Benchmark DAC1

[twelvebears]

Gents.

Views and opinions on the Benchmark DAC. Seems to have received a great deal of praise and wondered if any AOSers had experience of it.

[Rare Bird]

I'm sorry to say it's probably one of the most overated DAC IMHO..

[John]

I thought it was very analytical and quite dry in its reproduction IMHO But as always best to hear it for yourself

[Themis]

The models of a few years ago were too expensive for the sound delivered.

I listened to the DAC1 and DAC1 USB, but seriously for a non-discrete output stage, the Caiman is better and cheaper imho. I haven't listened to the HDR PRE but, at that price... there's serious competition. ;)

[DSJR]

The benchmarks are reputed to be about as good as it gets. So what's the Caiman adding to make it sound "better?"

[Rare Bird]

I borrowed a Benchmark i hated it, this pile of tripe i have now sounds better to me.

[Themis]

The benchmarks are reputed to be about as good as it gets. So what's the Caiman adding to make it sound "better?"
The price (and the LM4562, which is only on the higher models). :eyebrows:

EDIT: you know, Dave, I'm still eager to hear someone who succeeds a DBT between a Caiman (£200) and a Benchmark HDR (£1400). The last time some friends of mine tried, with their own equipment and even with their own studio masters, they failed. Once you level outputs with a voltmeter, there's not much to distinguish. ;)

[John]

Like Andre I could not get on with the Benchmark
I use Tubehunter tube dac/.pre which as been mentioned by others is very good I will try and take it to Scafold Hall in a few weeks perhaps Marco will allow it to be played through the AOS system

[StanleyB]

The benchmarks are reputed to be about as good as it gets. So what's the Caiman adding to make it sound "better?"
The DAC1 and the TC-7520 both use the NE553X opamps.
the DAC1 HDR and the Caiman use the LM4562.


What makes the Caiman better is that more can cost less:).

[Pentland Bill]

Hi - I have heard a Benchmark Dac 1 several times in a different system to my own. I found it a little on the sharp side soundwise. It sounded to me very detailed but a little unforgiving. Not a bad sound but I wouldn't want to live with it for too long. Hope this helps.

[Chippy_boy]

Wilson Benesch speakers are often described as being "analytical" and "bright" when in reality they are the opposite. Presumably someone somewhere saw the carbon fibre and high tech and thought "analytical" etc and it stuck. The rest of the morons jumped on the "self proclaimed web expect" bangwaggon.

Similary with the Benchmark DAC1, I suspect. I seriously wonder whether some people comment on kit when they haven't even heard it. Actually strike that. I am certain some people do this.

I haven't heard the earliest incarnations, but the DAC1-HDR (and I would assume the PRE, as it's the same kit without a remote) sounds absolutely sublime.

It is significantly better than the Caiman, which is actually quite a compliment for both the Caiman (that it should be held up as any kind of reference) and the Benchmark (in that it is so much better).

I suggest you have a listen for yourself.

[MartinT]

Wilson Benesch speakers are often described as being "analytical" and "bright" when in reality they are the opposite. Presumably someone somewhere saw the carbon fibre and high tech and thought "analytical" etc and it stuck. The rest of the morons jumped on the "self proclaimed web expect" bangwaggon.

Well, I have heard Wilson Benesch speakers many times at shows. I also auditioned them when selecting speakers some years ago. To my ears they have a family sound: cold, hard and undynamic. I dislike them intensely. Goodness knows why Chord continue to use them at shows as it does their amps a disservice.

[jonesi]

I'm listening to music through a Benchmark DAC1 as I type. It's not even been in my system 24 hours but I'm really enjoying it! It's on another level to my Edirol UA25, though I'm still using the Edirol for its optical output. Later on tonight I'm going to try it with my Meridian 206b as a transport. For context the rest of my kit: NAC72 with 821A boards / TPX1 / Avondale NAP140 / Epos ES22 speakers.

[Marco]

Hi Chippy,


It is significantly better than the Caiman, which is actually quite a compliment for both the Caiman (that it should be held up as any kind of reference) and the Benchmark (in that it is so much better).


I'm sure that the above represents your valid experience to date, however for me it's the exact opposite, which goes to show how we hear things differently :)

Martin,

I fully concur with your views on the WBs - I wouldn't give them house room!

Marco.

