[applebook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer You, my friend, are a victim of unrelenting and undeniable hype that has circulated for some time since the launch of a great PR campaign on Benchmark's part. The "five other people on this forum" and I have actually battle-tested the DAC1 under many circumstances, and have found even lower-priced options that best it. And I doubt we are alone.

Many thousands of satisfied DAC1 users and people are incorrect just because you think so? FYI, many of those who love the DAC1 has "battle-tested" it against DACs and sources costing WAY more than you can even imagine. So are their opinions completely unwarranted, and are these people also victims of advertising? That is a pretty absurd and cynical assertion.

Quote:

Why would I need to have heard one? I was not the one running around saying it sounds better with absolutely no experience to back it up, I merely called you on it. I made no claims as to how it sounds, in fact I even reasoned it might sound quite good indeed. I don't object to speculation, I object to statements of supposed fact with no evidence. If you had said "I think a fully-modded E5 might sound better than any $1000 DAC," I wouldn't have raised an eye, since you would not have been sending out the idea that you knew something which in fact you didn't.

I never "ran around" proclaiming anything. My comment was directed as Jashugun who, insterestingly, wants to "upgrade" from a DAC1 to an E5, which I remarked can be upgraded to a remarkable level. Your diatribe that my statement is "obviously ignorant" is even more ignorant than mine because I'm basing my opinion on the idea that something that costs $2000 is probably going to sound better than anything half of its price. Is this always a correct assumption? Of course not, but is it "obviously ignorant?" No.

In order for you to contradict my remark, you'd have to have first hand experience that indicates otherwise, but you don't and yet have the credibility to denigrate my claim...interesting.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by applebook Not correctly using the headphones is not wearing them right. You also blatantly criticized the gear of those who disagree with your opinion, and if you actually know anything about these folks, you'd realize that they have had or still possess better equipment that few can only dream of.

Well I said that they did not FIT people correctly (i.e. the headphone's fault, not their won). This is likely responsible for most people who don't like them. The others are people using them straight for a weak portable player, computer AC'97 sondcard, or the like. Obviously I know someone like the folks at Headroom don't suffer from the latter problem

Quote:

Originally Posted by applebook He just doesn't necessarily listen to music the same way that you do and never discredited your impressions, nor do I, even if I do feel that the SA5000 is way too bright for my tastes. If people don't agree with your impressions because of your headphones, then they have every right to do so because their experiences with those cans are negative, and they are not incorrect to have those opinions. Your response does nothing to bolster the SA5000's claim to accuracy with HF; it merely regurgitates your opinon, which, as I've pointed out is actually in the minority. Many here, including Tyll, consider the SA5000 to be bright, not accurate.

Whether you (or Tyll, or anyone else) find the SA5000 bright or not is irrelevant. The discussion was not about whether or not it is bright, it was about whether it has the capability to critically evaluate a DAC's high-frequency performance, i.e. does it have detailed and resolving treble? So long as the treble of a given detailed transducer is loud enough to be heard properly, one can ascertain whether or not one piece of electronics is grainy or harsh compared to another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by applebook This is your attempt at "possibly" selling your DAC1 prior to your DAC shoot-out: http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showt...ight=benchmark I'll e-mail the user and ask if you and he/ she agreed to a deal.

You needn't, Mr. Nosey, as I still have my DAC1 sitting right here in my room above the Lavry for easy comparison. And what do you know I'm comparing them right now...and you aren't.


Quote:

Originally Posted by applebook If you in fact were going to sell a product before even evaluating it against its competitors, then, yes, all of your impressions are seriously compromised.

There is a big difference between trying to arrange a future deal, and selling something; apparently a difference you don't understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by applebook Many thousands of satisfied DAC1 users and people are incorrect just because you think so? FYI, many of those who love the DAC1 has "battle-tested" it against DACs and sources costing WAY more than you can even imagine. So are their opinions completely unwarranted, and are these people also victims of advertising? That is a pretty absurd and cynical assertion.

