Thanks for the responses, everyone. It seems there is somewhat of a consensus on the Benchmark, and then the Schiit.
A few comments...
Roxy...Ive seen pics of the audio note, but I havent seen one or heard one. Ill respond on a separate post on that one.
Kijanki - good feedback on the "cool" sound. Im glad Im not the only one who likes that. And its good the designer had that in-mind. Also, I have studio's, but they are v5's. My previous v2's were too bright IMO, but the v5's are remarkably different. But they are so articulate...
OK, so here is where Im going to loose it, if Im not careful...but I must get this out... If I buy a Schiit product, will that make me a Schiit-head?
Hopefully you see the humor in that.
But all joking aside...I was actually reading about those, and they have amazing design specs for that price... AKM DAC? Nice! No upsampling is also preferable, IMO, although I realize upsampling and conversion the new trend. It appears to have a discrete output stages also, with separate analog and digital power supplies? I have to wonder how they got all the goodness in there at that price (or why everyone else overcharges so much...)
BTW, Do the Schiit and the benchmark remember the last source played when they are power-cycled?
Has anyone A-B'd a Schitt and a Rega? Any thoughts?
I dont desire USB, and it seems that the Schiit without USB is only $350? Thats quite a value. It seems too good to be true... |
Greetings everyone... Thanks for all the responses on this. Definitely good to think about.
I got a wild hair today and I bought a benchmark. It will be here tomorrow.
I also bought a parasound zdac, as I have to give my historically favorite brand a shot, even though Im afraid it might be seriously outgunned. But who knows :)
I also tried to buy a bryston bda-2 at the same time (yes, I realize this indicates a serious problem with self-control,) but they could only sell me two of the same items at the same time (apparently its common for people to demo these LOL.)
BTW, 2500 is going to be the limit here. I can see this could easily get well out of control.
So, Ill have a "$1k dac shootout" this weekend and return the two "loosers." I realize the new ones wont have much burn-in time, but ill let them play for a couple days prior to a serious comparison. At least neither of the new ones will be at an advantage.
The "last $1k dac standing" will then face the Bryston and the NAD in a david vs goliath. Ill weight the results somewhat for price, presuming one of the big dogs "wins," but Ive decided that Ill spend the money on the more expensive item if its tangibly better.
A few quick thoughts on some of the responses...
I agree the audio note is seriously nice piece of equipment, but (1) its way too expensive and (2) I dont want tubes in my source. But I am not discounting tubes just because they are tubes. Ive been wanting a decware zen preamp for years. But I just dont want to even start down that path. Its the same reason I dont do vinyl...its a slippery slope. The last thing I need is something more to obsess about (such as trying to find my "favorite tube.")
I have to admit I didnt do a lot of homework on dac's before I started listening to them. I figured Id let my ears decide and my mind didnt get a say. My heart knows that its irrelevant what makes the sound, as long as I enjoy it. But, I am a tech-geek and my mind loves to consider the component specs. And the mind needs to be placated too LOL
Im hoping I didnt make a mistake on that benchmark already. I didnt know it did source rate conversion also. As a matter of fact, neither did the salesman, because I specifically asked it, and he said "no." I know the bryston, NAD and parasound do, so I was hoping to compare a new one that didnt.
I still think the best way should be to remove as much processing as possible. I am tech savvy and I understand the claimed benefits, but many of the most highly regarded setups dont upsample/upconvert anything. If Ive learned anything as a network architect, its that simple is almost always better. But, Im going to be open-minded and give them all a shot.
At this rate, It seems I may have to end-up with an audio note after all. But I have to think that the tube outputs would give it all the attributes that Im trying to avoid, so it seems.
If anyone would like to send me their audio note to include in the david vs goliath round, let me know :) Ill pay shipping and insurance LOL |
A couple of other comments (my last post got seriously bloated.)
Timrhu... I looked at the nuwave reviews online, and it did seem nice. Unfortunately, I do have a full-time job, and I just dont have the time to review all the good ones. Same for the woo audio... Seems great. But, after comparing the results, it seems the only coherent impression across different reviewers and different dac's is that the benchmark is cold/analytical/revealing (although these dont need to be mutually inclusive.) Most other dac reviews are all over the place. I read some people calling the rega "neutral" and "bright," but thats the opposite of my impression. Its totally subjective. But every single review and post on here says the benchmark is bright and revealing. When the cops and the crooks both agree on something...you might at least listen and consider :)
Loftarasa.. Do you use your m51 directly into a power amp? The thing that interests me most about the m51 is the digital volume for all inputs. I would have to think that it doesnt get any better than running that into a power amp directly. I have a rotel and another parasound amp (actually, 3 more parsounds) in the closet, so I was starting to think running the m51 into one of them for a totally separate 2 channel rig. (right now, my AV pre-pro does pass-through on the halo for multichannel, to share the bigger parasound.)