[Rare Bird]

I know a lot of people think bright is right but it don't sound right folks, don't sound natural at all.I not intrested in detailed bright sounds.But at the end of the day it's what people like innit!

[StanleyB]

When I was developing the prototype for the Caiman I used a TC-7520 and DAC1 as reference in order to compare frequency response and detail. Has anyone else done the same?


http://www.beresford.me/images/shootout.jpg

[leo]

Of course we all have our own personal tastes , as already mentioned once before brightness is usually caused by high frequency distortion , some folks like it , others can't stand it, also a lot depends on the kit its being used with

I've tried the Benchmark, wasn't my cup of tea, IMHO I didn't find it good enough to make me want to scrap diy

[leo]

Regarding performance for the price Stan I'd say the Caiman is far better value compared to the BM

[purite audio]

Leo Hi, does the BM use a ASRC? Very best,Keith.

[leo]

Leo Hi, does the BM use a ASRC? Very best,Keith.


Hi Keith,

There is a AD1896 before the dac chip inside the BM which is a ASRC IC:)

Cheers,
Leo

[Themis]

There is a AD1896 before the dac chip
Is this the "Ultraclocktm jitter-immune clock-isolation technology" they talk about ? :scratch:

[purite audio]

Thanks Leo, from what I have read, using an ASRC isn't the 'best' implementation, I believe bel canto use the same design?
Keith.

[leo]

Is this the "Ultraclocktm jitter-immune clock-isolation technology" they talk about ? :scratch:

Surely not ;) :whistle:
Its easy to add a small extra or tweak an off the shelf part and call it what you like, things like Jitter-immune blah blah blah:eyebrows:

[leo]

Thanks Leo, from what I have read, using an ASRC isn't the 'best' implementation, I believe bel canto use the same design?
Keith.

Your probably right regarding the Bel canto Keith, for ASRC IC's the later ones usually used in a lot of dacs are Texas instruments SRC4192 or the Analogue devices AD1896 , the older one is Cirrus CS8420, these can be used with a range of Dac chips

[Themis]

Yes, Northstar uses the AD1895 and AD1896 also. :)


Surely not ;) :whistle: haha :) no comments. ;)

[John]

Back in my distant past I used to own some Wilson Benesch its a time I rather regret not for me at all
We all have our preferences but the Benchmark and WB route is not for me

[James]

I'm listening to music through a Benchmark DAC1 as I type. It's not even been in my system 24 hours but I'm really enjoying it! It's on another level to my Edirol UA25, though I'm still using the Edirol for its optical output. Later on tonight I'm going to try it with my Meridian 206b as a transport. For context the rest of my kit: NAC72 with 821A boards / TPX1 / Avondale NAP140 / Epos ES22 speakers.

Hi Ian I,m Glad you like my DAC.
Hope you have many happy hours listening to it.

James

[Chippy_boy]

Well, I have heard Wilson Benesch speakers many times at shows. I also auditioned them when selecting speakers some years ago. To my ears they have a family sound: cold, hard and undynamic.

Either you and I have a different way of assigning words to sounds. Or our brains and ears are wired COMPLETELY differently.

To me the WB's are marvellous, but almost excessively warm and smooth. I have rarely heard a warmer and smoother speaker and to most (all?) WB owners, they are the very anthithesis of cold and hard. How bizarre.

[MartinT]

I can't explain it, Chippy, I can only tell it as I hear it. Chord still seem to use them at shows and they always sound unexciting to me, even the huge Bishop which I believe is discontinued. It was a breath of fresh air once when I heard Chord using B&W speakers for a change.

[tunepirate]

The reason people with Linn equipment I've spoken to have rejected the Dac-1 is because they thougt it lacked correct timing. It' makes the musicians sound boring, takes away the swing. I've heard this over and over, so if the dac-1 is tonally transparent it's still not musically transparent. (
In other words, a waste of money. Music is not only about nice sound, it's about timing, making it really alive, making things sound if they are playing togeather. Which is not a type of colouring, it's true transparency.

The reason Naim Linn people have started to mention the Beresford, is because it's seems to have got musical timing transparency.

But I'm still to affirm that when i get one.

*Linn has developed this whole evaluation method to find timing errors in the equipment. It's called the tune method. And it's simply about listening how things are playing together and how melodies are coming forth or being blurred in the misstiming. Takes some practise, but once you get it you can use it everywhere and easily discard a huge percent of the hifi equipment that's out there on the marked, and even often times called high end, normally just after a few seconds of listening.

