Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts

@thyname  I'm not arguing with the ASR crown, that's why I'm on Audiogon.  I'm offering a superior built DAC/pre-amp with unique and attractive look that for CDs (probably even better for streaming), resembles the Benchmark L4 pre-amp.   44% of retail price.  Not for those who prefer a $2 DAC or a Topping.  

@prof Unless you have viewed the parts and design of both the Benchmark and Emotiva YOU have no basis to doubt me. Not only that, I think that the Benchmark DAC I use has superior engineering, possibly due to their particular asynchronous oversampling. I never said that Benchmark makes a bad product-they make good products that could be elevated to high end quality. And the Emotiva is a true bargain to upgrade.

Junk parts-for high end audio, it’s using 50¢ regulators used in ordinary industrial use such as in computers rather than $30-$50 audio quality regulators. Maybe you think capacitors are all the same and sound the same if they measure the same. They don’t. Sometimes less expensive audio quality caps sound better than expensive caps in audio equipment but using industrial use caps in high end audio is a joke which the internet is replete with information on which cap sounds different from one another. They don’t use industrial caps in high end audio equipment for a very good reason-they don’t sound good.

The reason better and typically more expensive parts are NOT used is for economic reasons-the price the product increases, sometimes exponentially.  Benchmark and Emotiva provide reliable audio equipment at a price point.  

I read five reviews of the Benchmark L4.  Uniformly, the reviewers found the pre amp extraordinary in revealing musical and acoustic detail, without any affectation or distortion, in a finely constructed piece of equipment.  Clean and clear was the universal opinion.

It is on ASR, Matt Hooper's review of it and the Conrad Johnson pre-amp Blind Test Results: Benchmark LA4 vs Conrad Johnson Tube Preamp | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum that I find myself very interested in his keen observations (I used his quote in italics).  The four pages of mostly his observations indicate that despite the super detail, dynamic range and open bandwidth without any negative as to its operation, it is not his favorite to listen to most music and he prefers his Conrad Johnson, with all it's distortion and alterations of the sound.  He prefers a sound with more body and warmth.  Well I prefer my subminiature tube/voltage regulated design pre-amp and I don't prefer the CJ pre-amps or amps I've heard (plenty).  My pre-amp sounds more like an Audio Research SP28 WITH different tubes (6N6 or 6N6).  The stock tubes/unit as is just thin sounding and lacking in the body and warmth department.  I bet it measures better than the CJ and certainly is a more open sound.  With the change in tubes, wow, a totally different pre-amp.

I don't know what is inside of the Benchmark but is reportedly of professional audio quality parts per reviewers.  It may be possible to elevate this to a status which incorporates more body and warmth without losing any of its' measured superior qualities, openness, details and extension.  Changing some caps, regulators and/or resistors.  Or possibly it can't be done and it remains as a finished product with a particular clean, clear sound that is less attractive than other high end pre-amps that may not measure as perfectly.  

So, score 1 for Mr. Hooper whereby he prefers a lesser measuring pre-amp buts enjoys both.   

On the last page, he mentions his love of vinyl.  Score 2 for Mr. Hopper. Immediately, he is warned by a donor member that ASR frowns upon discussion of vinyl records.   Mr. Hooper understands and obliges without pressing the issue.  That's probably why he is still an active member.   Can you imagine if Audiogon members said don't discuss vinyl as a warning, such as that could get one banned from the site?   That's why ASR is so narrow minded.   Don't mention an inferior music delivery format and be careful in your preference for an inferior measuring piece of equipment.   Like there is something amiss not preferring the perfect measuring equipment.   That's where most of the posters here at Audiogon recognize that maybe there are other elements of sound reproduction that are preferred to measured perfection, that are imperfect in some ways.    

@prof I NEVER MENTIONED THE BENCHMARK PREAMP OF ANY SORT!!!

Can’t you read? I only mentioned Benchmark DACs, and in particular the HDR-1 from 2010-2 era. Stop with the nonsense of putting words in my mouth that I never wrote. I’ve never tried anything but Benchmark DACs, period!!!

JUST R E A D my prior post on Benchmark and Emotiva in this forum.  I stated " Not only that, I think that the Benchmark DAC I use has superior engineering, possibly due to their particular asynchronous oversampling."

Since when has a pre-amp used asynchronous oversampling?  Huh?

