‘As good as it gets’ Benchmark’s DAC3

[watchnerd]

It's great to see the truthiness in Jim Austin's DAC review.

But aren't we starting to enter the post-DAC era?

With all the digital-direct active speakers entering the market (B&O, Kii, Dutch & Dutch, KEF, Dynaudio, JBL, Klipsch, etc, etc), often combined with streaming servers that offer convolution (e.g. Roon), is there really any point in investing in state of the art DAC these days?

 

[Jinjuku]

It's great to see the truthiness in Jim Austin's DAC review.

But aren't we starting to enter the post-DAC era?

With all the digital-direct active speakers entering the market (B&O, Kii, Dutch & Dutch, KEF, Dynaudio, JBL, Klipsch, etc, etc), often combined with streaming servers that offer convolution (e.g. Roon), is there really any point in investing in state of the art DAC these days?

Been doing fully active speaker and sound reinforcement since 93'. finally the high end consumer market is catching up and your point stands

 

[watchnerd]

Been doing fully active speaker and sound reinforcement since 93'. finally the high end consumer market is catching up and your point stands

Sad that it takes nearly 25+ years...

 

[Jakob1863]

RayDunzl is right, as Jim Austin wrote:

"First, I sent the output of the two DACs to different channels of my PS Audio BHK Signature preamp. Later, I sent the output of the DirectStream DAC into one of the DAC3's analog inputs, switching between this input and the USB input coming directly from my server."

I am a bit surprised - the description of the test methodology was a bit "diffuse", was it single blind, double blind or just sighted - because it seems that those details don´t matter anymore provided that the result is according to the readers own belief....

Not so much of a difference between "audiophile believers" and "other believers", mhm ?

 

[watchnerd]

RayDunzl is right, as Jim Austin wrote:

"First, I sent the output of the two DACs to different channels of my PS Audio BHK Signature preamp. Later, I sent the output of the DirectStream DAC into one of the DAC3's analog inputs, switching between this input and the USB input coming directly from my server."

I am a bit surprised - the description of the test methodology was a bit "diffuse", was it single blind, double blind or just sighted - because it seems that those details don´t matter anymore provided that the result is according to the readers own belief....

Not so much of a difference between "audiophile believers" and "other believers", mhm ?

It sounds like a sighted test.

But he said "Apparently, these two DACs sound much alike."

What's the benefit of going to a blind test if the products sound alike in a sighted test?

Do you expect the ability to discriminate between them to improve?

 

[amirm]

I am a bit surprised - the description of the test methodology was a bit "diffuse", was it single blind, double blind or just sighted - because it seems that those details don´t matter anymore provided that the result is according to the readers own belief....

Level matching and quick AB testing goes a long way toward satisfying me relative to where they are now with subjective testing. Walk before run as they say....

 

[Purité Audio]

Wonderful to see but that particular reviewer will probably never now be trusted will a product from a large advertiser ( Hi-end manufacturer)
Keith

 

[Jakob1863]

Wonderful to see but that particular reviewer will probably never now be trusted will a product from a large advertiser ( Hi-end manufacturer)
Keith

Which of course is just pure speculation; times might have changed but i remember that in the past stereophile reviewers were allowed to publish their "i heard no difference opinion" although some advertisement cancellation followed. Goes imo back to the famous "tice clock" controversies.

 

[Jakob1863]

It sounds like a sighted test.

But he said "Apparently, these two DACs sound much alike."

What's the benefit of going to a blind test if the products sound alike in a sighted test?

Do you expect the ability to discriminate between them to improve?

Remember what the usual argument for the demand of DBTs relies, it is that no listener is able to handle the overwhelming impact of bias effects occuring from the knowledge of what is playing when. If you follow that line of argument you have to suspect too that he might be biased in favour of "no difference" , so, indeed, a test where he doesn´t know about which DACs were compared might be more sensitive.

But, beside that, my point was that in most of these discussions instantaneous switching and level matching did not help if the reader didn´t like the results.

 

[watchnerd]

Remember what the usual argument for the demand of DBTs relies, it is that no listener is able to handle the overwhelming impact of bias effects occuring from the knowledge of what is playing when. If you follow that line of argument you have to suspect too that he might be biased in favour of "no difference" , so, indeed, a test where he doesn´t know about which DACs were compared might be more sensitive.

If he's biased towards no difference, DBT alone won't solve that problem.

 

[Burning Sounds]

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.

