Digital Processor Reviews

NwAvGuy was describing the Benchmark and using it to evaluate his own DAC designs.

Mark Waldrip relies on Benchmark gear

I've heard of a good many Pro Audio folks tout Benchmark as being the Benchmark.

I've been trying DACs for some years now, I can't discover any advantage behind some of the super pricy DACs.

I've blamed my hearing, to the point of having my hearing evaluated by Audiologists at the University of Michigan. My hearing tapers off above 8k but I can still hear significant differences in 12AU7 preamp tubes. I still can't hear greatness in super expensive DACs.

Those that can hear significant improvements in Super Expensive DACs are living with the Audiophile Curse. ( the King's New Suit Curse )

As an Engineer, I've demonstrated Zip Lamp Cord vs. Monster Speaker Cable vs. Bruce Brisson's MH-750 to astonished Engineers.

Back in 2015 Tyll had a headphone gear Shootout where Stax, Sennheiser, and Audeze were the finalists. He also had the finest DACs including the highly touted Antelope. Nobody could detect any DAC performance advantage.

Then there's Chord and their Field Programable Gate Array devices which I suspect they've designed to sound better but probably not sound accurate ( like Tubes that make music nicer sounding ).

So, go for Accuracy with Benchmark or better sounding with Chord.

Nice reporting, sir, I think.

Tony in Michigan

"There's a danger of being misled, of repeating the same mistakes again and again, of spending way too much money on things of little value. My point is that, as a hobby, industry, and avocation, we may have shifted too far toward the subjectivist side."

What a breath of fresh air in these pages! When I first read this review in my subscriber copy my jaw hit the floor. Thank you Jim, we can only hope as audiophiles dedicated to the accurate reporting, that blind listening sessions become much more widespread and prevalent in the pages of Stereophile. Sighted listening is much too fallible to be the sole basis for accurate evaluations.

There is only one question in audio and it is rhetorical -- why buy anything but Benchmark?

They are the best, nothing comes close.

You claim to have a PhD and you make the most egregious beginner's mistakes imaginable. It is laughable that even Streophile would publish this garbage.

First you start of the article with a story about "hum and buzz" from "poor quality control" in the interconnects. If you knew anything at all about balanced circuitry and how it works, you would realize that a truly balanced source sending a signal to a truly balanced downstream device wouldn't make a bit of "hum and buzz" if the cables were shielded or not.

But since you clearly have no idea about anything, you start with the wrong assumption and leap to an incorrect conclusion. [Flame deleted by John Atkinson]

Then you try to "compare" the Benchmark against your PS Audio. And although you could "easily" hear differences between the Benchmarks 1 and 3, you could hear no difference whatsoever between the Benchmark 3 and the PS Audio. Why don't you look at your ridiculous methodology before jumping to more false conclusions?

First you said you connected "sent the output of the two DACs to different channels of my PS Audio BHK Signature preamp". WTF? So you sent the left channel of one DAC to one input and the right channel of the other DAC to the other input? Or do you not know the difference between a "channel" and an "input"? At this point you are looking beyond unprofessional, beyond amateurish, and all the way to "knowing just enough to be dangerous". Or does your preamp have only one input? Or does it have more than one but the inputs were full, and you were too lazy to disconnect them?

Anybody serious would know that the only FAIR way to do this type of test is to not only use the same input on the preamp (different inputs will exhibit different amounts of break-in, as the trace on the PCB needs a signal to dissipate the residual electrostatic charge after it is tested with many kilovolts for UL compliance), but to also use the exact same pair of interconnects as they need to be not only the same brand and model, but also have the same amount of break-in time.

