Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

What is the best?
There is someone that have heard both?
Thanks

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

I can only report some subjective evaluations taken from the Net - it's
up to you how you interpret them. As follows:
Shootouts:
1. OS Benchmark clearly smoother and more musical than the others
2. NOS Audio Mirror (DAC AH with posh parts)
3. NOS dAck!dac
4. NOS Scott Nixon
I have the DAC-AH. ORDER DIRECT! $135 base price. A TOTAL STEAL! I
e-mailed them and asked for the opamps to be socketed, I think they
only charged me another $15 or so. You can also ask for output cap
upgrades and I think they will also sell you opamp upgrades too. Even
with sockets, opamp upgrades, cap upgrades, and shipping the unit
should be under $200. http://eshop.diyclub.biz/ You can order this
direct and specify socketed opamps and upgraded output caps. Throw some
OPA627s in there and you have an incredible DAC for under $200. I
personally prefer the DAC-AH to all I have tried but I would also say
they are a lot closer sonically than most audiophools would admit.

I don't think the Benchmark DAC1 is avaialable with a USB interface
(Apogee is). For S/PDIF they deploy two differetn schools of thought.
The main difference between the Mii-DAC and DAC1 aside from the
converter chips and output stage is the degin of the clocking cicuit.
Apogee uses an idependent local clock that is regulated by the rate of
the incoming signal.
The DAC1 uses an asynchronous sample rate converter and runs it's local
clock completely independent. Both techniques result in a low jitter
local clock. The big difference being that the Apogee will actually
convert the same samples every time you play a song, while the
Benchmark DAC might be converting different values every time. I have
heard the Apogee and Benchmark although only very shortly. I have a
Bryston SP1.7 at home and a Monarchy M22C in the office and can
probably best compare to those. I did not have the chance to A/B them
in my systems. So this is purely by memory which is of coure highle
influenced what I have read about all this equipment. I found the
Benchmark more detailed but lacking in bass compared to the CS43122 and
discrete class A stage in the Bryston. The Apogee sounded very smooth
and full. Since I am using Harbeth and Spendor speakers I am nit sure
how this would harmonize. Even if the driven by sources with very low
jitter you will find that the Apogee Mini-DAC and the Benchmark DAC1
have a different sonic signature. This becomes pretty obvious if you
hear them side by side but it does not show in the measurements.

If the server has a USB port and you intend to use it for playback
only, you can avoid a sound card altogether. Get an external USB to
S/PDIF converter, such as an M-Audio Transit ($80) to make the
connection to your preferred DAC via TosLink. Or you could get a USB
enabled external DAC, such as an Apogee Mini-DAC. There are a number of
other choices among competing products, some costing thousands of
dollars.
I'm very pleased with the M-Audio Transit feeding a Benchmark Media
DAC1, which retired my CD player and preamplifier.

consider the Brick: i haven't try yet the apogee minidac but i v got a
Cd player AUDIOAERO capitole mkII and i have compared both , first i
want to say that the cd palyer is 8OOO$
the sound of the Brick comes closed to the fantastic tube dac of the
audio aero in term of finest , and definition .. but anyway the brick
is so much natural and finest than many of the mdprice dac you can find
( famous benchmark dac1 included )

This is what I recommend - get Benchmark DAC1 rather than Apogee ( use
M-Audio as digital source ) However, please use Audigy 2 NX and power
it with battery instead of AC adapter. M-Audio getting power from PC
bus is not going to give good sound. Audigy 2 NX use external power and
can easily replace by batteries. It is better than M-Audio by miles
unless you are paying somebody to mod the M-Audio for your. For choice
of DAC, Benchmark DAC1 is sure winner.

