[daltonlanny]

Hello,
I own a Marantz SA8001 CD/SACD player and I am fairly happy with its sonics, but I am always looking to improve existing gear.
I saw a good price on a Benchmark DAC, and I was wondering if it would improve the sonics of the SA8001, or is the top-of-the-line Cirrus Logic DAC built into the SA8001 just as good or nearly as good, sonically, as the Benchmark DAC?
[This would be using the SA8001 as a transport, and the Benchmark DAC acting as an outboard DAC using the coax output on the back of the SA8001].
Any opinions would be appreciated.
Thanks!

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Some of your replies will be a matter of opinion. I've heard a DAC1 in my own system and found it to be bright and very dry, just not my cup of tea at all. Yes it seemed to be very detailed as a result, but IMO missed a whole lot of information on the tones that were also within the music.

So the DAC1 will almost certainly sound "different" to your Marantz, whether you like the effect is another matter altogether.

Ref your query on the chip in your SACD player, I really do wonder why people place so much importance on the silicon in question. My experience with kit has been that the silicon is far less importance than how well it's implemented (e.g. the clocks, mechanical vibration control and particularly the PSU section). The easy solution is to listen. If it sounds better, it IS better.

 

[vcoheda]

here is my experience on the topic of transport plus external dac. i consider my myryad z110 - a 6 year old player, which was over $1000 new - a very good transport and player and i was surprised that when using it in concert with my mini dac, it sounded better. i wouldn't say that the improvement was significant but it was noticeable. and noticeable, especially in audio, is quite a big deal. of course, i did not purchase the mini dac for that reason, to use as a dac for my z110. i purchased it so i could have a good source for my computer setup. it just so happened that in time i abandoned the computer setup and began to use it with my stand alone. and i'm happy that i did.

i'm not sure how good a player your marantz is, so i suppose the answer to your question is, it may.

 

[Herandu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Sukebe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some of your replies will be a matter of opinion. I've heard a DAC1 in my own system and found it to be bright and very dry, just not my cup of tea at all. Yes it seemed to be very detailed as a result, but IMO missed a whole lot of information on the tones that were also within the music.

I experienced the same when I tried the DAC1, which is why I settled on the TC-7510. But both miss a slight edge on the after glow on such things like guitar. I hope the new MK6 will solve that as I have been promised

. I shall know tonight

.

The Marantz SA8001 has a lovely soundstage that a dry DAC would ruin. But the Marantz doesn't have the same level of detail that I would have expected from it, unless you bang a SACD in it. Alternatively, use a warmer DAC.

 

[pesciolino]

if you use an external dac then you would be losing the best part... the dsd!
i have the sa8001 and it sounds fantastic, cds included

 

[Redo]

SA8001 is a great unit, but my guess is the DAC1 has loads more detail and resolution. Considering the DAC1 costs as much as the whole SA8001, it should be that way.

SA8001 will easily be warmer though.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herandu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I experienced the same when I tried the DAC1, which is why I settled on the TC-7510. But both miss a slight edge on the after glow on such things like guitar. I hope the new MK6 will solve that as I have been promised . I shall know tonight . The Marantz SA8001 has a lovely soundstage that a dry DAC would ruin. But the Marantz doesn't have the same level of detail that I would have expected from it, unless you bang a SACD in it. Alternatively, use a warmer DAC.

Go NOS tube dac!

 

[pesciolino]

but you're still missing the point... this is apples and oranges here! native dsd vs relatively low rez pcm. with a decend sacd source, the sa8001 sounds better.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesciolino /img/forum/go_quote.gif but you're still missing the point... this is apples and oranges here! native dsd vs relatively low rez pcm. with a decend sacd source, the sa8001 sounds better.

Which tracks did you use for comparison when you ran an SA8001 vs a DAC1?

 

[pesciolino]

i've heard the dac1 but don't own it... and i have a sa8001. granted the dac1 is better on any cd. but for sacd the sa8001 just wins by default.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesciolino /img/forum/go_quote.gif i've heard the dac1 but don't own it... and i have a sa8001. granted the dac1 is better on any cd. but for sacd the sa8001 just wins by default.

So which tracks did you have to hand that you could compare SACD from the SA8001 vs CD from the DAC1 and how were they different?

 

[pesciolino]

well, if you're not already convinced that dsd reasonably presented is tons better than cd even super presented, then i don't think anything i can tell you would change your mind otherwise.

 

[twsmith]

I've tried my DAC1-USB with three different CD players, two of which use a Cirrus Logic DAC (though not the SACD version). In all 3 instances I thought the latest version of the DAC1 sounded better (improved resolution, dynamic range). Of course the DAC1 won't convert the output from SACDs but somehow I get the impression that the SACD output is not what you're really trying to improve. My only concern might be whether the DAC1 that you're interested in is really Benchmark's latest iteration, since there have been improvements made to it over the years. All I can say is that the current DAC1-USB is a very fine DAC which I would not hesitate to recommend to anyone.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesciolino /img/forum/go_quote.gif well, if you're not already convinced that dsd reasonably presented is tons better than cd even super presented, then i don't think anything i can tell you would change your mind otherwise.

Can you present any decent controlled comparative listening tests between CD and SACD where the mastering was the same. i.e where the only variable was the encoding.

I have done a lot of searching and so far have found none, numerous anecdotal reports, some say they found an obvious difference , some said they found none, this one I found on a RA group

I have also been able to do SACD vs. 48/20 PCM vs. live comparisons at Sony Music's studios in New York. Once I was able to work out some kinks in the switching, it didn't seem to me there was any difference between the
sound of the live feed (jazz combo) and either of the digital
(A/D-D/A) renderings - this was Michael Riggs by the way editor of Stereo Review and former editor of High Fidelity


Back in the 1980s Ivor Tiefenbrun was famously and spectacularly able to detect the presence or absence of a SONY PCM-F1 a very early 16 bit (on good day) ADA stage after an analog source.


Even though SACD has technical superiority I am skeptical that the same mastering on SACD would be audibly different from a CD version. I base this on the paucity of controlled listening tests.

Sure SACD can give you more dynamic range and lower noise , but most CDs dont even get within a country mile of using the capability of 16/44.1.

You seem convinced that DSD is superior, how did you come to that conclusion ?

 

[daltonlanny]

I have actually read articles and other comparisons on the internet that state that the treble on Redbook CD, and especially on DVD-Audio discs, is superior in resolution and dynamic range to DSD.
I have read that the treble on DSD sounds compressed and veiled compared to well recorded CD's and DVD-Audio discs, and the upper treble on DSD is limited to only about 6 bits of resolution!
I have also noticed this effect in my own listening sessions.
While the bass and mids are noticeably superior on SACD compared to CD, the CD's sound as if the treble, especially the upper treble, is simply more open, extended, and dynamic than the SACD versions.