[tfarney]

I just ran across a 6 Moons review of the Benchmark DAC 1, one that interested me because it underscored something I've thought about quite a bit. Take it as an example; I think it would be much the same in the assessment of any top-flight pro component by a high-end home audio enthusiast. There are several points made in the review that could work here, but a couple of them really struck me:

Quote:

Resolution keeps gaining on us but unless a balancing force is introduced, the audible end result doesn't feel entirely natural. The Benchmark's designers have incorporated a very trick interface called Ultralock that is claimed to be essentially immune to jitter. Our friendly -- but occasionally unreliable -- Uncle Theory would predict that cleaning up the time domain should eliminate fine blurring or fuzziness. Is that the reason why the DAC-1 behaves slightly sharp and incisive? My uncle thinks so. The balancing force needed is additional body on the notes

Did he just make a case for jitter? At the very least, he suggested that we might need to compensate for its loss. Earlier in that same paragraph, I believe he nearly made a case for noise:

Quote:

When you consider the general trend of fine audio versus life music, audio systems usually perform in a lower embedded noise floor than the real thing. Simply measure the noise floor of your room when no signal is present and compare it to the average background din of a club or concert. Now factor in the ongoing advances in pushing operational noise floors in audio components lower and lower. Resolution keeps gaining on us but unless a balancing force is introduced, the audible end result doesn't feel entirely natural.

There's that call for a "balancing force" again, to compensate for the loss of noise. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. If color, of any sort, adds to your experience of listening to music, go for it. I think i'm on the side of the most accurate sources I can afford, and adding color later in the chain, with warming phones or speakers, someday maybe even a few tubes (though only as an alternate). But I'm ok with admitting that it is my preference, and that it is not technically superior. IE: My Etys are more resolving than my Senns, but I'd rather listen to my Senns.

Tim

 

[schaqfu]

Personally I'm of the mind that coloring should happen as late in the chain as possible, and that the earliest links -- source files and DAC -- ought to be as transparent as possible. That's why I think of my DAC1-USB as the ultimate DAC. Utterly pure, transparent, jitter-free output that I can then color as much or as little as I want with an amp and headphones. Personally I choose to color it as little as possible, but I know that's impossible, so in choosing cans and an amp we'll always be choosing one sound over another.

 

[sacd lover]

Less jitter = timing distortions .... can only be a good thing. But, just because they claim the DAC1 is immune to jitter does not mean that is the case. In my experience, the DAC1 responds to a better quality transport just like my other dac's do.

Example: Practical experience with two DAC1's, one stock and one modded, reflected a noticeable improvement in sound quality going from my friends Marantz 5400 DVD player to an Eastsound E5 as transport. Switcing from the E5 to a modded Sony 555ES, equipped with a low jitter aftermarket clock, improved the sound once again.

DAC's are a blend of digital and analog technology and the final voicing is dependent on both. I dont know the answer to your question. I can only relate my experiences. The sharpness could be artifacts from the op amp analog output stage and have nothing to do with the digital section; my guess.