I would stay away from the Apogee USB version if you are already using
a pro audio sound card. Sample the audio up to 24/96 via coax or AES
(best option) and you'll love the Mini-Dac. The same holds true for the
Benchmark Dac 1. Sample the audio up to 24/96 and it's a totally
different sounding dac. The Dac 1 is designed to be used fully balanced
(in/out)...if you scale back to unbalanced it sounds like
garbage...thin, unattached, etc. Balanced in/out has a ruler flat noise
free frequency response. People have complained about using the Dac 1
as a preamp....it's all non sense....it makes a for a fine preamp, but
you have to match up the output voltage to your amp. If not matched
properly you can cause clipping at the amp input and a host of audible
problems will emerge.

I find you must use a isolation transformer to get the best out of the
Dac 1 and Mini Dac. I keep mine plugged into a Plitron NBT LoNo.

consensus from the mastering engineers was very positive. One of them
did an A-B comparison, with some other mastering engineers present,
where they recorded an acoustic guitar and voice in the room and played
it back. They did a shoot out comparison with 4 other pro DAC's,
including the Apogee PSX-100
(http://www.audiorevolution.com/equip/index.html, scroll down to the
bottom under accessories for review) and Alesis Masterlink
(http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?605), the results where
that the DAC1 was THE closest representation to what they heard in the
room - with the Alesis being the worst of the bunch and the Apogee
placing 2nd. If this is your holy grail in music reproduction, then I
suggest you consider the Benchmark

There is no perfect DAC, but the Apogee Mini-DAC could fill the bill
for middle-priced digital playback. It may be more "polite" than the
norm, but also very listenable. While maybe not as "spectacular" as the
Benchmark DAC1, it has the tonal refinement which, to my tastes, was
the DAC1's downfall.

Before I elaborate on what I hear sonically that is unique to
asynchronous sample-rate-conversion (aka "upsampling"), first I want to
mention the players and DACs I've heard this phenomenon with- The
Toshiba 3950 and 4960 CD players, the Benchmark DAC1, and the Esoteric
Audio DV-50 multidisc player. (I don't recall this phenomenon prior to
auditioning upsampling players, but I will not say it has never existed
in earlier players- It's just that I never was aware the quirk before.)
The Toshibas seem to be more-offensive with the artifacts than the
Benchmark and Esoteric units, and I've not had the chance to hear the
Esoteric unit with the upsampling defeated (it's defeatable with that
particular player).
I also want to mention that my ears are *extremely* sensitive to
extreme highs in the "20-20k" audio range- I can, for example, tell if
a TV is running in the next room, just from the high-frequency whine
from the TV's flyback transformer. Those who are not so sensitive to
extreme highs may not pick up what I'm about to describe.

