-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
‘As good as it gets’ Benchmark’s DAC3
- Thread starter Purité Audio
- Start date
Yes, heard a few days from people who read the print version. THe whole review is worth reading: https://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-dac3-hgc-da-preamplifier-headphone-amplifier
Here is the cool part. In the subjective section, in casual listening the Benchmark DC3 sounds better than DC1. But when the levels are matched and AB tests are performed, they sound the same:
"I spent an afternoon of focused listening, then part of the evening with my 19-year-old son, a serious musician, listening to music he's exploring: Led Zeppelin, Eminem, Schoenberg, J.S. Bach. We sat back to listen (he was in the good chair), switching between the two DACs, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly.
Neither of us heard a difference—nothing. Soundstage depth? Tonality? Reverb tails? No difference. Did the DAC3 sound very slightly cleaner? Perhaps. Did it have a little more energy in the very lowest bass? Maybe. Was the DSD-based DirectStream a touch smoother? I thought it would be, but didn't hear it.
The next day, a friend and fellow audio reviewer stopped by for a listen. I checked to make sure the volume levels were matched, then handed him the remote. He did the same demo I'd done, listening mainly to percussion (he's a drummer), switching at will. His conclusion was the same as mine: No difference.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...eadphone-amplifier-page-2#hYy8YghdTRZ0LhPu.99
And this conclusion:Neither of us heard a difference—nothing. Soundstage depth? Tonality? Reverb tails? No difference. Did the DAC3 sound very slightly cleaner? Perhaps. Did it have a little more energy in the very lowest bass? Maybe. Was the DSD-based DirectStream a touch smoother? I thought it would be, but didn't hear it.
The next day, a friend and fellow audio reviewer stopped by for a listen. I checked to make sure the volume levels were matched, then handed him the remote. He did the same demo I'd done, listening mainly to percussion (he's a drummer), switching at will. His conclusion was the same as mine: No difference.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...eadphone-amplifier-page-2#hYy8YghdTRZ0LhPu.99
"Conclusions
Once, in these pages, I expressed regret that rigorous listening tests are not truly viable in many high-end audio contexts, because without them we're unmoored. Without rigorous testing, it's hard to know what progress is real and what is only apparently real. 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. All of that helps the more cynical part of the high-end industry thrive at the expense of the more authentic, conscientious part. That's regrettable.
My point is that, as a hobby, industry, and avocation, we may have shifted too far toward the subjectivist side. Yes, I know the history, and accept its lessons: Measurements sometimes lead us astray, and there are plenty of open questions about what makes a component sound good..... Science works. Artists may be sexy, but never underestimate a good geek."
That is what is really wrong with the hobby these days. We took the limit of what could be ridiculous, and taken it 10 steps past that. Simple tests like level matching AB is a sobering reminder of how far off the mark we are. Kudos to stereophile, or at least reviewer Jim Austin, to bring an ounce of reality here.Once, in these pages, I expressed regret that rigorous listening tests are not truly viable in many high-end audio contexts, because without them we're unmoored. Without rigorous testing, it's hard to know what progress is real and what is only apparently real. 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. All of that helps the more cynical part of the high-end industry thrive at the expense of the more authentic, conscientious part. That's regrettable.
My point is that, as a hobby, industry, and avocation, we may have shifted too far toward the subjectivist side. Yes, I know the history, and accept its lessons: Measurements sometimes lead us astray, and there are plenty of open questions about what makes a component sound good..... Science works. Artists may be sexy, but never underestimate a good geek."
As I read it, the comparison you mention was between a PS Audio DAC and the DAC3:
"After that, I backed away from close listening, still listening frequently via the DAC3 but focusing on the gear less intensively. I listened for days, mostly casually, only occasionally playing close attention, switching between my PS Audio DirectStream DAC and the Benchmark DAC3 HGC. Listening casually over time sometimes helps me get a sense of a component's sound; this time, though, nothing much stood out. Apparently, these two DACs sound much alike."
That what I see when I try to figure out what was being compared later, since the later text wasn't explicit:
"We sat back to listen (he was in the good chair), switching between the two DACs, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly."
Last edited:
The DAC1 impression:
"I found the sounds of the two DACs quite different. The DAC1 was brighter, all sheen and surface."
---
My initial impression of the original DAC1, at my buddy's house, maybe the first standalone DAC I'd heard, and I had no hint that he'd bought it:
"Shrill."
"I found the sounds of the two DACs quite different. The DAC1 was brighter, all sheen and surface."
---
My initial impression of the original DAC1, at my buddy's house, maybe the first standalone DAC I'd heard, and I had no hint that he'd bought it:
"Shrill."
Last edited:
When I read that review a week or so back all I could think of was, "don't think this reviewer will be around much longer".
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 1,279
- Likes
- 1,180
$2500 XLR's are causing an issue and the foot note 1 specifies they use Mogami to resolve this. Gee, how many times have I recommended Mogami at other fora just to be laughed at.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 21,011
- Likes
- 38,211
I think John Siau's loopback test should become how Stereophile rates DACs. All DACs get looped thru a Benchmark ADC, and reviewers listen (level matched and blind of course). You then learn how many loops before a difference is audible. The more loops, the better the DAC.
So the real question becomes how low (in price) can you go and not hear a difference in loop #2. Because for simple playback that is all you need. I have found much lesser gear than Benchmark can manage the trick for 4 and 8 loops. While it might not be the case with all gear, I find it only becomes discernible when the noise floor is getting on the edge of audible.