And finally you lose all rationality. (We may have to send the men in white coats to save you from harming yourself.) You send the analog output of the PS Audio DAC into the analog input of the Benchmark DAC. At the very least this signal is now going through the analog circuitry and volume control of the Benchmark, which is clearly coloring the sound if it sounds "identical" to you - either that or your hearing ability sucks or your playback system sucks. And if (like the version 2) the version 3 also has a "hybrid digital/analog" volume control then the volume control wouldn't even be active unless the analog input were being digitized by whatever cheap A/D chip Benchmark is using with their cheap IC op-amp based analog circuitry. More cheap crap to color the sound of the PS Audio, and you can't figure ANY of this out...

Finally it is clear that you cannot even add 2 + 2 to equal the correct answer. First you claim that the Benchmark "moves interpolation off-chip" to eliminate problems with "intersample overs", but that the latest version sounds better because of "lower passband ripple, facilitated by the new chip's superior filter choices". So which is it, Mr. PhD? Does it sound better because the processing is done off-chip or does it sound better because the on-chip processing has lower passband ripple? You can't have it both ways.

[Flame deleted by John Atkinson]

You are the one that makes a joke out of the high end, not the people who make claims you can't understand - you can't even understand the simplest of claims, as this so-called "review" clearly demonstrates.

Jim. I too was disturbed by some of your methodology in your comparisons, and dismissed your results because of my concerns. While I may not go as far as Charlie, please note that I felt disturbed enough to dismiss the results.
I would suggest that if you want to make quick A/B comparisons of source components in future reviews, you should have a balanced switch box made, who's only function is to take two balanced inputs, and switch them to a single balanced output. I would also suggest that this be wired the AES way for consistency (XLR pin 1 to ground) and that the signal path internally be identical for both inputs, same length wiring, etc. A high quality switch box like this should be a reasonable expense for any any reviewer who is interested in making quick A/B comparisons of source components.
Also of import would be keeping everything else the same, same cabling, same cabling lengths, etc.
In the case of comparing these two DACs (DS and DAC 3) such a methodology could then go direct into the amps, removing any additional components (preamp) and maximizing the apparent sonic differences. You should also volume match the DACs by measuring the output voltage with a test signal (like that available on stereophile test CDs) without very accurate level matching any such comparisons are mostly meaningless.

Analog inputs stay analog.

From the manufacturers manual:
HGC™ is Benchmark's unique Hybrid Gain
Control™ system. The DAC3 combines active
analog gain control, passive low-impedance
attenuators, a 32-bit digital gain control, and
a servo-driven volume control.
All inputs are controlled by the rotary volume
control. This volume control moves in
response to commands from the remote
control. Analog inputs are never converted to
digital, and digital inputs never pass through
an analog potentiometer. Digital inputs are
precisely controlled in the 32-bit DSP system.
The DSP system preserves precise L/R
balance, and precise stereo imaging, while
avoiding any source of noise and distortion.

I too was shocked by this way of comparing the PS-Audio to the Benchmark. Wether you hear a difference or not doesn't even matter because you (and we) don't even know what it is that makes the sound of one chain or the other, (The DAC sections? The Cable? The differences between the analog or digital volume control?). Read what Mytek has to say about the effect of digital and analog volume controls in their Brooklyn. I was eagerly waiting for this review since I am a big fan of all Benchmark DACs.
The lack of rigor and the seven pages of blabla are almost offensive to the companies that put years of hard work into their products and put them in your hands. Some of the comments could have been phrased more diplomatically but the nonsense one reads in Stereophile, 6moons, DAR... the contradictions, the approximations, the lack of methodology are infuriating because your opinions greatly influence the success of these products. The spectacular measurements are useful. But what exactly is there to learn from what you wrote?

Nice review Jim and also thanks to John Atkinson for a valuable set of measurements, as always. We can see that the review has initiated quite strong reactions of a prominent high-end designer as it obviously targets very good objective parameters that tend to be overlooked and replaced by rather mystic beliefs.

I would like to encourage Stereophile team in doing more controlled tests. Though there may be objections to AB switch box transparencies, the same applies to 'high-end' components and usually at much higher degree. Please continue the good job and do not let you make disappointed from the offensive comments.

Last but not least, the switch box transparency might be well evaluated by SYS-2722 redaction system.