At first listen, a digital system utilizing asynchronous sample-rate
conversion does sound impressive. It sounds as if there is good
ambience retrieval and a sense that the music seems "less digitized"
compared to typical conversion. Then, after my ears get used to the
playback, I start sensing a high-frequency "noise" setting in- Not
unlike what one would hear with a TV flyback transformer, but higher in
frequency than a TV flyback transformer and more like a narrow band of
noise than a distinct "tone." (I don't notice this noise initially-
only after several minutes.) As my ears get further "acclimated," I
start noticing the noise kind of "riding" on the music, particularly
music with a lot of high-frequency energy. (Like a continuous high-hat
in a rock or jazz track.) This noise obscures attacks and decays in
cymbals and triangles, and robs the music of its organic quality. What
sounds spectacular at first becomes grating and fatiguing later. The
big problem I have with this HF noise is I ultimately become "fixated"
on it. After about 10 to 15 minutes of listening. And then I cannot
block it out, no matter how hard I try. As if the noise was part of the
music itself. (I can block out the flyback transformer on a TV because
it's totally separate from the TV's audio.) While this noise is not as
"offensive" with better products like the Benchmark, it still bothers
me enough to eventually have to switch to another source, be it my
other system or the tuner on the same system. And unlike other
phenomena, it even bothers me while I'm playing CDs as background
music. (This problem is not so apparent playing "mellow" music, like
soft jazz, light classical, pop ballads, or especially music that does
not contain either massed violins or high-frequency percussion.) This
phenomenon has become more apparent in its conspicuous absence playing
the Sony CDP-X707ES CD player stand-alone, the Prism DA-2 DAC, or my
new Apogee Mini-DAC. I don't hear any semblance of this phenomenon. And
none of these products use asynchronous sample-rate conversion.
I personally disagree with the premise that CD playback has been
getting better. I prefer the internal DAC of the venerable Sony
CDP-X707ES CD player over the Benchmark DAC1 and the Apogee Mini DAC.
The Sony to me simply sounds more like living, breathing music. (With
all the comments about the Benchmark's near-absolute performance, in
spite of my disdain for the product, I expected the Sony player to
sound like crap. I only played it as a stop-gap between when I sold the
Benchmark and attained the Apogee, hence the discovery.) The only
recent products of note that I really like are the ART DI/O DAC, the
Ack dAck DAC, and the Paradox-modified JVC XLZ-1050 CD player. These
products gave me the false impression, for a while, that at least
budget products were getting better. I prefer the APogee to the
Benchmark- Mainly because that fatiguing HF noise problem of the
Benchmark is absent in the Apogee and the Apogee has a much-cleaner
top. The Apogee is not finicky with transport like the Benchmark was.
The Apogee does have an upward tonal balance, maybe even more so than
the Benchmark. (But the presentation is very clean, the tonal balance
is not really bothersome.) So if the HF noise of the Benchmark does not
bother you (it does not bother everybody), and you want a more-neutral
presentation, you might prefer the Benchmark. My primary objection with
the Apogee is that upward tonal balance- When I play recordings with a
lot of cymbal work (like Charlap's "Somewhere"), it could sound
"etched" in a benign sort of way. But in spite of the objection, this
DAC is *very* listenable. (It almost sounds like vinyl with the VTA set
a little too high.) Like may other DACs, the Apogee does not have the
absolute resolution and gestalt of the Prism DA-2. But the flaws are
rather benign, and like the Ack dAck, a good choice in the $750 to
$1000 price range. I prefer Digital Renaissance over both the
Benchmark and Apogee Mini DAC. The Digital Renaissance is simply more
transparent and dynamic. It also is neutral in tonal balance relative
to the two pro units. It's still a tad "upward" compared to the Prism
DA-2. (Only because the Prism has more deep bass extension.) But the
transparency and resolution are in the Prism's league. The only thing
this DAC lacks relative to the Prism is the clean HF presentation and
long-term listenability.
I put a ceramic/ferrite ring around the cables at the output, and it
knocks down the "digital fatigue"... (It did not knock down the "HF
noise" problem with the Benchmark.) The HF "grain" (from it being
non-OS) is still there, but it seems more benign now, a la the original
dAck. Although still not quite as listenable as the dAck. I do think a
non-OS design with insufficient post-filtering could benefit greatly by
using ferrite rings or clamps at the output. I will continue with such
experimentation. This is a DAC that could be a real winner, not to
mention one of audio's great steals, if its HF problem could be
ameliorated. For it otherwise delivers the goods of the mega-DACs.

apogee mini dac, i am using one and i like it better than the benchmark
dac.

second the apogee mini. unlike the others mentioned it also has an
optional usb input which is ideal for computer audio.

second the apogee, i like it better than the benchmark. benchmark has a
huge 'wow factor', but it also makes long term listening unpleasant
unless it is paired up with some crazily colored gear. OTOH my apogee
minidac has no such wow factor, but it makes long term listening much
much easier without apparent sonic compromises.

The Benchmark is basically a pro dac / preamp. The Apogee DA 1000 sound
quality is far superior. I know the sound quality of both products
including your DA 1000, I use a Rosetta 200 / Big Ben combo in my
studio rig, and it's hard to beat the Apogee sound quality. The
Benchmark is not bad for a sub $1k component, but it does lack tonal
purity in my opinion. In the sub $1k market it's hard to beat the
Apogee Mini-Dac (non-USB version) for sonic purity. The one thing the
Benchmark has going for it is the volume control. The quality of the
volume control is far superior to the Mini-Dac.

