Benchmark DAC1

[tigerwoodKhorns]

This is just an initial impression as I just hooked the Benchmark up a few hours ago.

I really labored over a Benchmark DAC1 and either an AH! or Jolida player when I finally decided to get an AH! player. I have been really satisfied with the AH! and just added an upsampler and changed teh Philips tubes out for a set of Russian rockets. Just a great player.

Well, as luch would have it, I just picked up a Benchamrk DAC1. I am using the digital out from my AH! player and hooked it up to "input 2" on my Peach right next to the AH! as Input 1. Makes it really easy to a/b them.

Thus far, I played one "inferior" recording and then just recordings that I feel are well done (Neil Young's Greatest, Elton John). Before the tube roll and Upsampler, the Benchmark would have really beaten the AH! by a good margin, at least with good recordings. Even with the upsampler and tubes, the Benchmark seems to have more bass and a deeper soundstage. Oh yea, it is really accurate (Like you didn't know). Details that were not that pronounced are comming out more. More forward. When I a/b the tube output and the Benchmark, the tubes seem to have more attenuated midrange and highs. This is very interesting.

To you techno guys out there, is the Benchmark receiving a sample at 192 and processing it at 96 or is it getting the signal before the upsampler gets a hold of it?

At this point, it is close to a toss up. But, the AH! does bad recordings very well.

The real test will be at the end of this week. The Russian rockets made such a big (really big) difference that I bought some "other" tubes. I say "other" tubes because I really wanted new (or Njoe if you will) tubes but I got swindled into buying some old junk that has been lying around since the late 50's and early 60's.[] The AH! is getting two tubes from 62 and 63 that I'm afraid may be of "Poor Quality" because they say "6922 and PQ" on them. Oh well, at least they were made in the USA. The Peach is getting a single tube that I think is defective. It was made in 1959 and something must have happened at the plant because the glass is not nice and straight on the sides. Someone at the factory in quality contrrol screwed up and this one is "pinched" in it waist like an hourglass to the point that teh glass touches the mica.[][] You would think that tubes made in the US would not have these flaws. []

I am about to burst in anticipation and the comparison will be interesting between the Benchmartk and the Re-Tubed AH! Especially through the Re-Tubed Peach. My feeling is that the AH! will win after the new (er uh old) tubes.

Chris

[Erukian]

Yeah, i've heard this (and experienced it) time and time and time again. With the DAC-1, it's all about what you feed it. It absolutely EATS UP good recordings, it makes them sound awesome, but any hint of a bad recording, bad mic placement, bad mixing, it'll show you that too. And in spades.

So yeah, garbage in garbage out was never so true than it is with the DAC1.

The only reason Benchmark said they get returns on the DAC-1 is because it's "too revealing". For example, someone's 80's CD's that they still love might sound worse, like you can hear all the artifacting and noise that's in the recording that was sort of hidden before..

So you have to judge, do you want the fidelity? I bet tube distortion + the DAC1 is a very popular combo. You might want to consider it.

-Joe

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Joe,

The spread between the AH! and the DAC1 is much larger than I thought on detailed recordings. I played Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon last night. WOW. So much detail it is scary. At the very end a male voice says "There is no dark side of the moon, in fact the moon is all dark." Never heard that in 25 years. When all of the clocks chime, you can tell they they are set up on rows and hear teh different rows.

That is the good part. The bad part is that it is bright and fatigueing. I will set up a curve on my Behringer for it to tame it a little. That shoudl really help. I also have a Margules ADE 24 enhancer that shoudl also tame it. Finally, I can put some "fat" tubes in the LoZ portion of my Peach (I am thinking Russian rockets - maybe something else is warrented). Some combo of these shoudl work. Maybe just the eq.

One really interesting thing. My signal is being processed a few times. Digital to analog, then analog to digital and back to Analog in my EQ. I am adding a Digital divider where it will be processed again. So far, the signal does not seem degraded. I really cannot hear a difference.

Do you know what signal is sent to the Benchmark from the AH!'s digital out? Is it upsampled or does teh upsampling occur during the conversion from digital to analog?

Chris

[3dzapper]

It sends out the raw digital stream from the disk.

Rick

[Erukian]

i think 3dzapper means that it resamples to 24/192 on the DAC1 when it converts the digital to analog. It takes your 16bit 44.1kHz cd-audio (or 24 bit / 96kHz dvd-a/sacd) and then resamples it to 24/192.

Going from digital to analog to digital then back to analog is _bad_. you want to keep the signal digital as long as you can, then once you use the DAC1 to make it analog, keep it analog.

