- Joined
- Jan 28, 2017
- Messages
- 664
- Likes
- 846
Like me, I'm sure many of you have enjoyed the recent discussions between Gene and John Siau posted on YouTube. How refreshing to hear objective and authoritative conversations that go into detail regarding interesting audio topics! I've come away with several conclusions/questions and I'd appreciate some feedback from others, especially @John_Siau .
1. It's clear that Benchmark makes superb audio gear based on scientific measurement. Combined with the excellent customer support and resale value of their gear IMO they set the standard for other manufacturers.
2. Their gear produces a signal with such low distortion and noise that it is unquestionably inaudible. The noise/distortion, not the signal lol.
The issue of intersample overs has been discussed here and elsewhere and need not be rehashed. Whether or not intersample overs produce an audible effect appears to be controversial but I think we'd all agree it's better to eliminate the problem if possible.
The most recent discussion re gain matching was fascinating and I came away convinced that maintaining a high S/N ratio from start to finish is, again, a desirable goal if feasible. But is the problem of inappropriate gain matching audible in most gear? Specifically, in one system I use a Node 2i coax into an STR preamp with "balanced" out to AHB2 amps in bridged configuration with the middle gain setting. In another setup I have a Yamaha RN800A integrated powering my M106 speakers and KC92 sub. How would I even know what gain settings exist in the Yamaha? Do manufacturers take these gain matching considerations (or DAC headroom) into account when designing integrateds?
Is it the sad truth that most of us could not hear a difference between my Yamaha integrated and a Benchmark stack in a blinded comparison? I think most of us hope that there is a audible difference even if subtle but in our heart of hearts doubt that there is. Because if the latter is true the thousands of pages of discussion and endless gear reviews are really only of academic interest to us and financial interest to the manufacturers. Of course it's speakers/original material/room acoustics that provide the best bang for the buck but the nature and quality of our gear is a source of never ending assessment and discussion. Is that now a waste of time for modern solid state gear?
I fully understand that many of us, me included, will likely still buy superb gear like Benchmark products knowing that any audible improvements are wishful thinking, but still gain satisfaction by simply owning the best.
1. It's clear that Benchmark makes superb audio gear based on scientific measurement. Combined with the excellent customer support and resale value of their gear IMO they set the standard for other manufacturers.
2. Their gear produces a signal with such low distortion and noise that it is unquestionably inaudible. The noise/distortion, not the signal lol.
The issue of intersample overs has been discussed here and elsewhere and need not be rehashed. Whether or not intersample overs produce an audible effect appears to be controversial but I think we'd all agree it's better to eliminate the problem if possible.
The most recent discussion re gain matching was fascinating and I came away convinced that maintaining a high S/N ratio from start to finish is, again, a desirable goal if feasible. But is the problem of inappropriate gain matching audible in most gear? Specifically, in one system I use a Node 2i coax into an STR preamp with "balanced" out to AHB2 amps in bridged configuration with the middle gain setting. In another setup I have a Yamaha RN800A integrated powering my M106 speakers and KC92 sub. How would I even know what gain settings exist in the Yamaha? Do manufacturers take these gain matching considerations (or DAC headroom) into account when designing integrateds?
Is it the sad truth that most of us could not hear a difference between my Yamaha integrated and a Benchmark stack in a blinded comparison? I think most of us hope that there is a audible difference even if subtle but in our heart of hearts doubt that there is. Because if the latter is true the thousands of pages of discussion and endless gear reviews are really only of academic interest to us and financial interest to the manufacturers. Of course it's speakers/original material/room acoustics that provide the best bang for the buck but the nature and quality of our gear is a source of never ending assessment and discussion. Is that now a waste of time for modern solid state gear?
I fully understand that many of us, me included, will likely still buy superb gear like Benchmark products knowing that any audible improvements are wishful thinking, but still gain satisfaction by simply owning the best.
Last edited:
