly because their operation on the quantum level isn't completely understood.

Horray for 'quantum' -- the new Audiophile BS word for the new millennium. Also the bybee device is A high-grade low ohm resistor, nothing quantum or magical.

 

[lowmagnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif For a while I was confused under the impression you were talking about the DAC1 from Bel Canto and not from Benchmark.

I just looked at Bel Canto's site. Man they have some sexy cases. (not on the older stuff, but the new stuff)

 

[Dimitris]

Guys can we focus on cables and stay out of the DAC-1?

 

[lowmagnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris /img/forum/go_quote.gif Guys can we focus on cables and stay out of the DAC-1?

I thought the thread was about how much you spent on cables and why, then devolved into an argument over the dac1 when I challenged Patrick82's notion that you can take a source and make it better by applying cables. OK, I'll stop derailing.

I voted that cables don't matter, as much as I think they do make some difference, but in my mind anything that changes the sound isn't appropriate in my system. I don't go for equipment that intentionally adds noise/distortion to make it 'sound' a certain way. If I want a certain 'sound' out of an amplifier/etc. I'll EQ it, I think.

But I don't even EQ. I don't want anything but a minimalist signal path, a lack of modification to the original digital data, and a lack of 'coloration' to my final resulting sound. Call it bright if you want to. I don't care. The recording/mastering of the disc is (I hope) the final determinant of how my system sounds.

 

[televators]