The benchmark has a much drier sound with a lot of detail in the treble
region. I am not sure what the magazines touted it as the best thing
since sliced bread. It is a great DAC, but not the last word. The
Apogee Mini-DAC is based upon the larger multichannel DACs and offers a
USB port. I find it similar tonally to the Benchmark, actually. I am
not sure what makes it "far superior"

I use the Rosetta 200 in my home rig, and the Mini-Dac and Benchmark in
my portable. The Rosetta 200 is one of the best bargins in the digital
market today. Have you tried pairing up t6he Rosetta with the Big Ben.
The external work clock steps up the dac's performance several notches.


I have the Benchmark and the Apogee, the two are very good, but the
Benchmark have better headphone amplifiers (The Apogee sound harsh).

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans ha scritto:

I can only report some subjective evaluations taken from the Net - it's


Thanks!!

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"herr dirigent" wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Andy Evans ha scritto:
:
: I can only report some subjective evaluations taken from
the Net - it's
:
:
: Thanks!!
:
I have just been through this and nearly bought the
Benchmark unit myself.

I've ended up with this
http://www.cec-web.co.jp/products/dac/dx71mk2_e.html

I am extremely impressed with this unit.

Regards TT

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

I've ended up with this
http://www.cec-web.co.jp/products/dac/dx71mk2_e.html
I am extremely impressed with this unit.

It looks great. To my mind this really is the way to go - the
DAC-Preamp. All your digital sources go into it and there you are.

Can you give us a fuller description of how it operates and sounds, and
in what ways it was better than the other equipment you had before or
tried out?

I can't find any reviews of this, so the above would be welcome.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

herr dirigent wrote:

What is the best?

What do you mean by 'best' ?

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Eeyore ha scritto:

herr dirigent wrote:

What is the best?

What do you mean by 'best' ?

Graham

the DAC more precise,linear,full of detail,realistic,with a really
wonderful stereophonic image.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

herr dirigent wrote:

Eeyore ha scritto:

herr dirigent wrote:

What is the best?

What do you mean by 'best' ?

Graham

the DAC more precise,linear,full of detail,realistic,with a really
wonderful stereophonic image.

Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and objectively. The
remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
objectively. The
remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:


Eeyore wrote
!
Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective evaluation.
That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
and linearity.

Graham

please learn to quote properly btw

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:08:40 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective evaluation.
That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
and linearity.

Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:08:40 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective evaluation.
That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
and linearity.

Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?

We know how to make ones that measure so well that they must surely be sonically
blameless yet certain ppl insist they differ still.

Some ppl even say they're better when a toob is used after the DAC !

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

On 2006-09-09, Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?

We know how to make ones that measure so well that they must surely be sonically
blameless yet certain ppl insist they differ still.

Some ppl even say they're better when a toob is used after the DAC !

This configuration always fascinates me. If the DAC isn't (sufficiently)
transparent then putting a valve (tube) in series with it cannot make the
combination transparent. Yet sometimes I see the T word used to describe
"better" in this context.

(Note, before the deluge starts, that I am not commenting on anyone's
sonic taste. Merely commenting on the words sometimes used to describe
that taste.)

--
John Phillips

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-09-09, Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?

We know how to make ones that measure so well that they must surely be sonically
blameless yet certain ppl insist they differ still.

Some ppl even say they're better when a toob is used after the DAC !

This configuration always fascinates me. If the DAC isn't (sufficiently)
transparent then putting a valve (tube) in series with it cannot make the
combination transparent.

Sssshhhh ! Don't tell anyone ! No amount of science was involved in the observation.


Yet sometimes I see the T word used to describe
"better" in this context.

Yes.


(Note, before the deluge starts, that I am not commenting on anyone's
sonic taste. Merely commenting on the words sometimes used to describe
that taste.)