@John Atkinson: Have you considered adding a test to see how gracefully DACs handle intersample overs? While it's possible to create waveforms with a True Peak value with an arbitrary value above 0 dBFS by approaching Nyquist, here is one that generates a peak that's +3dBFS - the below example is done in Audacity, but any sample editor with similar functionality should suffice.

1. Generate a 0 dBFS sine at 1/2 Nyquist, so each cycle is represented by the four (floating-point) values 0,1,0,-1
2. Use "Change speed" in the effects menu, and set it to 0.5.
3. Zoom way in on the start of the waveform, so individual samples become visible. Now, chop off the first sample
4. Again, use "Change speed" and set the speed to 2.0
5. Add a short fade-in and fade-out to the beginning and end of the generated tone
6. (Peak) Normalize the track to 0 dBFS

This has the overall effect of introducing a 45 degree phase shift in the period of the sample, and the peak of each sinusoid will now occur halfway between the two equal-valued samples, causing a true peak that's ~3dB above the sample values in the file. A DAC with less than graceful handling of intersample peaks should thus exhibit clipping of the sinusoid, while a DAC like the Benchmark should still show a proper sine wave.

Quote:

This is the kind of scientistic nonsense that's so common this world--a just-so story (ad-hoc fallacy) that attempts to explain subjective impressions via nice stories or casually observed phenomena while never subjecting those claims to serious tests.

Waiting for these kind of tests for MQA that you and the others at Stereophile seem to have swooned over without ever conducting any scientifically serious tests.

Hi John,

Eagerly anticipating the MQA article(s).

As an audiophile, I have to say I am not interested in the benefits of smaller file sizes for hi-res files--the origami, etc.

What I am really interested in is what, if anything, MQA can offer to better sound quality vs. a well implemented hi-res AD-DA conversion chain that doesn't use MQA. Like, for example, if you simultaneously created two 24/96 digital recordings of a jazz band using the same recording and playback equipment, with one recording having MQA enabled throughout the chain, and the other without, could you tell the difference? I would really appreciate your expert opinion coming from this perspective.

Thanks,
Sean

With all the expert technical scrutiny, even reverse-engineering that MQA has been subjected to on sites like computeraudiophile and Archimago this year, it's hard for me not to get the sense that MQA and its related claims are already technically very well understood by anyone who wants to know.

So when I read about Stereophile announcing at the end of October 2017 that it plans to run a series of articles beginning in 2018 on MQA to test its claims, it sure seems like a lot of effort, but it also seems to me like a lot of effort a lot too late.

Raving about/"swooning" over MQA before testing its claims may be a reminder that sometimes, like putting on socks and shoes, the order in which things are done matters.

Paul McGowan of PS Audio is now doing a Question & Answer Series on YouTube.

Paul just answered the Question about different sounding DACs.

Egads, he's taking the time to answer all kinds of Audiophile questions.

This is well worth checking out.

He even tried to reason thru StillPoints.

Tony in Michigan

Paraphrasing the sentence that immediately links to your 5th footnote, I would say: "If you're REVIEWING 24-bit DACs and hi-rez downloads, you'd best get your noise level down to where you can hear at least some of that extra resolution, and that's harder than you might think".

What surprised - and outraged - some who read your review, is that you failed to hear a difference between the Benchmark DAC3 and the PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC, which leads to conclude that if there is a difference, it is not audible and doesn’t matter.

Although your 5th footnote hints a clue to why you - no matter how hard you tried - couldn't hear a difference between the Benchmark DAC3's 21 bit state of the art resolution, and the rather poor 17bit performance of the PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC, your review fails to take into account precisely that advice offered by your own footnote.

That advice obviously draws attention to the even poorer performance delivered by the PS monoblocks, acting as bottleneck when it comes to rendering the 21 bits of resolution of the Benchmark DAC and even the 17 bit performance of the PS Audio DAC, let alone their difference.