I've edited my post so that it states the name of the reviewer - John Atkinson - and provides a link to the review. I can see your point Kal and I could have been more precise in my post and provided a link, but given that John Atkinson is the editor I don't think that just providing the publication's name was "misleading" in this instance. I come from a newspaper journalism background and to ascribe an editor's opinion piece or newspaper story to that publication is not considered misleading. Given that Stereophile is not a newspaper I can see your viewpoint too, but "misleading" is not accurate IMO.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I've edited my post so that it states the name of the reviewer - John Atkinson - and provides a link to the review. I can see your point Kal and I could have been more precise in my post and provided a link, but given that John Atkinson is the editor I don't think that just providing the publication's name was "misleading" in this instance. I come from a newspaper journalism background and to ascribe an editor's opinion piece or newspaper story to that publication is not considered misleading. Given that Stereophile is not a newspaper I can see your viewpoint too, but "misleading" is not accurate IMO.

Well, OK. If JA's statements had been in an editorial, I would agree. Statements made in and as a review are, imho, in another category and carry no more of an imprimatur that those of another reviewer. Although it bothers me, here we are casual about this

 

[watchnerd]

Well, OK. If JA's statements had been in an editorial, I would agree. Statements made in and as a review are, imho, in another category and carry no more of an imprimatur that those of another reviewer. Although it bothers me, here we are casual about this

I understand your point, but I don't think most of the readership differentiates the opinions of the reviewers from the opinions of "Stereophile".

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I understand your point, but I don't think most of the readership differentiates the opinions of the reviewers from the opinions of "Stereophile".

I that is exactly what bothers me.

 

[watchnerd]

I that is exactly what bothers me.

I blame Recommended Components for that. In the summaries, reviewers are either not directly quoted at all, merely paraphrased, and if they are, it's usually a 1-2 sentence soundbite.

 

[Dialectic]

I do think we should laud Stereophile for the diversity of its voices in our hobby. My taste is not the same as Art Dudley's, but it's fine that he writes a column.

It's increasingly difficult for me to differentiate the various reviewers in TAS (except perhaps for Paul Seydor and Robert Greene), who all seem prone to praising the newest and most expensive, regardless of any other criteria.

 

[watchnerd]

I do think we should laud Stereophile for the diversity of its voices in our hobby. My taste is not the same as Art Dudley's, but it's fine that he writes a column.

It's increasingly difficult for me to differentiate the various reviewers in TAS (except perhaps for Paul Seydor and Robert Greene), who all seem prone to praising the newest and most expensive, regardless of any other criteria.

I miss Sam Tellig.

I thought he was a borderline nutter, but I enjoyed his writing.

Herb Reichert seems to be the new resident nutter, but instead of Sam's iconoclasm + cheapness, Herb seems to have done enough drugs in his life that everything just sounds amazingly awesome, no matter the device or source material.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I that is exactly what bothers me.

I agree, Kal, especially given the somewhat unique diversity of mindsets and opinions that Stereophile has chosen to foster among its reviewers over the years. MF digs vinyl, but you don't even own a turntable. You dig Mch for music and write about it, but no one else at Stereophile does or even owns a Mch music system. JA insists on making measurements that his reviewers, even many readers, do not seem to care about at all. Etc., etc. So, what is the "Stereophile position" on Mch? Or, for that matter, on any specific piece of gear one reviewer may have liked? I have no doubt that you shrug your shoulders maybe with a cringe at AD blissfully extolling the virtues of his latest tube preamp or revamped Altec horn restoration, as do I by the way.

Other mags generally do not cater to that degree of diversity of reviewer philosophies, for better or for worse. But, I do not think it is accurate to say Stereophile in particular speaks with one voice. Their "party line" for quite some time has been about the wide diversity of frequently clashing interests, some of which among Stereophile reviewers leave me cold and shaking my head, frankly. But, it is a microcosm of the crazy world of audiophiles in general.

 

[Jakob1863]

If he's biased towards no difference, DBT alone won't solve that problem.

Of course, i hoped to address that point with "....so, indeed, a test where he doesn´t know about which DACs were compared might be more sensitive." (important part now emphasized )

 

[amirm]

I understand your point, but I don't think most of the readership differentiates the opinions of the reviewers from the opinions of "Stereophile".

Seeing how a number of those reviewers have become celebrities in their own right, I see that high-end audiophiles do attribute the reviews to who has written it. And much less a stereophile thing.