[StanD]

 
The Bifrost is a completely different class of equipment from the Benchmark. Schiit is great sound low price, maybe not so stable and tends to sensitive to RF. Benchmark is balanced, rack mountable. I buy gear from Schiit pretty often, but I would not put in a studio or connect it to a large sound system.

Most good products produce sound far better then we can tell the difference. The marketing teams know how to stir up audiophiles so a message to your wallet, Caveat Emptor.

 

[cjl]

  The Bifrost is a completely different class of equipment from the Benchmark. Schiit is great sound low price, designed for home use. Benchmark is balanced, rack mountable. I buy gear from Schiit pretty often, but I don't view it as a professional equipment.

EDIT: quote updated to reflect dprimary's edit.
 
To respond to the new quote, I agree that the Benchmark has some benefits for studio/professional use. I wouldn't expect it to sound any different though.

 

[StanD]

  What makes you say that it isn't stable and sensitive to RF? Have you got any test results demonstrating this?

This is the world of the audiophile, hearsay and anecdote have far too much weight

 

[KeithEmo]

  I'd be curious to see a source for that - I was under the impression that even isochronous dacs can have jitter levels way below anything that would be remotely audible.

 
Personally, before we even get to the usual discussion about what someone is dead certain someone else can't possibly hear, I think this one is simply "a loss on points". Faced with a choice between having the computer create a clock that is approximately correct, adaptively based on buffer capacity, and may vary with hardware and software load, or having the receiving device control the clock, based on an actual local clock, generated at the point where it will be used, the latter is simply better engineering. Since the price difference is only a few dollars, I see no reason to choose to use the less accurate method - even though, according to some people, the serious flaws that exist may not be audible. Asynchronous is simply the "right" way to do a USB interface and, since it only costs a few bucks more to do it that way than the wrong way, it's really a no-brainer.
 
(It's really not so bad to pay $10 extra for a better design - even if it turns out that not everyone can actually hear a difference.)
 
 
 

 

[dprimary]

  What makes you say that it isn't stable and sensitive to RF? Have you got any test results demonstrating this?

The ones sitting on my desk. I've contacted their support about it who told me move the radio sources. 

 

[StanD]

 
The ones sitting on my desk. I've contacted their support about it who told me move the radio sources. 

I have a Bifrost sitting next to a Wifi transmitter, laptop, tablet and smartphone. No problemo.

 

[cjl]

  (It's really not so bad to pay $10 extra for a better design - even if it turns out that not everyone can actually hear a difference.)
 

Ahh, but what if nobody could ever hear the difference, and the real-world results are such that you're already way below the theshold of audibility with the cheaper design? In that case, I'd just as soon save the ten bucks. That's why I'm curious what the real-world numbers say.
 
(Also, if I remember right, isn't the ODAC isochronous?)

 

[dprimary]

  Most good products produce sound far better then we can tell the difference. The marketing teams know how to stir up audiophiles so a message to your wallet, Caveat Emptor.

There are other factors then just sound quality in audio ( don't care about audiophiles) stable, linear, interfaces well, no pin 1 issues, doesn't care about power, can get dropped off a truck and then driven over and still work is equally valuable. Great sound and working always beats excellent sound if it worked. Something like Benchmark I would expect to work sitting on a microwave under a pile of phones in the transmitter room of a radio station, that is part of what I am paying for.
 
Only a handful of equipment is used in both professional and consumer audio. 

 

[StanD]

  Retracted

Retracted as requested 

 

[dprimary]

  I have a xxxxxxx sitting next to a Wifi transmitter, laptop, tablet and smartphone. No problemo.

I will contact them again. Please edit out my last few comments that mention the product. 

 

[KeithEmo]

  Ahh, but what if nobody could ever hear the difference, and the real-world results are such that you're already way below the theshold of audibility with the cheaper design? In that case, I'd just as soon save the ten bucks. That's why I'm curious what the real-world numbers say.
 
(Also, if I remember right, isn't the ODAC isochronous?)

 
Interesting question. I have a $20 Casio watch that keeps time just as accurately as a $100k Rolex - but many Rolex owners seem to find other reasons to buy one. Likewise, there is something aesthetically pleasing about proper engineering in terms of performance (so some of us might pay a little more for something that worked better even if the difference wasn't audible). Buying a piece of audio gear that's "just as bad as it can be and still not be audibly bad" does seem to feel a little bit like going out of the way to buy a loaf of bread that's only one day from its use-by date instead of a week away; I really can't see much harm in buying something that offers a little bit of safety margin as long as the cost isn't very much higher.... as long as it's clear what I'm paying for.
 
I do believe that the 0DAC is isochronous. However, note that the Sabre DAC chip - which it uses - also has built-in jitter reduction mechanisms. I also find it interesting that you mention the 0DAC. I've had one for quite a while and, while I would say it sounds pretty good, and is certainly competitive in its price range, I would not by any means say that it sounds "indistinguishable from other DACs", or that it is "audibly perfect".    

 

[uchihaitachi]

   
Interesting question. I have a $20 Casio watch that keeps time just as accurately as a $100k Rolex - but many Rolex owners seem to find other reasons to buy one. Likewise, there is something aesthetically pleasing about proper engineering in terms of performance (so some of us might pay a little more for something that worked better even if the difference wasn't audible). Buying a piece of audio gear that's "just as bad as it can be and still not be audibly bad" does seem to feel a little bit like going out of the way to buy a loaf of bread that's only one day from its use-by date instead of a week away; I really can't see much harm in buying something that offers a little bit of safety margin as long as the cost isn't very much higher.... as long as it's clear what I'm paying for.
 
I do believe that the 0DAC is isochronous. However, note that the Sabre DAC chip - which it uses - also has built-in jitter reduction mechanisms. I also find it interesting that you mention the 0DAC. I've had one for quite a while and, while I would say it sounds pretty good, and is certainly competitive in its price range, I would not by any means say that it sounds "indistinguishable from other DACs", or that it is "audibly perfect".    

Blind tests couldn't tell an ODAC+O2 apart from a the Benchmark DAC2 HGC

 

[KeithEmo]

  Blind tests couldn't tell an ODAC+O2 apart from a the Benchmark DAC2 HGC

 
Interesting that you compare it to another DAC that also uses a Sabre chip

 
I've never heard the DAC2 HGC personally, although I did own an original DAC1 USB and a DAC1 Pre, and they sounded a bit different than the 0DAC.
(Also interesting that the DAC1 line didn't use Sabre chips, but Benchmark switched over for the DAC2 line..... )

 

[bigshot]

I did a comparison between a $40 Walmart DVD player, an iPod classic and a $900 SACD player and they all sounded identical.

 

[StanD]

  I did a comparison between a $40 Walmart DVD player, an iPod classic and a $900 SACD player and they all sounded identical.

Well, I'm sorry if you had any preconceptions, hahahaha.