Obviously, the m51 is the king of processing...also the polar opposite of what I *think* I want, but if youre going to process it, going to PWM is the way to do it. Ive long wondering why that wasnt done, as it should eliminate all digital filter-related ringing. But why not just add a DSD receiver too, if ou have the basics of the processing there? Seemed a bit short-sighted. When I A/B'd it with the rega at the shop, it was too "bright." But now, it seems that my bias was skewed, and the rega was probably too "dark" in comparison. It may be just right.
What do you think about the m51 sound?
BTW, Im hesitant to buy a used DAC, as they are more delicate than power amps, which I do buy used if I can find one I want. But I appreciate the information on the used ones.
Wisnon... I really dig the lampizators. Like the audio note, i think the designs are simple and brilliant. But, as stated, I fear the additional compulsion that tubes will bring me.
Richardfinegold...we have very close tastes, it seems. I always liked B&W's. Both times I went down to audition a pair, I ended up with paradigms. Not sure why...something about paradigm studios I like. The new v5's especially. But I think the B&W's are great too.
Bcgator... dont take offense on the dac it. But there wasnt any comparison from around 1k down. There was another guy there who was in another room, and he knew I was A/B'ing them. Everytime Id switch them, I could hear him say "peachtree" or "rega" from outside. He was right every time. But as I said, it was super nice in the top end.
Finally... Dragon1952 (apologies for not responding to all...Ive been typing all day LOL, but I appreciate all the input.)
You are 100% correct. I re-positioned my mains and my sub when I added the rega. I had to. My room is crappy already, and it needs treatment badly (thats the next purchase after this...absorbers for the corners.) The extra low-end of the rega was making my already terrible standing-wave problem worse. And my paradigms are reflex ported, so positioning them in this room was never easy anyway. |
OK, so this is a tangent, but I did want to address the Audio Note. Im not sure which one you have, but from what Ive read and seen, that is how I would build a DAC. If it didnt have valve outputs, I think it would be about perfect. And yes, this is preference and Im not knocking your choice.
From my perspective, I would expect the best sounding PCM reproduction would come from a 16 bit DAC, with no oversampling and no digital filtering. If I didnt dislike tubes, Id buy a lampizator setup...no questions. Its the purest design, IMO. But I dont want to deal with tubes.
If the source is defined by 16 bits, then thats the most "sound data" youre going to be able to get out of each sample. If you effectively reproduce the waveforms, then there is no real need for processing or filtering, except maybe a brick-wall around 16 khz. Yes, there are crappy recordings out there with a lot of emphasized high-end "glare..." So just dont buy those :)
OK, Im going to stop now and not get on my soapbox about this upsampling/upconverting trend for 16/44.1, or Ill just get frustrated.
I actually like the PCM -> PWM conversion idea better, like the NAD m51, if youre going to process it so heavily, as I think it would reduce the filtering requirements. So Im surprised I didnt like it more at the shop. I think I need to hear it at my house.
Anyway, this got long. Apologies for the quasi-rant ;) |
LOL @ Roxy's last post.
People have their own opinions, thats fine.
IMO, the "magic" is still in the analog output section. I dont think a 32 bit sabre can decode 16 bit PCM any better or more accurately than a TDA1541 can. If you dont have errors, you dont need all that digital "headroom." For video processing, I can see some possible benefit due to the complexity, but if you dont have errors in your microcode, you dont need overhead in a DAC (IMO.) |
Elevick, thanks for the offer, but Ill pass. I do agree that, after reading their site, the gungnir would be the one to get.
I considered getting one to demo, but unfortunately, after visiting their site, I just couldnt align with their ethos enough to want to buy something from them. |
BTW, Roxy... If youd like to loan me your Audio Note, Ill send you my address for shipping. Ill even insure it :)
Oh... While I try to avoid arguments and brand bashing in forums... Dweller... I have nothing against Rega, except two of the two Rega devices Ive bought were defective. So thats tough to manage. I obviously had nothing intrinsically against them...i bought it over NAD that I typically repect. I like any brand that makes nice things. If insignia made something that sounded great, Id buy that. |
@ chayro There are a lot of areas in-which you dont get more just because you pay for. Directly to your point...I had an older $2k multi-format player that sounded "worse" to me with CD than a $300 NAD CD-only player. I agree with you that possibly, in this case, I may have to pay more than I expected.
But I dont think its necessary. This Rega is obviously artificially "flavored" with its sound, but the quality is there. I just dont like the flavor as much as it seemed at first.
If this Rega was as "tuned" to sound differently, it would be fantastic IMO. They dynamics are there. The output voltage is there. It wouldnt have to cost more.
So, yes, I agree I may need to break down and pay "more." But, for example, the NAD isnt 4x as good (to me) as the peachtree. So Ill remain optimistic for a while. |
Erikminer - I just read about the direct stream DAC. Looks impressive. It appears to work much like the m51 though...although it also appears to process DSD...
What makes it 3x the price I wonder?
As with the m51, I think that conversion should eliminate filtering ring or aliasing.
Pretty cool, but out of my price range. Im hesitant to buy a used "anything with a chip..." Makes me wonder why people are getting rid of them... I know there are a lot of good used deals; Im just a skeptic sometimes. |
I just thought of something... If I buy a bryston for this shoot-out, Ill have over $5k in dacs laying around. Yes, all but one will be returned (maybe keep 2...for the price, I may keep the parasound zdac for a nice headphone setup, regardless.)
For this money, Im getting closer to a Gryphon scorpio. I might as well just get that at this point, although it does all the processing voodoo :) LOL |
Greetings,
So Ive made a determination after a long weekend of listening to these various things.
The benchmark is the "best" dac Ive heard thus far. It is the most accurate at rendering data into sound. Its quite a treat, most of the time. Its especially fitting for larger arrangements, or other pieces that otherwise get "congested." Of course overall, for a while, anyway, all that detail is quite impressive to hear.
The rega was, as expected, the most laid-back and warmest piece. Its interesting at times, because it does have quite good definition, but things tend to get lost in the mix more easily than with the others. Its the most "pleasant" overall to listen to, but it just gets a little muddy with a lot of material.
The zDac was the surprise here. It has 90-95% of the precision of the benchmark, with a bit more low-end actually, but not quite as defined upper-mid and high end. This additional low-end may actually be some bit of distortion, but its still sounds clean. The zDac is also "easier" to listen to for long periods.
Going through the exercise has been quite frustrating in areas, especially that now I have reason to re-think my amplifier selection.
So, the summary for now is that the benchmark and rega go back, and the zDac stays. This will give me time to step back and review the overall direction here. Ill be able to enjoy the still-substantial enhancement of the zDac until I find the "perfect" solution.
I appreciate everyone's feedback. The benchmark fans are correct, at least in my experience thus far. I have to say that the dac2 seems like it could be a strong choice, given how relatively old the dac1 design is, and its still the detail king in its price. And the dac2 actually has a power switch, a dimmer and a remote... which are nice in a home situation. I would have a hard time buying the dac1, knowing the dac2 exists. |
Hello, thanks again for the feedback.
Roxy, I didnt read anything too egregious in your response, I just thought it was funny (it was.) I definitely appreciate your experience with the audio note. Again, its a super cool piece of equipment.
The new benchmark and parsound zdac are waiting at the fedex store for me, as we speak, so I guess Ill get no sleep again tonight LOL Let the fun begin!
But here is something really interesting, and it was quite "revelatory" in some ways. Last night, as I was anxiously making space in my rack and getting hookups ready for the shoot-outs, I decided to listen to some of my older amps with this rega first.
So first I listened to my little 60 watt rotel. I bought it a long time ago but I never really used it, except when experimenting with HT setups. I have small, fairly efficient speakers, and I dont usually listen at high levels, so power isnt a real concern. But wow...its a lot brighter than I remembered, but not in a good way. Compared to my normal parasound, it sounded really harsh all over the place. Very "high strung" Id call it. It sucked all of the life out of that rega, to the point that it was actually too lean on the dac's filter (4) that I like the most. I actually couldnt get any of the filters to sound as I wanted.
OK, so that was a fail.
So then I decided to try an HCA750. I figured this might be a waste, because if you look at the component topology, it looks almost identical to the rotel, and its very similar specs and components. But since I had my system torn apart, I figured why not.
I was blown away. All of the low-mid range congestion was gone. Imaging is just as wide but more precise. The overall setup sounds almost exactly as I envisioned it. Its almost to the point that I have nothing to complain about.
I didnt even try the zamps I have at this point. They arent powerful enough to full-range in my setup, but they have ridiculously flat frequency response curves, as I recall when they were bench tested. They are probably a good window to see what the source is doing.