@prof Again, if you read my original comment in the other forum, I was QUOTING from an ASR forum which is printed in italics As to the Benchmark L4 versus the CJ pre-amp, one of the comments was The LA4 certainly isn’t "lacking" anything. It’s just transparent. But I could say it does ’lack’ certain things in the sense of comparison to the CJ tube preamp. My following comments refer to my friends and my experience with Benchmark gear and Conrad Johnson gear in general, with my friends having experience with both companies amps and pre-amps and me with Benchmark DACs and many CJ amps and a few pre-amps. It is our experience that Benchmark products lack somewhat in body and warmth but CJ is dark and covered sounding. We were not specifying that we knew anything about the L4 other than what I read and extracted from an ASR forum. My audio equipment manufacturing friend has seen the insides of several Benchmark products and concurs that they use less than optimal audio quality parts which result in less satisfying audio results.  I was shown the different parts taken out and replaced in both DACs that were modified.  

The fact is you know nothing concerning the interior parts used in either CJ or Benchmark equipment and cannot comment on them until you do. Do you even know the difference between Ultralinear, Triode, Voltage Regulated (some Audio Research gear), Unity Coupled (early McIntosh), etc? I may not be an electrical engineer capable of building equipment but I understand basic circuitry. If you have a Benchmark product, open it up and look up the cost of the capacitors and regulators, then get back to me.

@prof Your Contemplating Devores forum is 100% subjective, wholly lacking in measurements in your opinions and choices.   What about all the ancillary equipment used to listen to each speaker in order to evaluate them in your room?  (Rhetorical).  

Despite having heard only the Audio Physic, Focal, Revel, Raidho, Paradigm, Monitor Audio and Harbeth speakers you surveyed, I agree with your opinions which I heard under show and/or showroom conditions with varying equipment. Your opinions and mine are wholly subjective.  

You then proceed in the ASR forum knocking the use of listening for differences and preferences as "imaginary" and unreal, listeners self-fulfilling prophesy.  Most of the Audiogon posters here are delineating the problems have had with the ASR site and their owner/many members.  Apparently, you cannot stop yourself from blanket criticizing everyone who posts an opinion on what they hear, even if they have possibly superior listening/hearing abilities than you do.  As to equipment, I suspect you neither construct nor comprehend electronic circuitry/parts use, based on your responses.   

Art Dudley-I miss him too. (I followed his reviews since the 1990s)  There are so many roads to reproducing music. His reviews were generally full of feeling for the music, music that I appreciate.

I more thing about the Benchmark L4 pre-amp. Four of the major reviews (Stereophile, Absolute Sound, Positive Feedback, Soundstage) had the reviewers extol the superior attributes of the unit at the price. However, none of them indicated they would replace the pre-amps they currently use or purchase one. Reviewers often purchase well reviewed products. This unit got outstanding reviews. Nope, no one purchase it. Why? Maybe the sonic flavor was missing (like warmth or body). I don’t know but based on what Mr. Hooper, two friends experiences with their amp & pre-amp, maybe there is a less perfect pre-amp at that price that is more endearing to the music listener.

Topping DAC versus Benchmark DAC-At significantly higher price, the Benchmark is a very superior constructed unit. My modified DAC, despite it’s ordinary parts, has a dual mono balanced design with linear power supply, nice size transformer and very good quality DAC chips. I forgot to mention how fantastically 3-D it sounds. The downside of the DAC is it’s analog volume pot. Sonically lovely, it has a significant channel imbalance when played below 50% level (measured reviews indicate the amount and setting). Benchmark now uses stepped resistor attenuators to alleviate that problem (The L4 uses 40 precision relays and two independent 256-step attenuators, one for the left channel and one for the right channel).

One other point, I only use balanced interconnects from my DAC as the unit was designed that way and sounds best that way.

@sngreen The former forum was closed by the moderator. It got rather snarky at the end and discussion was getting off topic (especially after Amir returned to add his two cents-what his comments are worth here).

@djones51 No, Prof is not Matt Hooper. Mr. Hooper owns and cherishes his Von Schweikert VR5 speakers. Prof has Joseph Audio speakers and never mentioned VS speakers in his extensive speaker review on Audiogon. Prof thinks we are all hallucinating if we hear differences (without measuring or blind testing) and think they are worthwhile. Mr. Hooper speaks for himself.

