The "adjustment" is aftermarket and even then its not much.
76 responses Add your response
Dne, am I right in assuming that the 'adjustment' is one of the permutations of the settings discussed in the user manual, as opposed to involving an adjustment not discussed in the user manual? That is, the 'adjustment' is some combination of front toggle, back toggle, rear volume calibration, internal gain setting, internal bypass of input select, etc? I can't quite see the mystery and reason for the secrecy, which in one email I have received on this implies a commercial motive behind the secrecy. Can you please clarify? |
That is part of it but there is some more. I can certainly understand all the interest. But, I have to say that I didn't discover all this and so I really can't comment further -- the other party will have to do so. I don't know all the facts here and I have nothing more to add so please don't address any more questions to me on this subject. Sorry. Hopefully all will be divulged soon. |
Redkiwi, There is no great commercial motive here. We are putting the finishing touches on something that improves further the benefits of the reconfig., but anyone can enjoy the sonic improvements with a small purchase from an electronics store. The change doesn't turn the DAC-1 into the best dac ever -or anything ridiculous like that- but it is a 'significant!' improvment to an already noteworthy d/a. The change does make it more alive, smooth, dynamic, dimensional, and makes the mid more a bit more palpable. I hadn't intended to make much of a stir but before I let-on the change that anyone can do. I wanted to encourage those who ownwed a Benchmarks. So I'll let-on soon. Also, anyone using a passive pre with their Benchmark or using the volume control is in for a real treat! Thanks for being patience. |
Thanks for that. It makes a bit more sense now. Suitably configured, I don't find the Benchmark lacks liveliness, and it is already pretty smooth, but do agree that midrange palpability would be welcome, and more firmness to dynamics from the lower mids down would be very valuable. Depending how effective the improvements are that would leave its only flaw (to my ears and in my two systems) as low level inner detail/nuance. Although one hastens to add that I refer to a flaw only in the context of tough and more expensive competition. For what it is worth, in playing around with configurations I found one seemingly paradoxical outcome. I tended to prefer the interior gain set to -30dB, and highish output calibration, whereas I had expected to find the 0dB gain and low output calibration to sound better. However I did not spend a lot of time with these permutations because I was really just trying to see if I could get it to outperform my Lavry, as opposed to spend lots of time optimising the Benchmark. These days I just use the Benchmark as part of a portable high end system comprised of laptop, Wavelength, Benchmark, Sennheiser. Great travel to with. |
Abrahavt, I finally got you Audio Space's contact details. Top International Electric Hong Kong Ltd 1/F, 151-153 Apliu Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon Hong Kong Tel: 852-2729 7271 Fax: 852-2307 9476 I just bought one unit (the model is called DAC-1US) and upgraded several items like capacitors (to blackgates), wiring (to pure silver), tubes (to telefunken), RTX REL Caps and the resistors. And the result? MAGIC. I have not heard the EMM Labs but the older Wadias and Levinsons are no match for the upgraded Audio Space. Try to listen to one if you happen to be in Hong Kong. By the way, the upgraded unit costs only US$1800. Have fun. |
I began reading this thread because I wanted to learn about the Benchmark DAC-1. At first it sounded very impressive. Then I quickly began having some doubts based on the comments of people who own the product and who pointed out its short-comings compared to other DACs. In particular, on 01-25-05 Redkiwi stated: "As I have stated in other Audiogon forums, the DAC1 is great value for money, so much so that I could not resist buying one even though it spends most of the time in its box.. . . I prefer my USD1200 Lavry Blue over my DAC1." Well there you have it, and from someone who actually owns a Benchmark. The Benchmark spends most of its time in a box. Despite the comments of some of the posters, he has no axe to grind; He bought the product and is simply giving me and all others his honest unbiased opinion. Somewhat disappointed, I read a few more of the threads concerning the Benchmark, but it appeared to be a no go for me. Then much to my surprise, I found an earlier post from Redkiwi on 12-21-04 which stated: "The Benchmark is very very good but is not perfect. I came very close to buying one, but when I found that the pros generally had a higher regard for the Lavry Blue I tried that and found it had all of the performance I enjoyed in the Benchmark but with a more natural presentation, one that I think (but do not claim) most audiophiles would prefer." I am puzzled. Apparently sometime between December 21, 2004 and January 25, 2005, the poster decided to purchase a Benchmark DAC-1 that he had already decided he liked less than the Lavry Blue he already owned. Credibility is a serious problem on these forums. I must confess that I am often suspecious of the "informed evaluations" offered here. Where have so many found access to so much equipment that they are able to offer informed opinions? I realize that audio stores will lend equipment, but I do not think this explains what we are reading. If I want to read fiction I will check out a book from the library in the fiction section. It is my understanding that Audiogon has the power to suspend members for specific reasons. I do not know what infractions can lead to this remedy, but I do think that if posters are caught posting "fiction" this might be a good reason. |
Dgclark0007 I bought the Benchmark DAC1 on 30 day eval and returned it. I liked it, but did not think it was the giant killer that many are professing it to be. I thought it was fairly clear, and uncolored but a tad thin and unnatural sounding in the midrange. It did not seem to be particularly dynamic. Detail retrieval was very good but not great. I thought it was a very competent and clean DAC, but not special. I compared it to my EVS Millennium II DAC and thought that the Mill was superior. It was fuller, more acuurate and handled the dynamics of music better. I also did not think it really improved on the stock 3910 I have. The 3910 is kind of dark, and pinched off sounding but it has a good soundstage, a balanced sound and good dynamics. It can get a little shrill in the uper registers. Even with those issues though, it still feels a little more natural and musical than the DAC1. I can easily see why there is so much success with 3910 mods. The DAC1 on the other hand is very digital sounding but without the digital edge and hardness. If data accuracy is the ultimate end for you, maybe it is the right DAC. For my ear I am primarily interested in the timbre of the sound and having it sound more like real life, which in my view is actually much darker and less detailed and planar in the soundstage than we want to admit. Go to a symphony and think of it in terms of a home audio setup and you will see what I mean. Don't know if this helps any but those are my thoughts. |