So now Im perplexed. Ive heard the HCA1500 called "sweeter" and "warmer" than the smaller ones, but this is extreme. Ive sometime thought this 1500 was overpowered for my setup, but bigger has to be better...right? Not with this setup obviously. I dont know if something is "wrong" with my 1500, but I just find it hard to believe that either (1) its frequency response is so much exaggerated in the midrange to cause this or (2) this small hca and the rotel (especially) are so lean in that frequency range. I dont recall this big of a difference when I "upgraded" from the 1000 to the 1500, but it was several years ago. It seems pretty clear that the rotel is bright, the 750 is "neutral" and the 1500 is dark.
It makes me regret selling my HCA1000 now, as Im thinking it could have been the best compromise.
So was I being too "harsh" on the rega (pun intended?) I dont know. But maybe.
Ill continue the shootout, but with this smaller hca. But, I think its going to be tough to get much improvement at this point, given my room acoustics.
Now Ive started down this slippery slope Ive tried to avoid. I have to now re-consider my power amp. Im wondering if the best "use" of $2k, in my current case, would be on a small halo a23 and keep the rega.
Any, Ill post up my thoughts after I hear these new devices. But it seems an amp change may be the next round. |
Loftarasa - cool on the NAD. Direct to amp seems like best option. Im going to play with the dac1 like that too. Im just wondering if this little volume pot on the dac1 is cleaner than running it through a really sterile preamp like mine. Ill probably run them through my halo regardless, but configure its input for pass-through, to test the volume pot.
Wisnon - Never heard of that one. Seems to process A LOT? Not sure what to think.
Bcgator - Im definitely a synergy believer. Read on... :)
OK, so with the DAC testing, round 1.
A/B/C'd the dac1, zDac and rega. I actually have a makeshift way of making it "blind" by shuffling around the interconnect pairs behind the rack without looking, so I cant tell which input pair is which device.
So I start with a quick "lets see if I can tell which is which." Within 15 second of listening, the rega is differentiated. No question.
The shock was the dac1 and the zDac. I dont know if anyone has heard this little zDac, but it is quite impressive. There is very little difference in the basics of imaging, frequency response and overall detail.
It didnt take that long to distinguish them, though. The dac1, as expected from the press, was just a tiny bit more "revealing." Thats probably the best word for it. It is almost certainly rendering more bits, more perfectly, than the others. Its obviously meant to reproduce music exactly as it is recorded. But, I have to say that "revealing" doesnt always equal better sounding.
In all seriousness, this zDac is good. Like, really really good. Id say 95% of the detail and very similar overall sound. Musically, I have to say that its quite possibly more enjoyable with the majority of music. That missing 5% is almost total "edge" and space, and not necesarily missing anything that I want to hear.
I must say that it was really fun to, yet again, discover new voices in arrangements that Ive heard 1000x before.
Yes, I am now publicly admitting that definition and purity are not necessarily better sounding. But I do still prefer the definition of the dac1 and zDac to the rega.
However, I also must be fair to the rega and say that, with this smaller power amp, I like the rega's sound best on about 20% of the material. It does fit some genres of music, such as solo vocals or "hot" pop/rock...quite nicely.
Part of this might be the "synergy" people keep referencing. In this case, the dac, preamp and amp are all the same manufacturer.
But the other thing I now realize, and Ive heard this said before, but didnt listen, is this... Many producers, when they record, take into consideration that the majority of listeners will not have a studio-quality reproduction system. Producers will often alter dynamics and filtering of the recordings to create a certain sound as its reproduced by consumer grade equipment (especially stuff that is meant for broadcast play...) When you start to have reproduction that is this "pure," you start to hear things that the producers never expected you to be revealed.
And that appears the case here. Yes, the dac1 is the most detailed thing Ive heard to-date in my system. But, surprisingly, this zDac is nearly as detailed, and more musical more of the time.
At this point, Id already be willing to say the zDac wins overall, especially considering the price. The only problem with it is that it has audible transformer hum if youre within a couple of feet of it. I have very sensitive hearing, which doesnt help.
Both of my zamp amplifiers have the same transformer hum, so obviously this is a problem with these "z" series components overall. Im not sure how to deal with this. I cant hear it from any listening position, so its totally irrelevant sonically. But it just bugs me that they cant supply a toroid that doesnt hum. The giant ones in the HCA's dont. I guess this is one indicator of the price difference.
OK, so Im going to listen more tonight and probably take the rega back tomorrow. Although, Im seriously considering keeping both it and the zDac. The zDac and dac1 are too close to own both, although for an occasional, "active" listening sessions, I would like to have it. Not sure about the rest. We'll see if break-in changes anything on these.
For the record, I am running these setups open-ended thus far (on the dac1 and zdac.) I dont have an amp with balanced inputs (but I might by tomorrow if my local dealer has an a23 in stock.) If so, Ill re-test these end-to-end balanced. |
Timo, thanks for then input. I may well try it eventually. |