I never said anyone is incorrect, I said that I don't think the DAC1 is the top of it's class (i.e. the best performance avaliable for a given price). I "loved" the DAC1 myself for quite a long while as anyone who's been on this site for a while knows, and coming from that point of view, I have an understanding as to how Benchmark's prolific advertising and hype helps reinforce the opinions of an owner who wants to defend their purchase. I was a DAC1 defender, perhaps even to the point of lacking sense, for a long time, until I compared it to some able-bodied challengers with an open mind. If that DAC1 is the best thing you've ever heard at the time you first hear it, it is very easy to buy into the marketing, and insist that it is truely neutral, and anything else is simply colored, sitting up on a plateau of assumed superiority and the associated self-reinforcement. The power of suggestion is much higher than many of us know, and many others dare to admit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by applebook I never "ran around" proclaiming anything. My comment was directed as Jashugun who, insterestingly, wants to "upgrade" from a DAC1 to an E5, which I remarked can be upgraded to a remarkable level. Your diatribe that my statement is "obviously ignorant" is even more ignorant than mine because I'm basing my opinion on the idea that something that costs $2000 is probably going to sound better than anything half of its price. Is this always a correct assumption? Of course not, but is it "obviously ignorant?" No.

Assuming that cost=performance is one of the worst kinds of ignorance in audio, and a sure sign that "the beast" has taken over your mind. It is dangerous enough to make blanket assumptions. Then make it one as dubious and questionable as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by applebook In order for you to contradict my remark, you'd have to have first hand experience that indicates otherwise, but you don't and yet have the credibility to denigrate my claim...interesting.

Well considering that the remark I contradicted was an admitted blanket assumption made with no actual experience or evidence as to the items at hand being discussed, I don't think anything more is needed.


Good thing I didn't say PC's with foobar2000 are the best platform for computer audio.....

......

...I guess I just did....

Have fun, see everyone at my DAC comparison review in a day or so...

 

[applebook]

According to "benchmarkdac1," who just replied to me, you did try to sell your DAC1 before the meet.

Oops. This completely exposes your bias.

As far as the SA5000 is concerned, if it's as bright as some claim (and I don't make that claim), then will it not naturally intensify any treble input? Maybe the HF response of the DAC1 isn't as "distorted" as you assert.

FYI, I never bought into Benchmark's hype and didn't buy the DAC until it sort of fell out of favor on sites like this. Men like Bob Katz, Doug Sax, Rick Ruben, Jerry Harrison, Bob Ohlsson, Glenn Meadows, John Atkinson, Mike Glossop and others (who all have far more credibility and experience than anyone on this forum when it comes to sound reproduction) convinced me to give the DAC a serious shot.

Unlike some people, I'm not made of money and can afford to have three $1000 DACs lying around. I do what many sensible folks do: read professional reviews, ask questions, and then decide if a certain product is for me.

Don't even try to convince me that everyone isn't guilty of making the general assumption about production quality based on price. If we don't discriminate on those terms, then why would anyone have a "price point" to start searching for products? Why start at around $1000? Why not test every single DAC that costs under $750 because one or a dozen of them might be way better than your Lavry.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by applebook FYI, I never bought into Benchmark's hype and didn't buy the DAC until it sort of fell out of favor on sites like this. Men like Bob Katz, Doug Sax, Rick Ruben, Jerry Harrison, Bob Ohlsson, Glenn Meadows, John Atkinson, Mike Glossop and others (who all have far more credibility and experience than anyone on this forum when it comes to sound reproduction) convinced me to give the DAC a serious shot.

Mastering engineers compare what comes out of a box against the original signal for a living. They do that every day in well-controlled environments. If anyone knows what a high-fiedlity DAC should really sound like, I bet it is a mastering engineer. Now we should anticipate some mastering engineers' opinion on comparing several pro-audio DACs being debated here.