[twelvebears]

The reason people with Linn equipment I've spoken to have rejected the Dac-1 is because they thougt it lacked correct timing. It' makes the musicians sound boring, takes away the swing. I've heard this over and over, so if the dac-1 is tonally transparent it's still not musically transparent. (
In other words, a waste of money. Music is not only about nice sound, it's about timing, making it really alive, making things sound if they are playing togeather. Which is not a type of colouring, it's true transparency.

The reason Naim Linn people have started to mention the Beresford, is because it's seems to have got musical timing transparency.

But I'm still to affirm that when i get one.

*Linn has developed this whole evaluation method to find timing errors in the equipment. It's called the tune method. And it's simply about listening how things are playing together and how melodies are coming forth or being blurred in the misstiming. Takes some practise, but once you get it you can use it everywhere and easily discard a huge percent of the hifi equipment that's out there on the marked, and even often times called high end, normally just after a few seconds of listening.

Hi tunepirate, welcome to AOS. Before one of the mods says so, can you go to the Welcome section and post a little introductory 'hello' please.

As for the Benchmark DAC1, I can now comment from personal experience as I bought one after being both a cracking price and a decent length home trial.

I have no doubt that, like many things, the DAC1 is a taste thing and system dependant, but I think it sounds great. I'm agnostic towards Linn and have never experienced one of the 'tune method' trials, but if the point is for music to sound 'right', compelling and with the ability to demand attention, then I'd have to say the Benchmark does so in spades.

Since I put it in, I've found it very difficult to do anything else in my room while music is playing because I just keep wanting to stop and listen all the time.

Anyway, it works for me and seems to for Chippy. :)

[DSJR]

So many live concerts and gigs I've attended have been lacking in the rhythm and tunes dept it makes me think that some equipment is adding something to make it sound "nicer" and more "communicative" sometimes. The MASSIVE quality difference between the Blue Nile master-tape tracks I heard (on two occasions and different tracks) and the LP12/Ittok/Troika of the period seems to bare this out for me.

Not having heard the Benchmark, let alone a Caiman, I bet the former could be bottlenecked with the domestic standard interconnects used ? Using decent no-nonsense pro cables (or those by Mark Grant) may actually let more of the passion through, without altering the sonics.....

[MartinT]

Linn have an agenda: they want to train your ears to appreciate their equipment, which is idiosyncratic at best. The appreciation of music is about many things coming together: detail, soundstage, rhythm, dynamics both macro and micro, neutrality. If you learn to spot these things (and compare with an unamplified concert, for instance any classical concert), you will be able to assemble a great system that accommodates all these aspects and not necessarily from the Linn/Naim stable.

[tunepirate]

Linn have an agenda: they want to train your ears to appreciate their equipment, which is idiosyncratic at best. The appreciation of music is about many things coming together: detail, soundstage, rhythm, dynamics both macro and micro, neutrality. If you learn to spot these things (and compare with an unamplified concert, for instance any classical concert), you will be able to assemble a great system that accommodates all these aspects and not necessarily from the Linn/Naim stable.


People who are not traind to hear differences in musical flow, who don't understand these things, usually justifies them self by suspecting hidden agendas from linn.

This method from linn works on every equipment out there. I've myself picked out the best sounding non-linn equipment. I only have a cable from linn, the rest is from other brands.

When I walk on the buss when I enter different stores where music is flowing out of the speakers, I usually discern wether it's musical or not.

In sweden we have this whole bunch of people who are so much into sound stage, details and neutrality that they totally miss out hughe timing distoritions in their equipment sadly enough. It's not like hiss or noise just lack of swing.

[DSJR]

I must say that for a while in the late eighties and 90's, Linn made some of the least tuneful, rhythmically bombastic expensive rubbish I'd heard in a long while. To moderate this a bit, when they did and do it right, it can be spectacular by any standards IMO, if way too expensive..

[tunepirate]

I must say that for a while in the late eighties and 90's, Linn made some of the least tuneful, rhythmically bombastic expensive rubbish I'd heard in a long while. To moderate this a bit, when they did and do it right, it can be spectacular by any standards IMO, if way too expensive..

Please mention a name of any of the equipment, because so far I know, the linns from the 90' often still beat new hifi equipment 15 years later.
Not always in neutrality though but in swing, and giving a correct musical playback..