As Benchmark's John Siau wrote in a application note back in March 2014: "Anyone who thinks they can hear the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit digital audio through a "17-bit" power amplifier is fooling themselves."("What is high resolution audio? - part1" https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/13174001-what-is-high-resolution-audio-part-1)

Nevertheless, the lenghty passage you dedicated to the efforts taken to hearing the difference between the Benchmark and PS Audio DACs, can suggest to some that this your flawed and misleading conclusion are not not merely innocuous omission or mistake. You appear to ignore your own advice, and completely disavow the fact that your monoblocks aren't capable of delivering even 16 bits to your speakers.

I think it is fair to criticize your review and to dismiss your conclusion regarding the audible difference between the Benchmark DAC and the PS Audio DAC. I also believe it is fair to demand that in the future, stereophile reviews take into account basic specifications - which I want to believe reviewers understand but apparently and consistently fail to apply.

I also believe it is impossible and unacceptable to excuse the obviously flawed attempt to establish a difference between the mentioned components and the consequently misleading conclusion, with a statement like: "Yes, listening is what Stereophile reviewers do." If people read reviews here and elsewhere, it is based on the expectation that they will be offered more than casual listening impressions that completely ignore basic science, let alone the specifications of the components reviewed.

It is in this particular case, quite obvious that you need an amplifier that matches and even exceeds the performance of a DAC to deliver the resolution the DAC has to offer to the speakers, yet that was blatantly ignored by the review. Worse, to reinforce the apparent ignorance - I will nevertheless refrain from concluding foul play or second intentions here - of the reviewer with regards to importance the specifications of the components used have for his review, he proceeds to write a lengthy passage showing what lengths he went to in order to hear a difference that the equipment he used is clearly unable to render. This is also not the only review to be found on Stereophile or Audiostream, with this exact same flaw.

This is poor work, and ultimately undermines the credibility of Stereophile, as well as the effort made by John Atkinson to measure equipment as a way to offer transparency and accountability with regard to manufacturer specifications and in many cases supplement the lack thereof.

I am in my mid fourties and, after thousands of hours behind a drumkit, exposure to loud environments and extended listening periods, cannot argue to hear extremely subtle differences. But even having a well trained ear as a musician, I would not be above relying on the due diligence of reading the specs and setting up valid review, audition or test conditions first, and before I make conclusions regarding the audible differences between two audio components or recordings.

I own a Benchmark DAC2 DX and have owned a DAC1. I had the chance to audition them both side by side with recordings that are known to have intersample overs, and I could very much hear the difference using my Sennheiser HD 800s.

I would hope for a clarifying response from you, with regards to taking into account the components used for a valid review of the performance of specific components. I would also like to see a response from John Atkinson with regards to the very pertinent suggestion made by arve - further up in the thread - with regards to introducing a test that takes into account intersample overs. Atkinson made no remarks to this excellent and concrete proposal, and instead threw in the infamous MQA topic, which distracted from arve’s suggestion.

Updating measurement routines as components introduce new improvements and features that need to be account ted for in order to do fair comparisons between components, would only benefit the objectivity of the measurements and reliability of what Stereophile publishes as such.

Benchmark has clearly separated itself from all other DAC manufacturers I have knowledge of, by effectively dealing with the audible downside of intersample overs, and has clearly introduced a substantial improvement to sound quality that sets new standards. This can only be acknowledged by introducing the corresponding measurement to account for this innovation and the – recording industry – problem of intersample overs, whose existence has been acknowledged and documented, as well as as put forward by this review.

Best,

C. Rodriguez

I have owned both the DAC1 and DAC2L over 15 years. This review actually tells me little I havn't already read from other reviewers and the Benchmark web site.

What I find most disconcerting is the DAC2 was the current reference DAC for Benchmark which I own.

Why was the DAC2 not compared directly to the new reference DAC3 in listening sessions?

Comparison with the DAC1 is obsolete, well surpassed by the DAC2.

