On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:05:10 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

There is only one DAC worth buying - the Benchmark DAC1. It is for all
practical purposes perfect, and will make the very best use of any
incoming data stream.

I would be interested to run a level-matched DBT between the Benchmark
device and my considerably cheaper Behringer SRC 2496 to see if I can
hear any audible differences between the two. Any takers?

This request is posed out of genuine curiosity; I have no idea what
the result might be. Hopefully it will save me the 727-pound purchase
price of the DAC1. ;-)

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

"Chris Isbell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:05:10 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

There is only one DAC worth buying - the Benchmark DAC1. It is for all
practical purposes perfect, and will make the very best use of any
incoming data stream.

I would be interested to run a level-matched DBT between the Benchmark
device and my considerably cheaper Behringer SRC 2496 to see if I can
hear any audible differences between the two. Any takers?

This request is posed out of genuine curiosity; I have no idea what
the result might be. Hopefully it will save me the 727-pound purchase
price of the DAC1. ;-)

There's areview and measurements at the Audio Critic online review magazine,
but if you aren't already, you will have to subscibe. $13.00 U.S. IIRC
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/blog/login.php
The review is one of the most glowing I've ever seen on any electronic
device from it author.

It seems pretty clear that there might be other DAC's that are as good, but
they all tend to cost several times the amount of the Benchmark.

Here is the audio critic review

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/news/a...iew/index.html

Dezza.

"Chris Isbell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:05:10 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

There is only one DAC worth buying - the Benchmark DAC1. It is for all
practical purposes perfect, and will make the very best use of any
incoming data stream.

I would be interested to run a level-matched DBT between the Benchmark
device and my considerably cheaper Behringer SRC 2496 to see if I can
hear any audible differences between the two. Any takers?

This request is posed out of genuine curiosity; I have no idea what
the result might be. Hopefully it will save me the 727-pound purchase
price of the DAC1. ;-)

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

Most unlikely to be a difference. In my view, for the past 5+ years, since
ADC & DAC chips have reached their current level of performance, it's hard
work to make an ADC or DAC that sounds bad. There are still some "hi-fi"
DACs in particular that have poor receivers and don't reclock properly, but
there's really no excuse for that any more. This will have the effect of
making the DAC more sensitive to jitter. Once you get to a certain level of
performance, sonic differences disappear, and you're left with product
choice being made on looks, facilities, engineering quality and price, not
longer sound quality. I think this is now true of all Hi-Fi components with
the exception of loudspeakers, ( and possibly Pick-up cartridges) for which
there are still sonic differences. ( more for loudspeakers than cartridges).

S.

Now that reviewer is my kind of man! I quote:

"Absolute sonic transparency is a concept innocent audiophiles are
uncomfortable with, believing that all audio components - CD players,
preamplifiers, amplifiers, tuners, all of them - exhibit varying
degrees of soundstaging, front-to-back depth, grain, air, etc. That it
isn't so, except in the case of loudspeakers, is a fact calmly accepted
by professional engineers but not by the high-end pundits and high-end
manufacturers, who would be out of business if the truth were to sink
in universally."

I would have been interested in this DAC, for the purposes of
converting the signal from my lossless files on my PC, were it not so
expensive (given my modest means). Instead I went for the Perpetual
Technologies P3A DAC. I believe this too has excellent measured
performance, even better when paired with the P1A "digital correction
engine" (or summat like that!). Sounds excellent to my ears, through
my Stax phones and Rotel/Dynaudio speaker set up. Indeed its probably
the only piece of equipment out of the dozens I've had in my digital
replay system over 20 years or so that has brought about a really
worthwhile improvement in performance. I'm reasonably satisfied that
my PC and £350 DAC is pretty much a match for any digital replay
system at any price.

(snipped) innocent audiophiles believe that all audio components
exhibit varying
degrees of soundstaging, front-to-back depth, That it isn't so, except
in the case of loudspeakers, is a fact calmly accepted by professional
engineers

I had this very argument last night - I argued that the sound engineer
simply mixed the mics so their levels and the instruments they
represented were further up or down in the mix. I argued that in A-B
ing componants one should listen for verifyable quantities like timbre
(does it accurately represent the original, particularly in respect of
acoustic instruments) and resolution (is this low level detail present
or absent), and not soundstaging. I was met by a counter argument that
the engineer deliberately created depth and perspective by the use of
echo, reverb and other factors so that the soundstaging was in the
recording itself, and that when A-B'ing componants one should listen to
spacial information - where is the 'back wall', where is the 'mid
field' and where is the 'foreground' . i argued that by pushing a pair
of speakers right up to the wall or pulling them out into the centre of
the room (and other variations) you would totally alter the soundstage,
though this would have little effect on timbre or resolution except for
the bass response. We left it there. Andy

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:37:16 -0000, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

Most unlikely to be a difference. In my view, for the past 5+ years, since
ADC & DAC chips have reached their current level of performance, it's hard
work to make an ADC or DAC that sounds bad.

You may well be right, and, if pushed, I would tend towards the view
that I would not be able to detect any audible differences. However, I
would like to 'prove' it (or disprove it) for myself using a
scientifically valid experiment rather than taking it on faith.

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

"Chris Isbell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:37:16 -0000, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

Most unlikely to be a difference. In my view, for the past 5+ years, since
ADC & DAC chips have reached their current level of performance, it's hard
work to make an ADC or DAC that sounds bad.

You may well be right, and, if pushed, I would tend towards the view
that I would not be able to detect any audible differences. However, I
would like to 'prove' it (or disprove it) for myself using a
scientifically valid experiment rather than taking it on faith.

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

It's an interesting thing to do. I've done a couple of double-blind tests
using either my wife or "civilian" friends who wouldn't know a DAC (or
whatever) from a wooden leg. It tends to be a humbling experience when one
thought of oneself as a bit of a golden-ear!

S.