I've spent some time in rec.audio.tubes to try and establish what this is all about.
It's quite clear that the 'toobies' believe that added colouration from vacuum tubes
equals 'higher fidelity' ( because they like the sound ).

What they are confusing this with is their preference for an intentionally flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing wrong with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently superior is utterly
bogus.

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective
evaluation.

Exactly. That's how most people evaluate products.

That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
and linearity. Graham

Many SET amps sound very good.

please learn to quote properly btw

please learn to be more flexible and stop demanding that other people
obey your own views.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Some ppl even say they're better when a toob is used after the DAC ! .

Of course. And they sound better still when the tube is a DHT. You
don't get all this do you. And since I'm convinced that you have never
in your life heard a DAC with a DHT output, forgive me if I remark that
you have very little basis for comment.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

If the DAC isn't (sufficiently) transparent then putting a valve (tube)
in series with it cannot make the combination transparent. Yet
sometimes I see the T word used to describe
"better" in this context.

Isn't a DAC by definition something with an analogue output stage? So
something must be on the end of it, whether ss circuit,
transformer,capacitor or tube stage. The advantage of a tube stage is
that the output with DC on it can be fed directly into the grid of the
tube, and the DC included in the biasing. You can't talk about a DAC as
if there's "nothing" on the end of it.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective
evaluation.

Exactly. That's how most people evaluate products.

Which is fine as far as it goes. Do you expect everyone's listening preference to be
identical though ? There lies the limitation !


That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
and linearity. Graham

Many SET amps sound very good.

So some say. They also produce oodles of intermodulation products which are most
unmusical. This will easily be revealed by playing 'complex' music, yet they will
tend to sound excellent on a single instrument, or say a quartet.


please learn to quote properly btw

please learn to be more flexible and stop demanding that other people
obey your own views.

Please pull your head out of your arse !

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

What they are confusing this with is their preference for an
intentionally flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing
wrong with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently
superior is utterly
bogus.

The idea that valves are simply "added distortion" and nothing else
could only be made by somebody with a) very little knowledge of modern
valve circuits and how they sound or b) somebody with cloth ears.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

Some ppl even say they're better when a toob is used after the DAC ! .

Of course. And they sound better still when the tube is a DHT. You
don't get all this do you. And since I'm convinced that you have never
in your life heard a DAC with a DHT output, forgive me if I remark that
you have very little basis for comment.

So, do tell me. In your opinion how does the tube stage influence the sound
exactly ?

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

I've spent some time in rec.audio.tubes to try and establish what this
is all about.

You could not have chosen a worse place - you will learn absolutely
nothing from that newsgroup. Read the Tube DIY forum on
www.audioasylum.com and you will find posts by the leading tube
designers. Try it out for a month or so. You will see a universe of
difference in the quality of engineering, debate, knowledge and
information. Plus it's leading edge - people experimenting with ideas.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

If the DAC isn't (sufficiently) transparent then putting a valve (tube)
in series with it cannot make the combination transparent. Yet
sometimes I see the T word used to describe
"better" in this context.

Isn't a DAC by definition something with an analogue output stage? So
something must be on the end of it, whether ss circuit,
transformer,capacitor or tube stage. The advantage of a tube stage is
that the output with DC on it can be fed directly into the grid of the
tube, and the DC included in the biasing. You can't talk about a DAC as
if there's "nothing" on the end of it.

You clearly don't know much about DAC back end circuitry.

Do tell me about this supposed advantage with tubes.

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

You've snipped all the previous content so it's impossible to know what exactly
you're replying to.

Please use 'inline posting'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_...nline_replying

You currently have all the hallmark signs of an arrogant opinionated
self-obsessed jerk !

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Please pull your head out of your arse !

It's up to you if you want to lower the quality of debate and make
senseless comments - I'm quite happy to debate this on a rational level.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

So, do tell me. In your opinion how does the tube stage influence the
sound
exactly ?

