I could use some suggestions

[Zensō]

OP - you might benefit from doing some research on blind testing and expectation bias. It’s widely recognized that we hear as much with our eyes and brain as we do with our ears. It’s an extremely powerful phenomenon that we’re all subject to, even if we’re aware of it. Those of us who have done ABX testing are often surprised to find how active our imaginations are when it comes to things like wine tasting and listening to audio products (in audio source gear, especially DACs, the differences we thought we perceived often become vanishingly small or nonexistent when subjected to a proper blind test). Some manufacturers of audio gear are well aware of this and take advantage of this human weakness we all have. There are many articles and studies done on the subject. This is a nice overview to start: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-we-hear.html?m=1

 

[mafelba]

I dont know Apple TV and apple music but cant you attenuate the volume at the source end- in the Apple Music app or apple tv remote?

Also, agree with other posters- in that set up (and indeed in pretty much any set up) the Benchmark will offer you little to nothing over any other DAC with a variable volume

The Apple TV/Apple TV remote does not have volume itself, it merely changes the TV's volume using IR. And since the TV is outputting the sound signal in digital format via the optical port in my setup, the TVs volume does not affect the optical signal. And the Apple Music app on the Apple TV does not have volume controls unfortunately.

To clarify your opinion regarding what the Benchmark will offer in terms of improvement: when you say that "the Benchmark will offer you little to nothing over any other DAC with a variable volume", would that be true for all hi-end transparent DACs with variable volume or all DACs with variable volume in general?

 

[mafelba]

It’s widely recognized that we hear as much with our eyes and brain as we do with our ears.... Those of us who have done ABX testing are often surprised to find how active our imaginations are when it comes to things like wine tasting and listening to audio products. Manufacturers of high end audio gear are well aware of this and take advantage of this human weakness we all have.

I believe it. If I do buy the Benchmark I will certainly do such a test and compare with the SYS/Modius that I have. The Benchmark has a 30-day return policy. I'm by no means blindly buying a somewhat expensive DAC without ensuring that there is a good reason for doing so. But as Daverz has pointed out a few posts above, sound is not the only factor involved.

 

[mafelba]

There are many articles and studies done on the subject. This is a nice overview to start: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-we-hear.html?m=1

Quite a convincing article. But even the author says "[t]he generally accepted goal, for many solid reasons, is the entire audio reproduction signal chain should be as accurate and transparent as possible right up to the headphones or speakers". So I guess you would say that the Benchmark is not worth 2x as much as the RME given its only slight lead in testing (according to the comparison here at ASR). But would you go further and say that even paying $1,000 for the RME is unnecessary? Can I really get away with a $129 E30 topping?

 

[Zensō]

Quite a convincing article. But even the author says "[t]he generally accepted goal, for many solid reasons, is the entire audio reproduction signal chain should be as accurate and transparent as possible right up to the headphones or speakers". So I guess you would say that the Benchmark is not worth 2x as much as the RME given its only slight lead in testing (according to the comparison here at ASR). But would you go further and say that even paying $1,000 for the RME is unnecessary? Can I really get away with a $129 E30 topping?

It’s highly unlikely you would hear a difference between the DACs you’re considering if subjected to a proper blind test. If you were able to perceive a difference (as unlikely as that would be), it’s highly doubtful one would sound “better”. I think you can relax in knowing the question isn’t about sound, and focus on differences in build quality, features, and customer support.

 

[JustJones]

In equipment for sale there is a Topping D90 for $550 if interested.

 

[mafelba]

It’s highly unlikely you would hear a difference between the DACs you’re considering if subjected to a proper blind test. If you were able to perceive a difference (as unlikely as that would be), it’s highly doubtful one would sound “better”. I think you can relax in knowing the question isn’t about sound, and focus on differences in build quality, features, and customer support.

Well, my list of needed features is incredibly small. If I go with the Topping E30, I will not be able to use balanced interconnects. In your opinion, what is the value of using balanced interconnects? I could pay $700 and get balanced interconnects with the Topping D90.

 

[Zensō]

Well, my list of needed features is incredibly small. If I go with the Topping E30, I will not be able to use balanced interconnects. In your opinion, what is the value of using balanced interconnects? I could pay $700 and get balanced interconnects with the Topping D90.

Balanced interconnects are useful for eliminating ground loops.

 

[Daverz]

This is my guess as well. I think that Benchmark, or any other company making hi-end transparent DACs would agree that said DACs will benefit lossy audio and that said DACs do not all sound exactly the same.

I meant that there will not be an audible difference. And an expensive DAC will not make lossy audio files sound any better than a competent inexpensive DAC, no matter how impressive the technical story may be.

 

[mafelba]

I meant that there will not be an audible difference. And an expensive DAC will not make lossy audio files sound any better than a competent inexpensive DAC, no matter how impressive the technical story may be.

You might be right, I have no evidence that speaks otherwise. Hard to believe that nobody has conducted an exhaustive peer reviewed study on this and related questions. It's 2020 and people are still questioning to what extent the average person can appreciate a positive difference in SQ with lossy/lossless audio and whether or not a $2,000 transparent DAC will sound any "better" than a $129 transparent DAC. Lots of anecdotes and opinions, but very little science.

 

[Blumlein 88]

You might be right, I have no evidence that speaks otherwise. Hard to believe that nobody has conducted an exhaustive peer reviewed study on this and related questions. It's 2020 and people are still questioning to what extent the average person can appreciate a positive difference in SQ with lossy/lossless audio and whether or not a $2,000 transparent DAC will sound any "better" than a $129 transparent DAC. Lots of anecdotes and opinions, but very little science.

There is plenty of testing about various lossy formats. They aren't transparent. At higher bit rates they may be transparent for most people for most purposes.

There has been testing of higher sample rate formats vs CD. A bit from being fully conclusive either way, but if there is a difference it is teeny tiny.

I don't know if there is lots of testing of $129 vs $2k processors. But we know enough about parameters of operation to not really need to do that. Transparent is transparent and there is nothing more to be gained.

 

[Zensō]

You might be right, I have no evidence that speaks otherwise. Hard to believe that nobody has conducted an exhaustive peer reviewed study on this and related questions. It's 2020 and people are still questioning to what extent the average person can appreciate a positive difference in SQ with lossy/lossless audio and whether or not a $2,000 transparent DAC will sound any "better" than a $129 transparent DAC. Lots of anecdotes and opinions, but very little science.

You don’t need to test specific products against one another. The audibility threshold of distortion is fairly well understood and is covered in a number of threads on this forum and in other places.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/

The simple answer is no, transparent is transparent. Of course, as mentioned above, expectation bias is extremely powerful and once someone spends $2,000 dollars on a DAC, they will undoubtedly believe that it sounds better than a $129 DAC.

This is a great basic reference:

https://blog.jdslabs.com/performance-standards/

 

[Zensō]

You might be right, I have no evidence that speaks otherwise. Hard to believe that nobody has conducted an exhaustive peer reviewed study on this and related questions. It's 2020 and people are still questioning to what extent the average person can appreciate a positive difference in SQ with lossy/lossless audio and whether or not a $2,000 transparent DAC will sound any "better" than a $129 transparent DAC. Lots of anecdotes and opinions, but very little science.

Here’s a fairly well done blind test with ~500 participants comparing Apple 256 AAC to CD quality. Virtually no one was able to reliably discern the difference.

https://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com/cd-vs-itunes-plus-blind-test-results/

 

[Zensō]

You might be right, I have no evidence that speaks otherwise. Hard to believe that nobody has conducted an exhaustive peer reviewed study on this and related questions. It's 2020 and people are still questioning to what extent the average person can appreciate a positive difference in SQ with lossy/lossless audio and whether or not a $2,000 transparent DAC will sound any "better" than a $129 transparent DAC. Lots of anecdotes and opinions, but very little science.

You might find this interesting. Ken Rockwell is prone to a bit of hyperbole, but he’s pretty spot on here:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/lightning-adapter-audio-quality.htm

That‘s a $9 DAC that performs amazingly well. Amir tested it here as well:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pple-vs-google-usb-c-headphone-adapters.5541/

If you keep digging into this deeper, you’re going to find that in audio, performance is very often not correlated with price (at least with electronics, not necessarily transducers).

 

[mafelba]

The simple answer is no, transparent is transparent.

But you are assuming that transparency is something that can be verified easily.

This is what Benchmark has to say on the subject:
###################
"... Benchmark products are designed for transparency. This means that measurements can form an important part of our design process. Nevertheless, we understand that measurements don't always tell the full story.

MEASUREMENTS DON'T ALWAYS TELL THE FULL STORY
It is very important to verify transparency by listening. Many times, we have detected problems in listening tests that didn't show up in a basic set of measurements. Usually this was an indication that the measurements were incomplete.

We have learned that if we hear something that didn't show up in the measurements, then we haven't done the right measurements! Over the years, our listening tests have helped us to refine our measurement techniques. We have learned how to detect and quantify defects that were initially revealed only by human ears.

When measurement techniques are adequately refined, defects can be quantified and design changes can be evaluated objectively. Measurements then allow us to refine a product until the defect is reduced to inaudible levels. In the end, the refinements need to be confirmed by listening tests."
###################

Is this just hot air? What are they referring to when they say "if we hear something that didn't show up in the measurements, then we haven't done the right measurements!" and "We have learned how to detect and quantify defects that were initially revealed only by human ears."?

They are detecting defects that were initially revealed only by human ears? Are you saying that they are confused and mistaken?

 

[mafelba]

The simple answer is no, transparent is transparent.

You seem to be suggesting that "transparency" can easily be verified by certain measurements, but Benchmark is saying that "In the end, the refinements need to be confirmed by listening tests" and "listening is needed to verify transparency" and " In the end, the refinements need to be confirmed by listening tests.". This doesn't seem to square with an idea that "transparency" is easily identified by measurements alone.

 

[mafelba]

You seem to be suggesting that "transparency" can easily be verified by certain measurements, but Benchmark is saying that "In the end, the refinements need to be confirmed by listening tests" and "listening is needed to verify transparency" and " In the end, the refinements need to be confirmed by listening tests.". This doesn't seem to square with an idea that "transparency" is easily identified by measurements alone.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing Benchmark's side, I'm just interested in what others think they are referring to and whether or not maybe there IS something going on with regard to their detecting defects by listening that are not revealed in measurements. Very interesting, but I don't know enough about it to really understand it.

 

[raif71]

I'm gonna throw a wrench in the mix

 

[Zensō]

They’re talking about using hearing to refine and extend their testing protocols.

Realize that Benchmark‘s marketing is meant to appeal to both objectivists and subjectivists. They can’t afford to alienate potential customers from either camp.

 

[BDWoody]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing Benchmark's side, I'm just interested in what others think they are referring to and whether or not maybe there IS something going on with regard to their detecting defects by listening that are not revealed in measurements. Very interesting, but I don't know enough about it to really understand it.

If you can hear it, you can measure it.

Once you know what to measure for, you measure it.

Sometimes boundary conditions that don't show up easily in standard measurements/tests might be heard before a customer complains about a weird pop when switching inputs, for example.

They aren't listening for more PRAT (or whatever), they are listening for problems.

The point where transparency became effectively a commodity was probably 20 or so years ago. Beyond the 96dB Redbook gives us access to, it starts to become a matter of preferences that have very little to do with *actual* sound quality. Doesn't mean people won't hear a difference... They paid to hear it after all, dammit!