@djones51  My mistake, you are correct.  It is Martin who owns and extols the virtues of Von Schweikert speakers.  While searching for the answer at ASR, I came upon numerous Mr. Hooper postings concerning his preference for listening to vinyl and a statement that he doesn't require a huge dynamic range for listening to music.  Assuming that music does not generally require 100+ db swings in dynamics, vinyl playback can be adequate for most music.  (I've heard room shaking deep bass through a trio of Avant Garde Basshorns supplemented with a pair of Rel subs from a Donald Fagen LP under 100 db loudness-it was just deep and tactile sounding).   Bass under 50 Hz is generally limited to mono on most LPs for cutting reasons, so digital can provide stereo deep bass better.  

@prof I wrote the prior response while you were posting your admission. 

Martin and you contribute better posts on ASR than the vast majority.  You don't go off topic and start to talk about pizza toppings, wine, sport cars, soft drinks etc.  Why do you go nuts over information someone with greater knowledge has to offer here?  You'll note that you have been subject to written limitations on topics and criticized for your subjective views.  I agree with those subjective opinions I've read on ASR since a month ago, seeking out "normal" members who can articulate why they choose equipment and music rather than state, its' the best, the cheapest and forget the rest. 

I think my survey of reviews of the Benchmark L4 and your analysis of it and preference for the CJ speaks volumes concerning it's value and quality; however, it also indicates that despite reviewers stating there are no negatives, it is lacking in some factor that makes it less preferential.  You said it was body and warmth.  Same with their older DACs.  However, the older DACs can be upgraded to have that 3 dimensional, full bodied and warmer sound with modification of parts.  The engineering is sound as is the basic construction.  I don't know if the L4 can be modified to sound "better."  If it could, I bet I would like it.  

@axo1989  I've been collecting/listening to LPs for 60 years.  Digital playback has evolved to be tremendously captivating, often equal to the best vinyl.  Unless there are some performances/music that you find you can only obtain on vinyl (about 30-35% of my collection), you might prefer putting all your eggs in the digital domain.  Also, analog is not as easy to use and maintain but you probably know that. 

Same with CDs versus streaming.  At least half of my CDs will never show up streamed (1000+ private label vocals, violin and piano CDs) and many of the other 50% are not presented in as good mastering on-line.   

I own two other DACs purchased when I switched from the EAR Acute (2005), the COS Engineering D1v ($9000) and D2v ($5000) retail. They are gorgeous units which even my cable/equipment manufacturing friend says are also exceptionally built. However, they have a 1 second delay algorithm which blurs and expands the sound and a bypass which is relatively dry sounding.

The D1 is like the Benchmark L4 to a great extent. It is so clean and clear in bypass mode with wide frequency response, wide soundstage, dynamic. BUT-it lacks 3-D quality (minimal depth) and has a sort of sterile sound (missing body but great tonal quality). This is what it also sounded like on 3 other systems and none of my friends liked it compared to the D2v which has only a single linear power supply, single transformer, etc. compared to the beautiful D1v. It has a warm, lush sound like a CJ pre-amp. It has more limited bass and rolled off highs, less open but oh so sweet for voices and acoustic instruments. I intend to sell both now as I bought the super modified Benchmark HDR1 DAC which obliterates those two DACs and sounds like 5 figure DACs like my friend’s Ultradac ($23K), maybe better. Cost-$800 for a clean used unit and $800 in parts and labor.

P.S. I tried a dozen different transports on the COS units. The Benchmark sounded better on the three I kept by a mile. The COS units had the same sound profile on ever transport, the Benchmark shows the significant differences.

@noske No, that was the Benchmark DAC HDR-1. I have never heard their amps although two of my friends had borrowed them and they felt a lack of attachment despite the clean, clear, dynamic sound. I do not know which models.

The thread/forum is not deleted, it was closed to additional comments. You can still access it in the search bar in the Audiogon forum above.  Yours was the last of 1,312 comments on 27 pages.  

@kota1 You’ve done a very impressive job correcting your room sound from the speakers alone (quite bumpy). Looks really flat after correction.

Back in the mid-1980s, I was fortunate to hear Conrad Johnson’s top pre-amp (don’t remember the name), an Audio Research SP 8 and an SP 10 (I don’t remember which of the 7 versions). I was amazed at how dark and closed in sounding the CJ pre-amp was, even compared to my highly modified Dynaco PAS--3. The SP8 was just as warm sounding but the soundstage was so much larger, more open. The SP10 blew me away. Great soundstage, 3 dimensional sound and wide frequency response. I couldn’t afford and it uses a lot of tubes.

