The Benchmark DAC3 was SOTA when originally released. Its measured performance was surpassed by cheaper DACs years ago. These days there exist $200 “Chi-Fi” DACs that objectively outperform the DAC3.
Six DAC Comparison
I am in the middle of comparing the sound of six different DACs in my system. I own them all (I know weird) but one of them is still within a trial/return timeframe.
Not to share specific comparisons today, but a couple of observations so far are that first, they all definitely sound different from each other. On one hand, they all sound pretty good and play what is fed to them without significant flaws but on the other hand there are definite sonic differences that make it easy to understand how a person might like the sound of some of them while not liking others.
Second, raises the observation that most of them must be doing something to shape the sound in the manner the designer intended since one of the DACs, a Benchmark DAC3 HGA, was described by John Atkinson of Stereophile as providing "state-of-the-art measured performance." In the review, JA closed the measurements section by writing, "All I can say is "Wow!" I have also owned the Tambaqui (not in my current comparison), which also measured well ("The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance." - JA). The Benchmark reminds me sonically of the Tambaqui, both of which are excellent sounding DACs.
My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.
Showing 3 responses by helomech
I stated “objectively,” not subjectively. In my personal experience, some Topping DACs, such as the E70 Velvet, subjectively outperform some much pricier units that also perform quite well objectively. For example, the Chord Qutest and Electrocompaniet ECD-2…especially the Qutest. In fact, it was the DAC within the $2K Eversolo DMP-A8 that inspired me to try the Topping E70 Velvet. After which, I sold both the Eversolo and Electrocompaniet (the latter which objectively measures a little better than the Benchmark DAC3 IIRC). No, I am not an ASR Zealot who believes that SINAD is the end-all, be-all of sound quality. However, I also strive for an open mind and go through the hassle of level-matching my components when conducting comparisons. I do my best to not let the retail price of a given component influence my judgement. Similarly, I do not presume a component will sound good simply because it measures well. Somewhat recently, after acquiring some Børresen speakers, I sold my Revel towers despite them qualifying as an ASR readers’ wet dream speaker. I don’t need to see graphs to hear that the Børresens are not as objectively accurate as the Revels, however, the former are without question the all-around better speakers to my ears. Regardless, as for all known OBJECTIVE measurement parameters, there are indeed some DACs from Topping, SMSL, and the like that measure better than the DAC3, and by a rather wide margin in terms of noise and distortion. That is simply an indisputable fact. It seemed the OP was unaware of this fact. I am not here to claim that one should not subjectively prefer the DAC3 to those performing better in a bench test. I am merely pointing out that the DAC3 is no longer state-of-the-art, even by Stereophile’s measurement battery. Based on my subjective experience, I do believe many audiophiles would benefit from giving some benefit of doubt to these “Chi-Fi” components, and judging them by sound rather than impact on the bank account. I realize that some avoid these brands for sociopolitical reasons, which is perfectly fine, but to conflate that stance with a component’s actual performance, subjective or otherwise, qualifies as implicit prejudice.
|
I have listened to many expensive DACs throughout the years. The OP cited John Atkinson’s opinion of the Benchmark based on quantitative measurements, not subjective quality. At this point I think it’s safe to presume you don’t know the difference between objective and subjective analysis. Yeesh…
|