"How much audible improvement do these changes add up to? "I'm quite certain that there should be no audible difference between a DAC2 and a DAC3 given a single pass through the converters," Siau wrote to me in an e-mail."

What does this mean from John Siau Benchmark? Is he saying no audible improvement over the DAC2?

If it sounds the same, well why bother!!!

I really want to know how much better is the DAC3 over the 2 to justify its increased purchase price.

There must be a sound improvement, the Sabre 9028 chip is alone a sonic upgrade over the 9018. This must be audible and not just measured.

It is at the end of the day all about the "SOUND" compared to live instruments in an acoustic space.

Robert

It seems that the 9028 is the new 9018 that might be discountinued soon, I can see why Benchmark made the change even if it offers only a minute improvement that isn't audible. Maybe they should have called it DAC2.2 (Although they did have a little update to the DAC2 called 2.2 already) or DAC2+ like Mytek with their Brooklyn+.

To compare the PS-Audio to the DAC3 in a set up that would have made some sort of sense one could run the analog-out of one DAC3 into the analog-in of another DAC3 :) Is the reviewer suggesting that this too would have sounded exactly like a single DAC3 on its digital volume control?

I've owned every Benchmark, DAC1, USB, PRE, HDR, DAC2 and changed more for the new features (USB, remote, second line in) than the negligible sound differences. The one thing I didn't like with the DAC1s was that they ran hot. With the DAC2 I feel like they reached a perfect product, great interface, hybrid gain control, runs cool, asynchronous USB.

It probably makes no sense to trade a DAC2 for a DAC3, yet at the same time it would make no sense for Benchmark to continue using a older chip.

I find that whatever my questions are, the best way to get them answered is to ask Benchmark themselves. They answer promptly and won't push a new product onto you.

Once again, I am baffled by Benchmark, designer John Siau, and reviewer Jim Austin. The existence of intersample overs has been well known for over 20 years. I'm surprised that JA did not catch this much earlier.

For evidence of this fact, we only need to look at the datasheet for the once-popular Pacific Micronicss PMD-100 digital filter. In the datasheet is a an unambiguous statement:

The PMD-100 has a design attenuation of 1 dB to allow for filter overshoot on transients.

During the '90s when Robert Harley was technical editor of Stereophile, he would routinely show CD players with no internal headroom, and how they would clip the "ringing" (Gibbs phenomenon) on the tops of a 1kHz, 0dBFS square wave. In contrast were other players that used (for example) the PMD-100 digital filter (and many other designs) that provided headroom to prevent internal overload from intersample overs.

While this phenomenon is understood more clearly now, with a better understanding of the degenerate (worst possible) case, this is hardly some sort of "breakthrough" as Siau and Benchmark would have us believe. In fact it's more surprising to me that he was previously unaware of a well-known issue regarding digital audio playback.

Wouldn't Siau's solution have to sacrifice dynamic range in the digital domain? He says they then bump up the 3.5db in the analog domain to bring the level back up. Definitely not perfect. Sounds like your trading dynamic range on all input data in order to correct the consequences of "bad" input data. On the other hand, maybe the amount of dynamic range lost is less than the noise floor?
Sean

First of all I'm a huge fan of Ayre and had several components from you and always enjoy whenever I hear Ayre gear. I'm also a huge fan of Stereophile and consider the mag.. as very serious. I will also say I enjoyed reading the review of DAC 3.

Regarding your comments (sorry I'm not english so forgive me for errors in the writing) I had to reply regarding things that where said.