If you convert it back to digital after the DAC1 then back to analog again, the DAC1 is almost useless because you'll lose all the good characteristics of the DAC1.

basically your system is as good as it's weakest link in your case.

Try to have it go digital out > dac1 (now analog) > eq > amp

Is it possible your EQ can take in digital and then output digital? or take in analog and output analog?

There's a whole lot of factors when you convert to digital that a recording studio worries about. going from Analog to digital is a must because the CD/DVD medium requires it, so you use the DAC1 to make the most out of what's left of the conversion and save what quality is left after the conversion.

So yeah, conversions = bad but a necessary evil, so if you can avoid it - AVOID IT!

Hope that helps.

-joe

[tigerwoodKhorns]

I just read the Benchmark specs. It says: "2-channel, 24bit, 192-kHz D-to-A conversion "

This appears to mean that it can accept such a signal but does not upconvert as the AH Player does.

Chris

[sfogg]

"I just read the Benchmark specs. It says: "2-channel, 24bit, 192-kHz D-to-A conversion "

This appears to mean that it can accept such a signal but does not upconvert as the AH Player does. "

No, that just means it has 24 bit 192kHz DACs in it. That doesn't tell

you what happens with the digital data that is input into it.

Read up on the Benchmark, it has an asyncronous upsampler on its

digital input to try to reduce/remove any jitter from the transport.

Shawn

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Thanks.

Chris

[Rivendell61]

Just FYI--the Benchmark outputs all signals at 110 kHz sample rate.

Mark

[Erukian]

Rivendell61,

thanks for pointing that out, i remember reading that here

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/benchmark_dac1.htm

-Joe

[mobile homeless]

How many audiophiles does it take to screw in a light bulb?

One, but he'll state that oil-burning copper lamps produced superior illumination.

I suppose you would prefer overhead lighting using neon bulbs...better to see what you're eating, right? Ahhhh....or is it to better see the THD spec on the back of the box?

To be or not to be, that is what the double blind test is for.... If we measure it, it is so, and the so is on sale!

kh

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Come on Kelly, its a pretty funny joke. I have to listen to both engineer and attorney jokes all of the time.

Back to the Benchmark - AH! comparison.

I created a new eq curve with additional EQ cut for the highs and mids (king of gently rolled off). Listening to Steely Dan for a few hours (Citizen Steely Dan box set - great set). Man this thing sounds good. The soundstage is deeper and tons of detail over the AH! (but remember, Steely Dan makes very good recordings). What I am hearing right now gets the nod over the AH! The Pink Floyd last nigth was increadible in the detail department, but definately needed some attenuation in the mids and highs, just a little too harsh and bright. I now want to see if the new tubes will add much to the detail and soundstage of the AH! My guess is yes, and the AH! should take the lead. The AH! really should win as an overall player as it can work magic on bad recordings.

Chris

[sunnysal]

And "there is the rub" as my good friend William used to say. There is no doubt that the Benchmark is giving the most accurate picture of what is on the CD...however sometimes we do not want an accurate picture, i.e. bad recordings.

I must admit that is why I went vintage in the first place, I know what I get is less accurate overall but given the number of bad recordings I listen to I prefered the warm, pleasing, musical sound I get via my current system rather than the brutal truth I could get with other more modern components in my system.

I will say this, it could be wise to use the most brutally revealing, accurate components in all parts of the signal chain but one (a tube preamp with tone controls for example) and rely on that one component to dial in warmth and tone
adjustment when necessary. A McIntosh 2200 pre would fit the bill nicely. The more components that stray from accuracy the harder it is to dial in your sound.

Warm regards,
Tony

[mobile homeless]

Come on Kelly, its a pretty funny joke. I have to listen to both engineer and attorney jokes all of the time.

Yeah, I was just giving the loon a hard time but not really from the sig line as much as some of the normal comments regarding the ole accuracy vs tube distortion vs double blind listening tests vs specs vs blah blah. The sig just seemed an amusing and easy jump off point. I probably shouldnt have even gone there although my post was half in jest as well.

Regarding accuracy, I think many a piece can sometimes shine a spotlight on detail which some might mistake as accuracy when it's more on the order of ruthlessly revealing with perhaps emphasis on the presence/treble region. The hardest thing to get right is totally unfettered , natural detail without exaggeration, this what seemingly separates the best gear from the rest. Sadly, it's such a rare commodity in high-end audio systems, let alone the average playback chain. This might be why some are turning to systems that focus on conveying the emotion and life of the music to the listener, something that's equally at odds with many high-end systems.