Why do you expect me to describe sound in words - why not go and listen
to a variety of tube output stages then you can find out for yourself.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

What they are confusing this with is their preference for an
intentionally flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing
wrong with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently
superior is utterly
bogus.

The idea that valves are simply "added distortion" and nothing else
could only be made by somebody with a) very little knowledge of modern
valve circuits and how they sound or b) somebody with cloth ears.

There is precious litle 'modern' about any valve circuit. I learnt on them btw.

For someone with cloth ears I must have been doing well to examine some problems
audibly in the noise floor here on Thursday .....
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_mark_knopfler/
http://www.recordproduction.com/mpg-event-june05.html
http://mixonline.com/news/headline/p...opfler-060106/

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

I've spent some time in rec.audio.tubes to try and establish what this
is all about.

You could not have chosen a worse place - you will learn absolutely
nothing from that newsgroup.

Actually it's rather good once you learn to avoid the character assasinations
that plague it.


Read the Tube DIY forum on
www.audioasylum.com and you will find posts by the leading tube
designers. Try it out for a month or so. You will see a universe of
difference in the quality of engineering, debate, knowledge and
information. Plus it's leading edge - people experimenting with ideas.

Ok. I will. I normally only post on pro forums and groups but I'll certainly
give it a try.

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

Please pull your head out of your arse !

It's up to you if you want to lower the quality of debate and make
senseless comments - I'm quite happy to debate this on a rational level.

Does Mozilla normally put the quoting arrows on the rhs instead of the left ?

Or are you simply choosing to be perverse ? You would have considerably greater
credibility if you adhered to Usenet norms.

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

So, do tell me. In your opinion how does the tube stage influence the
sound exactly ?

Why do you expect me to describe sound in words - why not go and listen
to a variety of tube output stages then you can find out for yourself.

You mean you have no answer to offer ?

So, do tell me. In your opinion how does the tube stage influence the
sound exactly ?

Is that too tricky ?

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

In article .com,
Andy
Evans wrote:
Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

The purpose of the DAC is to reconstruct an analogue waveform as defined by
the series of sample values. The correspondence is uniquely defined if the
series of samples was correctly recorded. This much is simply a matter of
Information Theory and engineering. Also as you might expect from the phase
for which 'DAC' is an acronym.

The purpose of the *listener* is to listen to the results. So far as I can
tell, no DAC has awareness, or any ability to actually listen to anything.
:-)

Up to the listener, of course, if they actually want specific examples of
waveforms to be accurately reconstructed, or if they want them altered in
specific ways. Thus a real DAC may be designed to systematically alter the
results if the designer so decided. But the DAC still isn't actually
listening. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

In article , Eeyore
wrote:


Laurence Payne wrote:


Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?

We know how to make ones that measure so well that they must surely be
sonically blameless yet certain ppl insist they differ still.

We may also know how to make them so that, in a suitably controlled
comparison listening test, those listening might find they may be unable to
tell the difference between an original signal, and one passed through a
ADC-DAC pairing - provided they only have the sounds to use as a basis for
their decision, and the ADC-DAC are designed and compared with due care.

But of course, some DACs may be made so as to alter the results in
specific ways. Hence someone might then prefer this to a result
indistinguishable from the original prior to ADC conversion. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

In article . com,
Andy
Evans wrote:

The advantage of a tube stage is that the output with DC on it can be fed
directly into the grid of the tube, and the DC included in the biasing.

Are you claiming this is impossible for non-tube stages?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

There is precious litle 'modern' about any valve circuit. I learnt on
them btw.

I've no doubt you know valves from ( ?50s, 60s?, 70s?), but you'd be
very surprised at how much things have changed. Not the function of the
triode itself, which is well known, but the support circuitry is now
quite complex - cascode active loads, constant current sinks etc. - a
whole cuisine of modern ss devices and traditional stuff like glow
tubes. It really is "nouvelle cuisine" if you pardon the expression.
We're not talking Mullard circuits with EF86s and ECC83s any more.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Does Mozilla normally put the quoting arrows on the rhs instead of the
left ?