I had lot's of equipment and tested a lot and my conclusion is that whatever the inputs or cables has to say to what I'm hearing does not even come close to other factors like room, components and the ultimate headroom in the system itself.
I had some quite expensive cables and I can for sure not say some where better than others even if the price difference was huge. My concusion is that it is so minor differences in cables that you will gain much more elsewhere in the system. I have heard amazing systems with cables that where the cheapest and I heard the worst systems with the most expensive cables.
I had simelar experience as the reviewer regarding hum with unshield Nordost cables but as Charlie say as they are balanced it can not happen. I guess the system was not truly balanced.
I agree that the reviewer or the editor maybe should have picked that up.
Regarding Benchmark it is well know that they have made great products for some time and as J.A show in the meassurements of this DAC it is a well designed product. I don't understand why a DAC should cost as much as some charge. AYRE used to have their top of the line DAC in around the same price range as Benchmark. You say Mr. Hansen that the DAC 3 is made of cheap components and it seams like you consider Benchmark bellow average quality.

I don't buy to much into all that voodoo anymore about lot's of the claims in the high-end industry. Not to say that from time to time some come up with new and better solutions.
Audio is to me much more about measurements and real world facts. Even if the reviewer did something not considered right by connecting one DAC into the other I'm not so sure it would be so easy to hear coloring of the sound. It would for sure act as a filter but so does a preamp.

As said I'm not English and maybe I'm stupid but I did not get the problem you had with how the reviewer explained how he connected the output of the DACs to the preamp.

It is a little industry. Let's enjoy the music and be friends. Everytime I meet someone with the same hobby it is always a pleasure. In a forum things are very unpersonal and I know people would not act like this when met for real.

As so many of us (myself included) own a Benchmark DAC and these have a fundamental "house" sound I propose we use them for all future comparison between DACS du jour.
My other DACS for the last ten years or so have been two different models of Lucid Audio/Symmetrix Pro DACs bought for studio use.
And then I thought it wise to buy an "upgrade" of the Bryston BDA-1 DAC which offered two significant technical advantages---upsampling AND class A analog output circuitry to sweeten up the sound and make it less plastic y.
The room I used for playback held on to energy quite well, was a little bit too small for my monitors AND was a bit hard sounding.
As a result the warm Lucid DACS gave the best results.
The Benchmark IN THAT ROOM sounded too crisp and lacked balls.
The Bryston sounded much clearer than the Lucids also. But it sounded over processed especially when upsampling was turned on.
So the increase in clarity both brought to the table was not appreciated.
My conclusion was the Benchmark sounded thin and the Bryston sounded fake. I scratched my head at the rave reviews these two products were getting from all quarters. You couldn't prove it by ME.
Then I moved to a much larger home with a wonderful listening room four times larger with unequal walls, sloped ceiling and great listening position.
The listening room resembled a small concert hall and the sound was open and relaxed and with a few pieces of Sonex and some properly placed furniture the reverberation times were felicitous.
So I decided to see if my opinion had changed about my DAC collection.
In a nutshell---YES!
The Lucids NOW sounded outclassed. Warm? Yes. But I could really use more upper octave energy without grain and here is where the Benchmark and the Bryston really came to show what they could do.
The Benchmark added at least an octave to the playback.
It still sounded a bit "cheap" which is to be expected as the company does not invest a lot of money in their analog circuitry instead relying on rather basic function over sophistication.
The strength of the Benchmark unit was its astonishing clarity, not its warmth. It was clearly twice the DAC at twice the price of the Lucids.
Next up the Bryston offered similar high frequency articulation but with even more precise soundstage AND with upsampling turned on a certain harshness and edginess which I assumed was inherent in digital suddenly evaporated.
The Benchmark could still be said to be a bit thin compared to the Bryston but then there was that amazing Benchmark clarity. Still, the Bryston with upsampling was also making its super clear digital sound relaxed and like really good analog---which quickly becomes addictive as you get spoiled by the lack of glare and edge!
OK so the Bryston at three times the price of the Lucids was in deed three times as good IN A BETTER ROOM.
It has me wondering if in fact as hobbyists we are approaching the time where our gear is getting sophisticated enought that simple adjustments to listening rooms can alter sound in a more meaningful way than "upgrading" endlessly.
Back when I started in this hobby all you had to do to get first class results was purchase McIntosh gear some good speakers and a good sounding cart to play your records.
We all knew rich friends that owned Marantz 10Bs, MC275, AR3as, Quads and THAT was the simple upgrade path for home audio.
Spend more dough on your "components", get more jollies.
We are at the point where finding recordings is as near as the internet.
Formats are improving to the point some people can no longer even hear improvements because things are that good already.
And here I am finding out my old DACS that I didn't like are actually now my favorites.
I hand it all to Benchmark for resetting the standard for what one may get out of digital. Everybody should own at least ONE Benchmark something.
But after that happens and you learn the limits of your room perhaps we simply all need to purchase new HOUSES.
It worked for ME.
I imagine my next purchase will be a nice tube amp, a Mytek Brooklyn with MQA and a good bottle of scotch.
Give me another ten years and I'll decide which of the three gave the best improvements in my listening enjoyment.
I already know the scotch will make everything sound more "liquid" ha ha.