Not that I know I a lot about mastering enginners, but I have read some random things about them. Doug Sax is sometimes called the godfather of mastering engineers, and his work at Sheffield Labs is legendary in the audiophile world. I am pretty sure he does not buy a product based on advertised hype, at least not seven of the same prodcut (he bought 7 DAC1's). Glenn Meadows and Bob Ohlsson are also big names in the business as well. Bob Katz is an audio guru in the digital audio age. A whole line of superb CDs from Chesky was his contribution. He thinks Benchmark can hold its own against the Weiss, probably the best DAC in the industry today. Even though I don't know who Joe Yannece is, he works at "The Hit Factory," a leading studio int the world (John Lennon spent his final hours recording there). He says Benchmark is as good as any DAC in their facility, which is quite remarkable.

To say that DAC1's success is built on marketing hype is obviously misleading. What kind of PR campaign can sell Doug Sax seven of the same sub-par DAC? Or sell Michael Wageners, renown rock producer/engineer and gear collector , three units?

 

[Graham Maynard]

Hi All,

It is a little disappointing to see the argument. Argument; not contribution.

Everyone is free to make subjective observation and comment.
Everyone is free to choose whether to accept or ignore same.
Nit-picking is like unstable feedback, it causes noise and distracting spurii.

1) Experienced listeners can hear errors and differences through phones/loudspeakers - no matter how highly 'rateable' those phones/loudspeakers are by others.
2) Phones/loudspeakers sound different with different source amps/cables.
3) A given phone/loudspeaker amplifier output stage outputs fractionally differently with different cables/phones/loudspeakers.

I was initially following comment on recent comparisons, and I do not want to take sides, but surely the Aqvox became known about - after - many had made decisions about the Benchmark, so have Benchmark owners auditioned the Aqvox with their own choice of headphones ?

Cheers ....... Graham.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose Glenn Meadows and Bob Ohlsson are also big names in the business as well. Bob Katz is an audio guru in the digital audio age. A whole line of superb CDs from Chesky was his contribution. He thinks Benchmark can hold its own against the Weiss, probably the best DAC in the industry today. Even though I don't know who Joe Yannece is, he works at "The Hit Factory," a leading studio int the world (John Lennon spent his final hours recording there). He says Benchmark is as good as any DAC in their facility, which is quite remarkable.

I'm not sure this type of thing proves anything. The various Lavry DACs also have their fans among mastering engineers and production houses:
http://www.lavryengineering.com/clientspage.html
The LavryBlue in particular has a very significant following in the pro community. (Obviously the Black doesn't have the same reputation yet because it's new and only 100 units have been made, several of which have gone to Head-Fiers.)

I also agree with the previous poster. I don't see Applebook's semi-evangelical comments in this thread being all that valuable, since he's only heard one of these units. I really appreciate those who have heard multiple units taking the time to post, especially Iron_Dreamer, whose posts are always informative and carefully considered.

 

[grandenigma1]

Just to put my two cents out there... I had the privlidge of auditioning the DAC1 and DA10 in the comforts of my home. Ive said it before and I will say it again I think the DAC1 is easily out classed by the DA10. There is not a sigle strength of the DAC1 that the DA10 does not do better. If you talk to those dealers that sell both they will all agree.

 

[applebook]

6-moons is fairly well respected, right? Here's what they have to say about the DAC1's alleged "distortion" in HF:

"he Benchmark DAC's calling card is crystalline clarity and a 'forward' shift into the transient field of each tone. This makes for an incisive, slightly edgy demeanor, edgy here not as though leading by the treble but by emphasizing leading edges over the subsequent bloom. The question simply comes down to your system's core temperature. Ice water on a winter day will drop your temperature like a rock while, on a high-desert summer day, it's the best and cheapest feel-good medicine extant. This DAC tells it as it is in a very factual and precise matter. Even if I hadn't seen the measurements by now, I'd not be surprised to find them stellar. It sounds that way. Whether you find that refreshingly uncomplicated and admirable or a bit bland and sterile depends on how you view these things."