I'm actually considering buying some old linn equipment because i can't find any other brands , within a reasonable price point that makes good musical transparent equipment. System fidelity might be an alternative, naim is too expensive, rega too expensive... Marantz is worse then what i already
have...

[MartinT]

The Linn CD12 was a good CD player, but way overpriced. The Klimax was a good power amp too, but not better than my previous Chord SPM-1200C.

The Linn Kan, however, were pretty much the worst speakers I've ever heard with the exception of some pretty horrible specimens from Bose, Rank and Klipsch.

[tunepirate]

The Linn CD12 was a good CD player, but way overpriced. The Klimax was a good power amp too, but not better than my previous Chord SPM-1200C.

The Linn Kan, however, were pretty much the worst speakers I've ever heard with the exception of some pretty horrible specimens from Bose, Rank and Klipsch.

The first linn Kan came over 30years ago..
And I would not recommend anyone to go for that old linn electronics.

But some older linn speaker f ex kaber(the only one I've had at home) can lack some resolution in the tweeter, not be the most sonically pleasing for listening to sound, but together with other fex linn equipment it flows the music very musical and lively. But it needs a really strong amp and should be hanged up with active cards though(internal crossover removed) to become the speaker it could be.
But not my favourite sonically. Katans and forward are more pleasing ..
But the tweeter in fex the kabers kan be upgraded.
And kaber is probably some levels up from kan.

I doubt the Klimax was worste than you chord. I think you fell into the trap listening how much detail and power or soundstage it can give rather than how it flows music...

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Isn't it down to the individual to decide what is best for them?

[tunepirate]

Isn't it down to the individual to decide what is best for them?

Are you saying that there are no objective truths in the hifi world?

[The Vinyl Adventure]

No, I can pretty much guaruntee that there is some kit that everyone would agree is better than other kit... It is also true that certain propertys or signatures of a peice of kit will likely be always agreed on
I'm just saying that it's not for one person to decide what is better for another person. To say that someone has "fallen in to a trap" could be concidored a touch patronising.

[leo]

Isn't it down to the individual to decide what is best for them?



Spot on!

[MartinT]

I doubt the Klimax was worste than you chord. I think you fell into the trap listening how much detail and power or soundstage it can give rather than how it flows music...

I didn't say it was worse, I said it was not better than my older 1200C. I compared the two side-by-side. Have you? I have been listening for too many years to 'fall into the trap', I know what I like the sound of!

[dave2010]

The reason people with Linn equipment I've spoken to have rejected the Dac-1 is because they thougt it lacked correct timing.
Can someone please explain to me what they think "timing" is? I've been concerned about this bit of hi-fi gobbledegook ever since someone - perhaps Martin Colloms - started using it? I'm forever reading about "pace" and "timing", but really I haven't a clue what these are supposed to mean. I think I can understand "rough" (rather like a square or triangle wave) and "smooth", and maybe "silky" (a bit like smooth - maybe some fairly impressive treble), and hopefully other epithets do make sense to many, but ....

I recently was listening to a string quartet recording, and after a while I was convinced that a couple of the instruments were not in time with the others. All was explained when I looked at Audacity and spotted that the stereo tracks had become misaligned. I realigned them, and then everything was fine. Now to me that is timing. For most of the equipment we use I doubt whether we're ever going to notice the odd micro-second shift even in stereo, so what has happened to the English language that it's being mangled by some in this field?

[DSJR]

I never quite got the "timing" thing, finding products with this aspect emphasised being ballistic, tuneless and lacking bass extension, 'cos extended bass often has the effect of slowing things down.

I DO understand boomy speakers giving a "slurred" effect and some old valve amps (original Quad 22/II) did this to perfection, losing loads of subtle details in the process.

I always loved the A&R A60 and didn't like the dry, harder-hitting presentation of the Delta 60 which replaced it. A staff member from Grahams I know "showed me the error of my ways" as the Delta 60 was much better at "timing."

[dave2010]

DSJR

Sounds a bit like having a good transient response with adequate damping then to me. I understand boomy bass - perhaps that's underdamped. Not sure it's really possible to go the other way, unless a device doesn't respond to the input well. With recordings any resonance should come from the recording, rather than the equipment, though I can understand that some very dry recordings may sound better when played back with kit with more resonances.