"We can make him stronger, faster ... " (oh, wrong Austin -thinking Steve)

Mr. Jim Austin's review of BM's DAC-3 touched on (and off it appears) a number of issues/concerns in the hifi business. Siau

he first order of business is this "subjective/Objective" argument. Any and all great audio designer's must (and do) sek key circuit design elements -followed by rigorous testing/measurements.

And one can rest assured that a designer will implement design choice(s)/considerations they feel represents the better sounding circuit -as opposed to the better 'measuring' circuit.

No such logic or sensibility exists with Siau-inspired products. And it shows.

Jim Austin's review started off with this (what some see as a) dilemma; create/listen/tweak/release or the Benchmark mantra of "spec's say so let's build it" ! Too funny.

Jim does, not surprisingly, note considerable sound variation between the 14-year old DAC-1 design, and the current Gen.3. But ask Siau and he'll tell you that nothing really meaningful exists (between the two) so the two should be indistinguishable from the other! Even funnier.

Jim (Austin), you mention how you admire this in the "objectivist" crowd -noting their/science's: "... traditions of precision, self-depracating ... understatement" type disposition.

YES, indeed, so much so 'they' go on record to tell the world how much they know and how foolish it is to entertain anything that can't be readily measured by test equipment ! For sure Jim, these "objectivists" are the "unassuming" types.

I would also say that the near identically priced Schiit "Yggy" annihilates the DAC-3 beyond recognition. The 23-lb. "Yggy" (using "old" DAC architecture) vs. the 2.3 Kg. BM-3!

Forget the build quality distinctions (but only for a moment), and consider that the "Yggy" is 23-lbs. worth of brilliant Moffat design using top quality parts within a full-size chassis, built like a tank.

Mr. Moffat understands (very well) the utility/necessity of lab work/ results, but his inner (music-loving) sensibilities are the real driving force behind great products -whether the spec's" say so, or not. This talent is something all of the best designs/designers share.

Back to Siau-products; may I suggest a nice pair of world-renowned Bose loudspeakers with your BM DAC along with your choice of lamp-cord speaker wire color -but do make sure it is #18/#16 gauge.

peter jasz

Lol. You may be right. Over-estimating Schit's/Moffat's capability is something I regret: competent (design) yes, but nothing more.

Sooner or later, a company's 'mantra' exposes itself. With respect to the Norse-inspired chaps that run this operation, it became quite clear quickly the arrogance on offer -customer service is deplorable.

In any case, my point was to say the best gear goes through rigorous listening evaluations before deciding final production models. Such listening evaluations become complex (the sheer variables involved)but absolutely necessary. But not according to Benchmark/Siau types.

I chuckle thinking about some hi-fi brands where the principals and engineers have no concept/understanding of hi-fi 'cables', 'power cords' etc.
But slowly, surely, some come around to acknowledge the errors of their ways -and implement the necessary product changes for much improved sound -whether or not superior specifications are achieved.

It's easy to pick out such brands; they almost always brag about their "technical" direction, not "swayed" by concepts they don't understand -or can 'measure'.