Abrahavt, Yes, I bought it from the given address and they will mod it for you upon request. You can choose what you want to upgrade. If you want a full upgrade, it should cost around US$2000. You can also request them to do a 110V unit. They are the manufacturer themself and they can do any modifications upon request, very flexible. Sorry, I don't have their website or email address. You can call them or fax them a message. |
Dgclark, Hang on to your suspicious attitude. It will do you well in the long run. In this specific case, I think you're on the wrong track. There are people here who are able and willing to do things I wouldn't consider -- like buy a piece just because they're curious and want to stay informed. I have a hard enough time doing that with a CD. That's what gives this site so much "headroom", in terms of depth of information, for people like me. These people may be crazy ;-> but often they are less biased in their opinions. Okay--it's hard to say "less biased" with a straight face in a conversation about audiophiles. Anyway, it is the opinions of true believers and those that want affirmation for a very precious investment they've just made (that better _not_ have been the wrong choice) that are more suspect to me. In any case, Red has a lot of posts on record, and he seems more than Alright. This is a fun site. If you can dig the opinions without developing the compulsions, noone will get hurt! |
Seems I need to clarify my posts. I bought the Lavry for the stereo in my lounge. But I still liked the idea of the Benchmark and so bought one and use it when I travel. I live in New Zealand but right now I am in a hotel in London. I have with me a 200GB drive attached to my laptop, a Wavelength outboard audio card, the Benchmark and some headphones. It means I can travel and still have great sound. When I am at home the DAC1 stays in the box. It has come out two or three times for a week or so at a time to joust with the Lavry but the Lavry always wins in my system. Hope this explains my posts. I continue to believe the Benchmark is great value for money and am not trying to damn it with faint praise. I just prefer my Lavry and suggest anyone looking at a Benchmark try a few others at the same time. |
I had the MSB Nelson w/PB and upsampling many moons agoand it's not nearly as good as the Benchmark Dac1. The nelson had a lot of bass, more then is on the recording, and was rich sounding, yet think and slow and synthetically full bodied. It's a dated design, IMNSHO, and for the same or less money a Musical Fidelity A3 24, Perpetual Tech or Benchmark dac will put it away... |
I'm reluctant to dip my toe in this thread considering some of the monkey business that's gone on above IMO, but Uva_hifi's astute last post tipped me over the edge - in a good way (something I couldn't have said about some of his earlier posts here, to be frank). I just want to invite anybody interested to this archived thread of mine, since nobody on this one posted to that one. It's about an A/B auditioning methodology I devised for fairly objective evaluation of outboard DAC's (either comparing multiple DAC's and/or various settings available on a single unit). My hope was to encourage others to run the test I describe and comment on their results, but so far none have, despite the thread receiving well over 2,000 viewings. But who knows, maybe someone coming from this thread will take the plunge... |
Zaikesman, you took 3 pages and probably a week of manipulation of your setup to hear what I heard under normal listening and a/b conditions, and we came to essentially the same results. What makes your method superior if folks can come to the same conclusion without all the added complexity? KISS, right? |
I said I was reluctant to dip my toe in this thread - but dip I did... Uva_hifi: As I believe I mention in the linked thread, the formal testing did tend to confirm my casual listening evaluations, which were similar to your own. But to my mind, that fact in no way invalidates the worth of the test method, partiuclarly in light of how many listeners and reviewers subjectively rated the Link DACs highly. The test gives more than a subjective impression - it gives an aurally qualifiable and quanitifiable demonstration of exactly how much and in what ways any DAC deviates (or doesn't deviate) from the signal fed it, without requiring technical measurement gear and expertise (which still don't tell us much about how something like a DAC actually sounds). I don't hold that my test is in all ways "superior", if what we're after is mainly sound that's personally enjoyable. But I do think the method is valuable and enlightening, and would like to see it used by reviewers as an adjunct to strictly subjective auditioning. (I feel the same way about interconnects and preamplifiers, both of which are relatively easy to run bypass comparison tests on, though reviewers virtually never do this.) I invite you to try my test, providing you're set up to do it, and then tell me if the experience was a waste of time. If I'd found it so, I wouldn't have bothered writing an article about running it. I even had fun doing it. (But then, maybe I'm simply more curious than some other audiophiles, and/or less afraid to rigorously examine my own opinions of what I think I hear.) Thanks for making the effort to read it and sharing your take though. |
...the two DACs that seem to go head to head in the value for the money sweepstages are the dAck and Benchmark. You can read about both of them right here on Audiogon. P.S. ...though I have 4 possible DACs to listen to, I have not yet heard the Benchmark DAC. Very envious of the sound a loaner dAck 2.0 production unit I got to borrow for a day. Happy tunes, |
Hi all, I've been away. I need to apologize to those who have been waiting for the "improvement" info for the Benchmark dac-1. As it turned out the effects were astonishing... but not universally so. We basically ran the IC's from the headphone amp with some internal changes but mostly the effects were due to the 0...zero output impedance of the HP amp and unless that was an issue with a given system the effects were slight. Several people who had the issue who we shared this info with were shocked by the improvement. So basically what we discovered is not something worth marketing a product around but that would fall more in the category of significant info for those who are load (impedance) challenged in regard to the benchmark. Sorry again for the gross delay. |