If that's what "timing" is about, then for speakers coupling to amplifiers would make a difference - some being better matched than others, yet not necessarily inferior, but with each bit of kit needing to be matched up with appropriate amplification - which is what I thought these boards were supposed to be at least partly concerned with.

I'd say that nowadays it should be better to have pretty well damped kit and if recordings are a problem to add in a touch of artificial reverb - though quite often that will be done by the record producers anyway. Maybe I'm wrong though?


extended bass often has the effect of slowing things down.
I suppose this is a reasonable description. Personally I don't think it's the bass extension that's the problem, but over resonant/undamped bass. Musicians would notice this playing in very resonant halls (maybe!) and to get a good effect may have to slow down their performances. Sometimes it's just hopeless though - e.g St Pauls and Mahler's 8th - never mind what Valery Gergiev thinks - it really is a mess.

Are we getting slightly closer?

[Barry]

Can someone please explain to me what they think "timing" is? I've been concerned about this bit of hi-fi gobbledegook ever since someone - perhaps Martin Colloms - started using it? I'm forever reading about "pace" and "timing", but really I haven't a clue what these are supposed to mean. I think I can understand "rough" (rather like a square or triangle wave) and "smooth", and maybe "silky" (a bit like smooth - maybe some fairly impressive treble), and hopefully other epithets do make sense to many, but ....

I recently was listening to a string quartet recording, and after a while I was convinced that a couple of the instruments were not in time with the others. All was explained when I looked at Audacity and spotted that the stereo tracks had become misaligned. I realigned them, and then everything was fine. Now to me that is timing. For most of the equipment we use I doubt whether we're ever going to notice the odd micro-second shift even in stereo, so what has happened to the English language that it's being mangled by some in this field?

Dave
This might help you (though it didn't explain PRAT to me):
http://www.tnt-audio.com/edcorner/prat_e.html.

What is 'Audacity'?

Regards

[Themis]

Can someone please explain to me what they think "timing" is? I've been concerned about this bit of hi-fi gobbledegook ever since someone - perhaps Martin Colloms - started using it? I'm forever reading about "pace" and "timing", but really I haven't a clue what these are supposed to mean. I think I can understand "rough" (rather like a square or triangle wave) and "smooth", and maybe "silky" (a bit like smooth - maybe some fairly impressive treble), and hopefully other epithets do make sense to many, but ....
You are not alone... that makes two of us. :o

[DSJR]

The better "fast" amps used to introduce a little oscillation to make them sound more "exciting."

I wouldn't at all disagree about loose lower bass either, but many of the FE speakers of old had little bass, a peaked up midrange, a severe dip at the (phasey) crossover and another zitty peak in the mid to upper treble regions. The supposed "speed" of tempo may have had something to do with the altered tonal balance and not just transient "speed."

I'm digging myself deeper and deeper here - apologies - but amp damping factor is related to the speakers used. Many ported and TL style speakers need plenty of damping in the amp whereas sealed-box speakers possibly don't. Old Tannoys NEED the looser feel of a transformer coupled valve amp (or a cap coupled one at least), whereas wallow-boxes such as vintage IMFD's or BC1's need a tight and properly controlled amp IMO.

[dave2010]

Dave
This might help you (though it didn't explain PRAT to me):
http://www.tnt-audio.com/edcorner/prat_e.html.

What is 'Audacity'?

RegardsBarry

Thanks for that. Audacity - http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ - a rather useful free and open source editing tool. It can do quite a lot, including removal of some unwanted noise from recordings. If overdone it ruins them, but if there's low level background it can do a surprisingly good job or removing it. It can do multi-track and quite a lot of other tricks.

It generates lots of small temporary files, and can sometimes be a bit unwieldy. For editing mp3s I tend to use other tools, as Audacity converts them back to PCM.

bws

[dave2010]

I wouldn't at all disagree about loose lower bass either, but many of the FE speakers of old had little bass, a peaked up midrange, a severe dip at the (phasey) crossover and another zitty peak in the mid to upper treble regions.

... wallow-boxes such as vintage IMFD's or BC1's need a tight and properly controlled amp IMO.Dave R

FE speakers? Not sure of the acronym - was it a trade name or is it a type of speaker? Also not sure of IMFD, though I have heard Spendor BC1s.

Sorry, perhaps we shouldn't be dragging this thread so far off topic. Not sure of etiquette round here - we could start a new thread - or just live with it!

Dave

[Joe]

FE = Flat Earth. You'll wish you hadn't asked!