The problem with that is many fold, but the biggest slap to their faces arrives when future (on-the-horizon) discoveries will reveal why cables/power cords/speaker wire etc. has such a profound impact upon our subjective experience/interpretation -and even give the White-Coats the numbers and spec's they absolutely must have to build into their product. Sadly

Such folk are simply very insecure: unable to wrap their head around that they may feel/hear considerable sound variation but then look to 'reasonable' explanations for their subjective interpretations. But then again, some brands exist based on nothing to do with the science/art of fine sound quality but simply a business opportunity that "fell-into-their-laps" (so to speak).
This type of product/company will never have product (unless by complete shit luck) a product to savor over simply because of the designers indifference -or misunderstanding of cutting-edge thinking, research and design.

Technical excellence (circuit design/loudspeaker performance criteria) must be a design objective. But also taking into account that which is not presently understood very well, if at all. And that, right there is the 'objectivist's' failing. And it's a detrimental one that's often reflected in their products.

Bottom line: Listen to verified/authentic audiophile voices along with company's that speak of listening sessions as part of the design process. The chance of enjoying a superior product (hi-fi) is much greater.

Man, I talk too much. lol

pj

Hi all,

New to this forum.

I'm in the process of buying a DAC and have read some reviews on different sites. Looked at the Benchmark DAC review after having read Mark Waldrep's recently released book "Music and Audio: A User Guide To Better Sound".

When reading the chapter dealing with DACs I had the feeling that I was missing PS Audio's DirectStream. Unfortunately the review on the Benchmark turns out not to be an A/B comparison to the PS Audio DS, though the latter has been used "in the chain".

Anyone know of an A/B comparison done between these two?

Moreover, the Chinese company Auralic seems to have received several good reviews on their Vega G2. Anyone experience with this unit?

@Stereophile team: is a review of the Vega G2 - perhaps couple to the Leo GX reference clock - foreseen in the near future?

Thanks,

Marcel from the Netherlands

Is the Charles Hansen who commented above the late Charles Hansen of Ayre audio ?

..and to learn it is still well regarded from a subjective point of view by John A.

"With the Benchmark amps and cables, the balance was slightly lighter, the soundstage somewhat less enveloping, but the overall presentation was still involving."

I am curious if the slightly lighter sound is attributed to the amp, or if the swap in cables made any difference? This analysis was consistent with what I am remembering from your comments about the Schiit monoblocks, compared to the parasounds, compared to the Benchmark stereo power amp, which suggests it is the amp.

Seems like there is a lot of shade directed to the measurements crowd, right or wrong. I for one appreciate Benchmark's ethos and transparency. They discuss performance of their products in engineering terms and offer explanation of how or why the products performs as it does. Their claims about cables relate to rejection of noise and distortion, e.g., and they charge reasonable amounts of money for the products compared to competitors. Its a breath of fresh air in this industry/hobby.

Could other products sound "better"? Sure, but when considering the measurements of the Benchmark products, you have to question if the better sounding component is "accurate" in the sense that input=output, or if that better product is adding a distortion that sounds nice. If the other one sounds better then fine. But these products require the audiophile to consider their biases and priorities in listening. So props to Benchmark, from my POV.

Just one remark to John Atkinson's follow-up with DAC-3 B.
All (AFAIK) their converters incl. DAC-1, 2 and 3 has internal pads with 0, -10 and -20 dB of output level attenuation. You can set that via internal jumpers at PCB right next to XLR connectors. It's a normal voltage divider, so it naturally affects output impedance, but IME it works very well to accommodate converter output level to sensitivity of particular downstream device. You can combine it with digital volume control and optimize for good dynamic range.

Michal

do read the manual.it explains most clearly how to set the internal jumpers which
modify the xlr output to suit.

Can JRiver player do this? While I think it stinks to have to rely on a pay forever to use solution do Roon, HQ Player or other players have filters that will satisfactorily reduce intersample overs distortion in any of my commercially issued music CD recordings?