Of course one would have some explaining to do if very expensive DACs failed upon the first loop. They have a sound of their own. That is even acceptable in a sense. It just gives lie to the idea they sound more resolving rather than tastefully colored.
So the real question becomes how low (in price) can you go and not hear a difference in loop #2. Because for simple playback that is all you need. I have found much lesser gear than Benchmark can manage the trick for 4 and 8 loops. While it might not be the case with all gear, I find it only becomes discernible when the noise floor is getting on the edge of audible.
Of course one would have some explaining to do if very expensive DACs failed upon the first loop. They have a sound of their own. That is even acceptable in a sense. It just gives lie to the idea they sound more resolving rather than tastefully colored.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 21,011
- Likes
- 38,211
When I read that review a week or so back all I could think of was, "don't think this reviewer will be around much longer".
Well I wonder about that. Be nice if they had one reviewer who would follow up and expand upon such listening. Would be a good long term series of reviews that might interest some people.
Just read it and don't think he/she will be around for long ... His/her honesty won't be rewarded.When I read that review a week or so back all I could think of was, "don't think this reviewer will be around much longer".
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #11
Isn’t that the truth, the industry and most customers do not want the truth, they want to remain in the dream, just like the ‘Matrix’!Just read it and don't think he/she will be around for long ... His/her honesty won't be rewarded.
Keith
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 1,279
- Likes
- 1,180
I've used the DA/AD loop before for testing people that claim they can hear differences and the logic is the same as what Benchmark has proposed.
If you take an original generation digital track, capture it into another .wav and people can't tell the difference between the original wav the the 1st generation copy then you have
a basis for making blinded tracks available for people to download and evaluate.
It's what I did over at CA with a $700 1 meter RJE and $90 98 meter RJE. No one could tell when the cable was swapped out.
If you take an original generation digital track, capture it into another .wav and people can't tell the difference between the original wav the the 1st generation copy then you have
a basis for making blinded tracks available for people to download and evaluate.
It's what I did over at CA with a $700 1 meter RJE and $90 98 meter RJE. No one could tell when the cable was swapped out.
Burning Sounds
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Did that impression remain, Ray?
The DAC1 was quite a revelation for me and the fact that Benchmark indicated the Dac1 (and Dac2) could easily be run in parallel in a multichannel system meant buying secondhand I could build a high quality 8 channel Dac for about £1200. It was clunky - JRiver>>USB into Audiolab Mdac acting as USB to SP/DIF convertor>>MiniDSP Nano doing x-overs and eq>>4 Benchmark DAC1s balanced outputs>>Nakamichi AVP1 7 channel poweramps, but it worked very well. After a couple of years I eventually auditioned several 8 channel Dacs against this setup and it wasn't easy finding something that to my ears bettered it.
How I wish Benchmark would release an 8 channel Dac....
Would be nice but I kind of doubt it. If they start to appear to lean to an objective stance in any way the subscriber base will have a fit. In todays shrinking audiophile pool they can't afford to lose readers in any way. They already have stiff competition with TAS and the hard core subjective sites like WBF and CA where any objectivist needs to wear a bullet proof vest. It's always a hoot to read how Atkinson can dance around reporting a poorly measuring product to not have it conflict with the usually flowery rave review above it.
I added a short, polite (for me) post to the review.
Very glad to see ASR really starting to gain a footing in the tech community. My hope here was always to attract the best minds from the technical trained objective group to truly work towards advancing the SOTA minus all the silliness of the "everything matters" crowd.
Last edited:
No, it faded.
But it was a bit of a shock initially.
He still has that DAC1, but is shopping.
I have a DAC1-HDR (a few years newer, includes USB and Analog), and supplanted it with a DAC2-HGC.
I wish the review had compared a DAC2 vs DAC3, instead.
---
Here's the Benchmark Manual Archive, lots of devices and measurements in there - https://benchmarkmedia.com/pages/manuals - for anyone interested.
Burning Sounds
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Mine were 2 s/pdif, 1 USB and an HDR. All sounded the same to me (John Atkinson in his review of the Dac1 USB in Stereophile didn't think so). I sold 3 and kept the HDR, too.
Last edited:
I asked John Siau about that at AES a week ago and he reiterated that one "could" run a stack of his DACs (and said that he will at the upcoming Capitol Audio Show) but he seemed less than enthusiastic about the whole thing.
Can you blame him? He'll have to deal with hordes of boneheads talking about how much better the (insert name) $xx,000 DAC sounds than his lowly DAC3. It never fails to amaze me how honest talented designers can continue to participate in the High End audiophool market and listen to all the delusional ranting. Sounds like walking into a living hell to me.
Burning Sounds
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Thanks, Kal. That's a shame - four Dac3s are more than £8,000 here in the UK, not to mention the cumbersome nature of such a setup. An 8 channel dac in a single chassis would realise considerable cost savings I would think, not to mention being greeted with enthusiasm in the pro market where most of these multi-channel dacs are used. Most other pro market manufacturers have an 8 channel version of their 2 channel dacs, but Benchmark have never done this for whatever reason.
All the more reason to develop an 8 channel Dac, Sal. Then they would only have to deal with the (much fewer) boneheads in the pro world.
I am not here to dispute your observations but to confess that your statement picks on a sensitive issue with me. "Stereophile didn't think so" is misleading. Until/unless there is an expression of concensus, one cannot assume that any other or that all the other reviewers share those optinons. IMHO, it is always best to ascribe the opinions to the one or two reviewers (who can be named) who made them.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" applies here.
Similar threads