A year later I acquired a Fisher 400 CX tube preamp for free from an estate. It sounded almost as good as the SP10, a little darker and less open. Musically it was great. I sold it for a nice profit. At the time, I didn’t realize how good it would be even today but my tech guy back then said his Dynaco was "purer" sounding.

I have heard since the 80’s maybe 4 CJ preamps and at least 5 CJ amps. My neighbor had the CJ Art 27A running into the tweeter and mid of a YG Sonja 2.3. It sounded lovely on small ensembles, voices and non-percussive instruments. He has a PS Audio BHK 250 amp for piano, rock and orchestra/opera. Well the CJ sounded very warm with lesser resolution than the BHK. The latter has NOS input tubes and has a dynamic and wide open sound although not ideal for voices. So, he has two separate sounding amps (sold the CJ, bought a highly modified Dynaco ST 70) in a tri-amped system (bass and subs have big Class D amps). He listens to music on each amp dependent on the type of music. This appears similar to prof choice of using the clean and clear wide open sound of the Benchmark L4 and the more seductive, warm albeit more distorted sound of the CJ preamp. That’s an easier choice than maintaining separate speakers/rooms to do the same.

Luckily, I have cool running Class A/B 125 watt voltage regulated monoblock tube amps that play anything and most speakers (I haven’t tried them on impedances below 2 ohms but they will play well with 85 db speakers). The funny thing is that my 2nd system amp, a voltage regulated highly modified Dynaco 70 35 watts has great control versus my back-up to the 2nd system which is an EAR 890, a class A zero global feedback, super heater/hot running 70 amp which can’t control 3 12" woofers per side. Sounds great on the Signature IIIs 3 10" woofers.

@axo1989 I don’t know, I just pulled it up typing Audio Science Review and both of my forums popped up, I chose one and it opened. I also did a Chrome Google search and typed Audio Science Review Audiogon. Again, it opened up.

I wouldn’t say it’s hidden. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.  Maybe you mean under it's posted category, Tech Talk (it is missing there).

@russ69 It could have been the increasingly difficult remarks or my request to remove trolls like Amir and or crymeanaudioriver (my opinion, maybe not yours).. 

The moderator has been very responsive to me.  I will ask to have the site relisted in Tech Talk.  It can't do any harm now that discussion is closed.

Mr. Hooper/Prof and Martin are the most interesting members of ASR I've read.  I've only skimmed the surface of topics (perhaps two dozen) because so many do not interest me as in very low priced new gear (I'm quite happy with my system).  I definitely don't characterize them as miscreants.  They suffer minor abuse by other members for their "subjective" views, not using blind testing or measurements to determine their preferences.  I doubt Martin uses measurements at all from the remarks he made about speakers as he has owned speakers which generally have minimal specs and often no published measurements.  

Why is @amir_asr still bugging us on Audiogon on my other forum on lack of published manufacturer measurements/tests?   He has such great contempt for us (particularly me) on Audiogon.  He just ascribed my character to be mean and rotten to my friends yet he does not know me.  

My problem is the absolute conviction/statements that cables that measure the same, sound the same. That tweaks that address vibration, acoustics and just plain static are worthless, These items especially if they are considered expensive and possibly too profitable to the manufacturer, are snake oil and bogus.

The transition from CD player to digital separates was difficult and I lost "some" money testing out transports, DACs and cabling. In that time, I rediscovered an old CD player that better than my more expensive 2005 EAR Acute which is now ensconced in my 2nd system. I sold the EAR. Eventually, two years later, I acquired fantastic digital separates and a cable which raised my digital playback to the level of my analog playback, still for much less money than my analog playback cost (table, arm, cartridge, vibration platform, SUT, phono-preamp, cabling, VPI and Kirmuss cleaning machines, etc). I’m happy as I have great R2R, DAT, 78 rpm, LP and CD playback sound.

I can share freely here, on What’s Best Forum, Audiocircle, etc. without qualifying every subjective statement I’ve made. I think that’s the point of not liking ASR.

I’ve read many Audiogon forums on CD transports and many posts state that the Cambridge CXC is adequate at $600. I tried one from Cambridge. I let it play for several days and tried it. Of course, I may have received a bad unit, but my neighbor had a boxed one ready for sale and let me compare it. Nope, it was just as mediocre, thin, flat sounding, limited dynamics. I sent mine back and I note that there are so many better CD players, new and recently discontinued, which sound superior just by improving the power caps. I tried a Marantz CD-1 and 5004 units after the caps were upgraded. A little dark sounding and lower in resolution but at least they were pleasant sounding compared to the Cambridge. A Denon DVD DBP 1611UD, just changing the power caps and putting a pigtail for and IEC power cord for a total cost of $200 results in a transport that is clean and clear with great resolution, depth and soundstage What it lacks is some body to the sound and deep bass; otherwise, in a warm, tubey system it should be a real winner.

This is where I provide my subjective experience to evaluating other’s opinion of the same unit and provide inexpensive better sounding alternatives. I don’t expect everyone to try out a $1500 digital cable as I did. It probably won’t have the great appeal for low end equipment users. On the Denon DVD transport which I tried, it was noticeably better but at 7.5 times the cost of the transport, not too practical or cost effective.

@laoman ​​​​@holmz   Unfortunately, this is sometimes true.  As a commercial real estate appraiser, I was chosen to appraise high value homes in 1986-7 in Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Beverly Hills, Bradbury, etc.  I noted in another forum long ago about some totally ridiculous high end audio equipment poorly placed for the purpose of playing music but looking good.  An example is a 30"' high entry foyer which could be a living room in Malibu with a pair of Martin Logan electrostats (Monolith model) stuck half-way up the walls facing each other, flush mounted in carved out balconies.  I've thrown the photos away decades ago but that represents something wrong in a then $8 million home.  

My cable manufacturing friend has lost many potential customers because when they find out the price of his cables, they say they could not be high end because they are too inexpensive.   

Yes, some people equate price and/or brand name with quality.  Some use their systems as to make a deliberate or pretentious display of their accomplishments and wealth.  I've seen it (and several times suffered in hearing those systems).  

@holmz My speaker cable risers consist of old Audio Technica rubber footers on 106 oz. plush carpeting. Not as pretty but it does the job (now that’s more of a subtle not major difference with or without similar to turning off the lights on my transport when listening).

The McIntosh house was located in Bradbury, an equestrian city where an old Budweiser commercial was made in a barn that looked from the outside like a gigantic mansion.    

@laoman I have a lower cost (about $80K), high end system at the lower end because of my speakers, which although wonderful to listen to, do not reflect the full quality of the system (basically ambiance retrieval and listening area width). My wife and I went bonkers using my LPs and a CD at local audio shows when we heard the Von Schweikert Ultra 11 and 9. But it was with $1+ million support system. I wouldn’t want either of those for my smaller room. I would prefer the Ultra 7 which is efficient, smaller and passive. I will not pay $170K for those speakers unless my investments pay off big time ($millions) as I’m already 66 similar in price as your Borresen wish. Hopefully, I will acquire the VS VR9 SE mkII speakers somewhere between $35K and $50K fully updated in the near (2-3 year) future.

I heard a smaller 02 or 03 Borresen speaker this year in much too large a room (conference size) and it sounded small. The 05 would have been a better choice.

I found it a waste of money to use high end audio gear as furnishings.  One system had only McIntosh gear, some of it unconnected, sad.  

The City of Bradbury was founded by Lewis Leonard Bradbury on the homestead of Rancho Azusa de Duarte in 1881. The cities of Duarte and Azusa are adjacent. No relation to Ray Bradbury.

@cd318 My two Golden Ear friends walk into a room, listen for 10-15 minutes to a few different recordings and can tell me exactly what is wrong with the sound, not necessarily the fix but if it is acoustic, they can point out the cause. It’s best if they are familiar with the recordings and their mastering (provence). If it were a bunch of hip hop rap or sca recordings, none of us could tell anything about the system.  

@djones51  So, if a DAC measures the same as another, it sounds the same?   If it measures superbly, it is preferable to a lesser measuring DAC?   Well, I have a DAC to sell to you, the COS Engineering D1v, a superbly constructed and engineered DAC/Pre-amp,   https://6moons.com/audioreviews2/cos/2.html   "Which leaves us with sonics. The D1 does all the usual yawn-inducing stuff very well: linearity, soundstaging, detail, bass, midrange, treble. Then it adds something that reads rather minor on paper. Even so it—and the bona fide preamplitude which otherwise would mean another box and more wires—do bridge the gap. What gap you ask? That between my ±$4'000 DACs as a personal "what else could one need?" comfort zone; and this deck's $9'000 ask. That thing is the peculiar absence of electronic grain. Here the COS for instance soundly trumped the AURALiC Vega which I'd otherwise never consider grainy at all. On temperament and virtues of timing and snap, the D1 was more akin to the Metrum Hex"   

"But if neutral, grainless and not showy yet mature sounding d/a converter is needed, which also happens to be a great preamplifier, COS Engineering D1 is the one."

I'll sell mine for $4,000, in perfect condition, original packaging, et.al.  It is functionally and aesthetically great!  

I have heard several CD players with DAC chips originating in the 1980s to 2020s. I can’t tell which one is preferable because there is so much more to implementation of the DAC process and machines. JGH article was welcomed by many of my engineering friends who said digital is near or perfect whereas analog will always remain imperfect.

I did not enjoy listening to CDs at all in the 1980s due to the lesser machines I heard them on and a mixture of the quality of the CDs. I know that some of my finest jazz CDs were made/transferred in the late 1980s by the 1990s newer machines. Also, some of the worst pop CDs at the same time (and continue to now due to compression, frequency manipulation such as restricted bass and boosted highs/classical reissues and vice versa/pop, etc). Overall, the average CD in my 7,000 collection maintains a high sound quality whereas maybe 35% of the 28,500 LP collection sounds good to great. So many LPs are earlier recordings and have mastering anomalies and limitations imposed by the producers (like modern pop recordings) for cheaper analog playback (low end record players) regardless of vinyl pressing quality.

JGH did mention that cabling can make a difference back in 1985 in his test.

I think it is marketing folly to provide so many filters and adjustments to the DAC. I I just read a review of the latest Bartok DAC (compared to the Rossini and Vivaldi). They are chock full of filtering and timing adjustments, with more offered as the price and complexity of the DAC goes up. I am extremely satisfied with the Benchmark HDR-1 DAC (as modified but for the digital system). It complies with most of the modern understanding of what a DAC should do and be capable of.

As to Jitter and Digital Ringing, in none of the high end DACs (above $1000) I have encountered or been able to hear those affectations to the sound, in good quality audio systems.  Maybe I did hear them in run of the mill 1980s CD players.   I don't know when I've heard filter and time manipulated DACs.  

I extracted this from Archimago's Musings - However, there is one situation where upsampling makes sense... The same reason Benchmark chose to use ASRC (Asynchronous Sample Rate Conversion) for the DAC1 and DAC2 - jitter reduction. Although by no means high, the sidebands are more pronounced using coaxial and TosLink interfaces. The sideband peaks around the primary signal clearly were reduced with 24/192 upsampling using the TosLink input. As usual, whether anyone can actually hear this difference in properly controlled testing is another matter!  

And this - For years we've been worried about the "dreaded jitter". However, we know that these days, with asynchronous interfaces like USB and ethernet, there's nothing to be concerned of. Sure, we can see jitter anomalies with old S/PDIF, but I doubt anyone should purposely not use the interface for fear of audible issues assuming otherwise decent gear.   

I use SPDIF/Coax digital cabling only.  

Also, I loved the sound of DAT tapes after leaving behind R2R (Tandberg 900 and Technics 1500).  

Well, I don't use DSP/Eq of the room but one can view my elaborate room construction and treatments to prepare it for whatever equipment I chose to use.   It works for me.

My friend who "re-engineered" parts (analog section) and upgraded & added so many caps, regulators and resistors to the Benchmank and Emotiva DACs said the DAC chip were fine but that some are better than others.  He also suggested changing/upgrading the op-amp.  My electronics engineer neighbor said his friends all recommend the Burson op-amp. Charles Hansen was right, it's not so much the DAC chip but the implementation of the entire DAC unit.

@westcoastaudiophile  My COS Engineering D1v $9K DAC is built like the DAC you prefer, exceptionally well. https://6moons.com/audioreviews2/cos/3.html  (innards)  However, it lacks body in the midrange compared to the D2v, my modded Benchmark and my friend's modded Emotiva.   C'est la vie!  

It could be just the SPDIF as the streaming section sounds okay (only checked with iPhone USB connection).  There are two SPDIF inputs and one lacks bass response with an even leaner sound compared to the other.  Design or implementation flaw somewhere.  I'm selling it.   Again, manufacturers often do not provide details of their design (often considered proprietary) and/or measurements.