Mozilla means as much to me as King Kong.

Or are you simply choosing to be perverse ? You would have considerably
greater
credibility if you adhered to Usenet norms.

As an ex musician I'm so used to being an outsider that credibility -
in terms of fitting in with the norm and conventional behaviour - is a
bit of a Fata Morgana. If I'd wanted credibility I'd have become a bank
manager.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Why do you expect me to describe sound in words - why not go and listen
to a variety of tube output stages then you can find out for yourself.

You mean you have no answer to offer ?

No, I sincerely mean that's the best answer.

So, do tell me. In your opinion how does the tube stage influence the
sound exactly ? Is that too tricky ?

You really want me to say "it sounds transparent with faithful timbre
to instruments and delicate nuance in the treble which is particularly
remarkable on brushwork on cymbals"? Surely not - you have to hear this
kind of thing with your own ears.

I suspect you want me to give a technical explanation, which I have to
a certain extent - the output, DC included, goes straight to the grid
of the triode, which can be resistor, active device, choke or
transformer loaded, or in the case of a balanced output can go to a
diff pair with CCS, transformer, parafeed etc etc. After that you have
a reasonably small coupling cap (or transformer) followed by a stepped
attenuator or TVC. These are all widely used topologies and considered
by many to sound excellent. Tube DACs are on the increase, but again,
you'd have to listen to them to satisfy your own ears about the sound.
I can't do that for you with any amount of adjectives.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...
Does Mozilla normally put the quoting arrows on the rhs instead of the
left ?

Mozilla means as much to me as King Kong.



OK, let me help here - Mozilla is the cheese used to make pizzas, King Kong
is the Chinese province used to make *British* hifi equipment....

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Andy Evans wrote:

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective
evaluation.

Exactly. That's how most people evaluate products.

Which is fine as far as it goes. Do you expect everyone's listening
preference to be
identical though ? There lies the limitation !


That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be
seen from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt
precision
and linearity. Graham

Many SET amps sound very good.

So some say. They also produce oodles of intermodulation products which
are most
unmusical. This will easily be revealed by playing 'complex' music, yet
they will
tend to sound excellent on a single instrument, or say a quartet.


please learn to quote properly btw

please learn to be more flexible and stop demanding that other people
obey your own views.

Please pull your head out of your arse !



Interesting to see that, sooner or later, all of you clowns who just don't
*get it* with valves have to result to guttersnipe phraseology....

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Andy Evans wrote:


Eeyore wrote
!
Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.

So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.

Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective
evaluation.
That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen
from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt
precision
and linearity.


'Shocking failings'....???

(I love it when you Denial Boys start to talk dirty.....!! :-)

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Eeyore" wrote


I've spent some time in rec.audio.tubes to try and establish what this is
all about.
It's quite clear that the 'toobies' believe that added colouration from
vacuum tubes
equals 'higher fidelity' ( because they like the sound ).


Fidelity? What's that? Do you somehow manage to *not* use speakers...??

I think you're confusing valvie's claims of greater realism and naturalness
with valves with so-called *measured* accuracy....???


What they are confusing this with is their preference for an intentionally
flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing wrong
with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently superior
is utterly
bogus.


Another one who expects people to agree their preference is inherently
*inferior*....???

Have this one on me - a valve amp (SET in paticular) is *****e* for playing
MP3s when you're out jogging......

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
What they are confusing this with is their preference for an
intentionally flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing
wrong with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently
superior is utterly
bogus.

The idea that valves are simply "added distortion" and nothing else
could only be made by somebody with a) very little knowledge of modern
valve circuits and how they sound or b) somebody with cloth ears.



My suspicion is that a lot of people with strong views on valve kit is that
they haven't actually ever *heard* any......