I've bit my tongue and said pretty much nothing when Iron Dreamer has consistently and dogmatically delcared the DAC1's treble to be distorted because I know that I'm not into "calling people out," but if he truly were unbiased, he would never have tried to sell his DAC1 even before his shoot-out meeting. It's very clear that he had already gotten tired of the product and was prepared to buy something else, anything else, and the Lavry and Aqvox just came along.

I don't want to embarrass anyone, but if there is a question as to whether I have evidence to back up my claim above, then PM me, and I'll forward the message.

As for being labelled an evangelist for the DAC1, I'm just trying to bring some balance into threads like these that have gone the opposite extreme of degrading the product as nothing more than a marketing fraud.

My responses have been constructive because Iron Dreamer has raised many issues: for one thing, his choice of headphones to use with the three DACs has been held in question. I personally feel that a slightly analytical DAC coupled with a bright can is not synergystic but have made no comments up until Iron Dreamer's rant against akwok's SA5000 remarks.

 

[applebook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose To say that DAC1's success is built on marketing hype is obviously misleading. What kind of PR campaign can sell Doug Sax seven of the same sub-par DAC? Or sell Michael Wageners, renown rock producer/engineer and gear collector , three units?

To make that assertion is plain nonsense. Notice that many DAC1 owners and I have never said anything negative about the Lavry or the Aqvox on this and many other threads. It's a few of those owners who are now coming forward as being superior because they think that they own some esoteric equipment that's too good for dumb folks like me.

Unlike some people, I tend to believe that there are plenty of products out there in the same price range or lower that's probably at least on par with my stuff.

 

[Hello]

This is a wildly entertaining thread. Here's my two cents:

The design philosophies of the Dac-1 and DA-10 are different. Benchmark designed its dac to be as accurate as possible primarily by measuring as well as possible (under a variety of tests, some of which are rumored to be quite unique.) If you go to the Lavry forums, you can read how Lavry does not think having the best measurements is the ultimate goal. He uses measurements, but ultimately lets his ears and design principles decide.

So, how does this factor into this debate? Well, I'm thinking that there is a difference between 'accuracy' and 'pleasantness'. In every head to head comparison I have read on the internet, the Lavry Blue/Black was preferred over the Dac-1. But, I also remembering reading how one reviewer preferred some multi-thousand dollar dacs to the dac-1, but still thought the dac-1 was the most realistic in portraying the original sound.

I'm sure most everyone has had the unpleasant experience of hearing nails being scratched on a blackboard -- it's an awful sound. If this sound were recorded, I bet the dac-1 would reveal more of this awfulness than the da-10.

 

[mulveling]

Why do people feel the need to compare gear they haven't heard?

This has got to stop.

 

[elmoe]

Iron dreamer: What I meant by the SA5k being the most revealing cans I've heard for highs is, of course, out of all the DYNAMIC cans I've heard (not heard qualia or r10 as of yet).

Akmok: Wether you emphasize controlled or refined doesnt change anything, the SA5k is extremely revealing of highs, even if those highs arent controlled much.

 

[mshan]

Anyone know if Lavry designed and targeted the DA10 for the consumer / audiophile market rather than the pro market? (Todd Krieger over at Audio Asylum said he felt it had an "audiophile" sound: http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/dig...es/113889.html )?

Benchmark explicitly states that there goal is maximal transparency and I get the impression that they designed and targeted the product specifically for the pro market (i.e. no voicing per se, beyond absolutely trying to stomp out all distortions and maximizing transparency / resolution (?)).

 

[elnero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshan Anyone know if Lavry designed and targeted the DA10 for the consumer / audiophile market rather than the pro market?

Well seeing as it only comes with balanced XLR outputs, no RCA's and reading some of Lavry's comments on his forum my guess would be that it was aimed at the Pro market not the audiophile/consumer market, it just happens to have caught the attention of some audiophiles.

 

[mshan]

Any comments on those forums on if / how the DA10 compares sonically to the Lavry Blue?