Many thanks for your excellent and even-handed reviews of these DAC’s, quite an undertaking. If you ever need a side gig you could join the glamorous world of audio reviewers.
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.
- ...
- 365 posts total
@viber6 - The Tambaqui is a very good sounding DAC and based on my time with it, more refined sounding and enjoyable to listen to than the Benchmark, which is still a bargain at it's price. However, just because they both measure well, doesn't mean they sound the same. I could live with the Tambaqui in my main system but I prefer the more organic, textural, presentation of the Mojo DACs as well as the richer, fuller, and more relaxed sounding presentation from the Merason. The one I would still like to hear is the HoloAudio May DAC that John Atkinson reviewed, measured, and described as follows. "In almost every way, the HoloAudio May (Level 3) is the best-measuring D/A processor I have encountered, rivaled only by the Weiss DAC502 and MBL N31." Regarding the sound, he said, "The HoloAudio May (Level 3) is one of the best-sounding D/A processors I have tried." If it is really that good, it should be an absolute bargain at it $5,600 price, for the KTE version. I simply have not heard it and therefore cannot say one way or the other. |
Thanks for your reply. I have the original Benchmark DAC 1. Reviews said the DAC 2 was warmer and more "musical" than the 1, and the DAC 3 was getting back to the DAC 1 tonal balance. Actually, don't laugh, I prefer my old Sony CD player alone compared to the Sony digital out going to the Bench 1. The latter is smoother, warmer compared to the Sony alone. So the Sony is actually more raw and brighter than when used with the Bench. Both the Sony and Bench 1 are old products, but the Sony is even older. I have to admit that the raw quality of the Sony is a detriment, but the sound is tighter and leaner. I suspect that the additional interconnect cable (the old Illuminati from Chris Sommerwerk) and added analog gain stage electronics in the Bench 1 probably is adding some veil. Many people have claimed that the ultimate performance is from a complete CD player vs transport + DAC, although my limited experience is insufficient to evaluate this. As a performing violinist in orchestra and chamber music, what excites me is close up detail and HF extension. By comparison any audience seat reveals much less detail and overall clarity. I know your preferences are far different from mine, but I have learned much from your careful comparisons. That makes you a skillful observer and writer. Your integration of published reviews (which are usually biased) with your honest personal observations is a model of great reporting. Most media in audio and other matters cannot be trusted. |
As the owner of a recently purchased Mojo-Audio X SE I agree with comments regarding it's sound signature. I don't have the Z chips or the nano-crystalline (NC) chokes but even so the sound is full and engaging. I don't agree with difference being incremental though. My previous DAC was the PSAudio MK1 and the MHDT Orchid before that and each provided a significant upgrade to the sound from the previous. That said I was happy with each one of them until I heard the upgraded component. |
OP… “but something that requires the reader to be more sensitive to the words written and sometimes “read between the lines” to identify both negative as well as positive aspects of the equipment being reviewed.”.
Just in case this isn’t obvious to anyone… this very true and critical to understand reviews. If you are sensitive to this then professional reviews are very very valuable. I have been reading The Absolute Sound and Stereophile since they began… and they are great sources of information. Damned by faint praise is a big reality. I don’t hold it against reviewer for not being really direct… but most are very obvious about shortcomings. High end audio is about subtitles, and it starts with reading. |
- 365 posts total