‘As good as it gets’ Benchmark’s DAC3

[Dialectic]

Herb seems to have done enough drugs in his life that everything just sounds amazingly awesome, no matter the device or source material.

Unless it measures well or is made by JBL.

 

[watchnerd]

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.

I guess I don't hang out with enough high end audiophiles. I don't think I can name more than 5-6 current reviewers (Kal, Fremer, Reichert, Lavorgna, JA himself....nope, that's all I got).

Mastering engineers, who should be better known given their impact on the audible product, I can probably name 10-15, but that's what I get for hanging out on Gearslutz instead of WBF.

 

[Thomas savage]

I guess I don't hang out with enough high end audiophiles. I don't think I can name more than 5-6 current reviewers (Kal, Fremer, Reichert, Lavorgna, JA himself....nope, that's all I got).

Mastering engineers, who should be better known given their impact on the audible product, I can probably name 10-15, but that's what I get for hanging out on Gearslutz instead of WBF.

I can’t even name the 20 guys I played badminton with for 7 years...

 

[watchnerd]

Unless it measures well or is made by JBL.

To quote:

"(Where were my beloved Linn Kan speakers when I needed them?)"

Polite, full of "PRaT", never scary. Very BBC-school. Nice safe 70 Hz extension that won't rattle the LP12, NYC neighbors, or set off any bad acid flashbacks.

 

[Dialectic]

Polite, full of "PRaT", never scary. Very BBC-school. Nice safe 70 Hz extension that won't rattle the LP12, NYC neighbors, or set off any bad acid flashbacks.

Having to listen to the ubiquitous PRaT blather is the worst thing about being an American audiophool in the UK.

 

[watchnerd]

Having to listen to the ubiquitous PRaT blather is the worst thing about being an American audiophool in the UK.

I know what the acronym means, but I still don't have any idea what they're really talking about.

Unless they're referring to Rega turntables, which run faster than correct speed, which apparently gives them PRaT....

 

[watchnerd]

Charles Hansen of Ayre apparently didn't like the review:

"Recently the new review of the Benchmark 3 DAC by Jim Austin was published in Stereophile. This is probably the single most incompetent review I've ever seen in my life. Austin makes so many sub-amateur blunders that it is embarrassing. They are detailed in my lengthy online comment underneath any page of the review:

• Austin "Reviews" a DAC... (Open in New Window)"

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=critics&m=88590

 

[DonH56]

Interesting. One of the other comments is this one:

Beginning of the end for subjectivists?
Submitted by mrkaic on October 27, 2017 - 3:24pm

I hope this year, this month, and this review mark the beginning of the end of the tyranny of subjectivists.

I have noticed the past few years that objectivists are growing more vocal in their denigration of subjectivists or anyone leaning that direction. And making the claim that the audio world is dominated by subjectivists when it appears the opposite is true IME/IMO. And the gap seems to be worse and opinions mre strident; a shame, since there are things each side could learn from the other if the immediate response was not a knee-jerk insult.

Oh well, at least it may be a little longer before I am run off ASR...

 

[amirm]

Years ago I would read Charles' posts on AVS forum and gathering respect for him. All of that got flushed down the toilet by reading his posting there.

First of all, and most important, how dare he use such unprofessional language as a member of the industry? He gives us all a black eye. He must remain professional especially in an industry setting. And this is after JA cleaned up his post. What remains is still horrific in this regard.

Second, I have had miswired balanced cables produce hum. If he has not heard of this, then I don't know what to tell him.

Then there is that diatribe about two inputs sounding different due to UL testing, PCB traces and other nonsense? Who is he kidding? Thankfully Jim Austin put him in his place on this.

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.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...ifier-headphone-amplifier#4pFbeiCVuXHKwQVa.99​

There there is some shallow bickering over the use of input vs channel? Really?

This is not the Charles I knew. It is just a high-end shill taking, not some experienced engineer.

 

[amirm]

Oh well, at least it may be a little longer before I am run off ASR...

??? What do you mean Don?

 

[DonH56]

Nothing bad, just that at ASR the S is still relevant and important so I do not feel in danger of being sanctioned. Humour too dry at times, should've added a winkie thingie.

As an aside, "balanced" does not automatically obviate a ground loop; there are different degrees of "balanced", and unless you lift the shield at one end of the XLR/TRS cable the potential for a ground loop is still there. Lifting the shield will nearly always break the loop since the signal is not ground-referenced in a fully-differential design, and many of not most quasi-differential designs.

 

[Wayne]

but also have the same amount of break-in time

Is "break-in time" on cables really a serious consideration in evaluations? (Serious question from a non EE)

edit: additional on quote "...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."

 

[watchnerd]

This is not the Charles I knew. It is just a high-end shill taking, not some experienced engineer.

And not a very good shill. After that rant, I've pretty much scratched his name off the list of designers who I would buy from.

 

[watchnerd]

Is "break-in time" on cables really a serious consideration in evaluations? (Serious question from a non EE)

It's certainly not in recording or live performance environments.

I've been in live venues where we needed another mic cable (balanced XLR), went to the spool, cut off the length, terminated it, hooked it up, and not only used it for live performance, but for a recording of the same.

 

[amirm]

Is "break-in time" on cables really a serious consideration in evaluations? (Serious question from a non EE)

Not even remotely so. Cable break-in is one of those most impossible things in audio.

 

[RayDunzl]

I've misplaced my "who charles hansen is" neuron.

So, who is Charles Hansen?

There, I've assigned a new one from my dwindling pool of spares.

I read the comment from whoever he is, but I got stuck twice at " [Flame deleted by John Atkinson]", and gave up.

 

[Purité Audio]

Ayre
Keith

 

[Vincent Kars]

Looks like Charles forgot the second part

 

[Jakob1863]

I know what the acronym means, but I still don't have any idea what they're really talking about.

Unless they're referring to Rega turntables, which run faster than correct speed, which apparently gives them PRaT....

Unfortunately verbalisation of sensory impressions is one of the most difficult tasks, if not even impossible.
If i´d try i´d relate the so called "PRAT " impression to the so called "groove" that one can experience if a group of musicians is playing together. Imo it is equally difficult to explain what "groovy/groove" really means to somebody who never experienced the difference between a "groovy" and a "nongroovy" play.

I have to read Hansen´s critique, but Jim Austin´s review is a bit weak in his description of the intersample over´s - means if you know already what it is, what´s the reason is and what´s done against it in the DAC then you´ll know why he wrotes about it the way he did, but if you don´t you imo most likeley got a very wrong idea after reading it - and in the description of the different comparisons he did. I´ve already mentioned the missing information about the "two DAC, who sound not different" comparison but it still holds true for the comparison of DAC1 and DAC3 .

I´ve said it before, i don´t mind any subjective review/description as long as it is obviously described as a subjective review wrt to methodology and rating. Every reader has to find out if the reviewers´s view meats his own impressions, rating style and so on.
If a reviewer is claiming to do something else means to follow another route than he should imo ensure that it is really something more refined and not only a halfbacked version of controlled listening testing.

 

[Jinjuku]

I that is exactly what bothers me.

The reasons behind that apathy should be what really bother you...