Personally, I dont count the word "musical" to only mean "pleasing to listen to" inasmuch as the ability to replicate detail and the music/recording in a natural manner that is not associated with ruthlessly revealing as much as something that sounds as if it's not eminating from machines. Alas, this is akin to assembling the Holy Grail with silly putty and twine given the amount of variables in the equation, not to mention the inability to establish agreement on what constitutes this Grail in the first place.

kh

[Erukian]

mobile homeless,

my tube distortion + DAC1 combo suggestion is actually a commonly used one on the Benchmark forums. I'm not trying to say that one way is the best, because honestly I don't know. It seems the synergy (i hate using that word) to achieve a desired sound is important in this hobby.

I do agree with your 'totally unfettered, natural detail' opinion. I think audio is meant to be enjoyed, not overanalyzed to find every nuance in a recording.

.. I was at a local speaker-hobbyist's house who's been doing this hobby for many many years, he has a pair of speakers that he absolutely adores. The thing is their as bright/forward as hell. Were listening to a jazz peice and he'd lean foward and say "do you hear that? the edge on the sax? it's not supposed to sound smooth, it's supposed to sound sharp like that, you never hear about a speaker being too smooth in an audio review".

I spent some time thinking about that. Can we stack too much distortion gear, like equalizers, tubes, what have you in our systems and then make a smooth, organic, warm sound and lose the 'real' sound? Sure. As a musician it turns me off when i hear a system with a warm coat over everything, a nice warm smooth coat, because you limit the ability for a recording to sound harsh when it needs to. So it's all about balance. Which in turn goes back to the Tube + DAC1 suggestion.

IMHO, "ruthlessly revealing" isnt what were after, we just want stuff to sound real. You're not the only one. When you hear a system that's all solid state, low THD numbers, DAC1, etc, you can easily be turned off because it's so analytical and it pulls out so much detail. I think a lot of people have discovered that with the TEAC Tripath amp floating around here, if you pair it up with a good tube pre, your in for some major satisfaction, it's good synergy (there's that word again).

Maybe i'm talking out of my ***, but i'd like to think i know what i'm talking about

-Joe

PS, the sig is just good fun poking at the audio industry, it's not even "my view" on it, i even disagree with it a little, but it's still funny nevertheless

[tofu]

so, was it worth the $900?

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Kelly and Joe,

I will be using the Benchmark for MP3 playback (and with a CD transport when I am in teh mood for "details") and am afraid of what it is going to do with such a low resolution source (although I was speaking to a computer software person the other night and he said that we can design a system that will "uncompress" teh MP3's - we'll have to wait and see).

In my Peach Preamp I can run an extra set of tubes in the LoZ mode. The main tube will be a vintage Amperex 6922 "Pinch Waist". Can you reccomend some "sloppy, fat, not so detailed" 6922 type tubes for the second pair? I was thinking of using a set of Russian "rocket" tubes that I have. I think that I will need something that is overly "warm" that I can use to cover up bad recordings. The AH! does wonders with bad sources using the Russin tubes.

As to if it was worth the money. I think so. The AH! loaded up was not cheap, and the Vintage Amperex 6922 US tubes were pricy too. In light of that, yes, it was worth it (I bought it from Charlie on this forum).

If the LoZ mode on the Peach works to cover up the bad stuff with soem cheap tubes, Mark needs to call Benchmark and market his Peach preamp with the Benchmark as a combo with "synergy" (oh there is that word). You will get a preamp and DAC for less than a Cary Tubed CD palyer, nice bargain!

Chris

[Erukian]

there's no way to "uncompress" the mp3's. Once you go MP3 you lose information in the audio and it's gone forever.

There's computer PCI cards like the Soundblaster X-FI that use multiband compression and 24/96bit conversion to do what a radio station does to your music, compress it so the softer details become louder and you get a perceived increase in quality.

Other than playing from a lossless format like FLAC or straight off your cd-rom, there's no way to get the original quality back, and if you do, it's artifically re-created in a well marketed but not so technically elegant way.

Just thought i'd point that out,

-Joe

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Thanks,

I didn't have high hopes. I was told that MP3's are compressed and cannot be played as is, they need to be somewhat uncompressed to play (like a zip file). He said that there is software that will further uncompress teh MP3's. I may be completely mis-quoting.

Chris

[sunnysal]

joe is right, once the information is gone, it's gone. the plugins and processors that try to get the music "back" are employing various physcoacoustic tricks to try to pump it back up, some sound pretty pleasing but in the end an the process of ripping to a compressed format losses information that can never be added back. that does not mean you cannot get sound that you can enjoy out of it of course...tony