Benchmark DAC1 - VERY DISAPPOINTED!

pearsall001

Well I finally pulled the trigger & ordered the Benchmark DAC1. I had it for a little over two weeks. I hooked it up & couldn't wait for it to perform it's magic. Let me tell you, for the life of me I couldn't hear any difference in my system whether the DAC was on or off. I listened, then listened some more, I a/b'ed the hell out of this thing. I still couldn't hear any sonic difference. Mind you I am not running a high priced CDP, in fact it's a HK DVD22 ($180. at CC) I was really expecting to hear a substancial difference after reading all the great reviews. I called Benchmark & they walked me thru the set up procedure to make sure it was connected properly. I had it hooked up as instructed. Hell, it's a very simple hookup. I guess they just wanted to be sure. They really couldn't give me a reason why I didn't hear any difference. I had it hooked up to my modded Jolida 502B int. tube amp & Energy Connoisseur C7 floorstander speakers. The HK DVD22 has always sounded very, very good in both 2 channel & HT. Maybe the Jolida & Energy speakers are a very good combination & made the HK perform at it's best. Needless to say I got a return number & it's packed up & on it's way back. Benchmark was very good to do business with & said that a credit would follow as soon as they receive the DAC. I know some of you guys have the DAC & praise it's performance. What gives?

AsSiMiLaTeD

I don't know much about that H/K, but wasn't the Benchmark designed to be paired with a somewhat high-end transport? Your transport may be the bottleneck and not be allowing the DAC to perform at it's highest level. I don't know though, because I've never heard it...

I'm happy with my Denon...

ND13

I do understand, a little, about how DACs work. So shouldn't it make some sort of difference, even subtle, no matter the transport. I'd have to imagine that the HK would at least be a "decent" transport. I'd like to know also, because I'm attempting to assemble an all tube, 2-channel rig, and the DAC will be an integral piece in that equation. Should I just look at getting a tube cdp and be done with it or do the transport/tube DAC ticket?

Now I do understand that the better the transport, the more of a diiference the DAC will make. I would just think that there would at least be subtle differences even with a soso transport.

steveinaz

Mystery to me brother. My Benchmark transformed my system. Much better slam, articulation and absolute dead quite background. Cymbals are so incredibly real and airy, and the digital hash is gone.

They'll have to pry mine out of my cold dead hands...

You may have a good point with the Energy C-7's. My C-9's are a "laid back" speaker, I think this helps to "disguise" somewhat, some of the gain in articulation you're getting.

tryrrthg

I thought the same thing when I first got my external DAC. It didn't sound that much better than my NAD CD player. but then I kept listening to the DAC. It's the subtle things that it does better. It sounds more natural, less grain in the treble, more air, more "musical" if you will. The NAD sounds like a wall of electronic sound, where the DAC everything just sounds more real. Now that is with running my DAC with my McCormack transport, which is very good. If I run my DAC off the NAD, I don't get near the magic. The transport does make a difference in my situation, but everything I've read about the Benchmark is that it is supposed to be very immune to jitter problems, but even so I'm sure it can't fix everything.

were you using a toslink or coax connection?

ohskigod

maybe it just has to have some break in time. My Jolida sounded like **** when i first got it. is there burn in just for DAC's?......anyone?......Bueller?

steveinaz

tryrrthg wrote:

I thought the same thing when I first got my external DAC. It didn't sound that much better than my NAD CD player. but then I kept listening to the DAC. It's the subtle things that it does better. It sounds more natural, less grain in the treble, more air, more "musical" if you will. The NAD sounds like a wall of electronic sound, where the DAC everything just sounds more real. Now that is with running my DAC with my McCormack transport, which is very good. If I run my DAC off the NAD, I don't get near the magic. The transport does make a difference in my situation, but everything I've read about the Benchmark is that it is supposed to be very immune to jitter problems, but even so I'm sure it can't fix everything.

were you using a toslink or coax connection?

I think you're absolutely right. Give it some time with a variety of music, you'll see and hear the difference a great DAC can make. I can't imagine owning a CDP without one.

steveinaz

ohskigod wrote:

maybe it just has to have some break in time. My Jolida sounded like **** when i first got it. is there burn in just for DAC's?......anyone?......Bueller?

I would imagine any electrical device benefits from some "on" time. It allows the components to settle in. My DAC1 got smoother with time, though very subtle.

heiney9

Your situation is certainly not the norm when it comes to adding an outboard DAC. I use (2) Dac's one in each of my systems and still hear a huge difference when I take them out of the audio chain. Try looking at it from this point of view.

My Nak by itself before I added the Dac was a pretty decent sounding unit. Actually I thought it sounded great. Had good istrument definition, wasn't too harsh and had nice presentation of the soundstage charateristics. But one thing I started noticing was that almost every recording sounded the same....meaing all the music regardless of the type had the same presentation sort of a 2-dimensional thing going on. When the Dac was added to the audio chain, it completely opened up, it could be subtle but at the same time instantly noticeable. The soundstage on different recordings suddenly came into focus and had layering of vocal and instruments I hadn't heard before. It seemed every recording sounded quite a bit different (which should be the case) as each disc is recorded differently. The cymbals had all sorts of natural decay which I was missing before. There was distinct delineation on bass notes that I hadn't noticed before and the 'bloated bass' that I was so used to before was completely gone. Bass sounded much more natural and was much more extended. It actually came across as a lack of bass until I got used to how it was intended to sound. The 'openess and airyness up top is the best thing. Everything was just so much more lush sounding and had incredible depth. The noise floor was much lower and on a lot of discs I could actually hear the singer breathing during the recording which I had never heard before. Also pickup on fingernails scraping against strings on a acoustic guitar...stuff like that is so apparent now. I can actually hear the organic plucking of the acoustic bass. On one Jewel song I never noticed the maracas playing until I heard it thru my Adcom Dac. Each recording sounded different and had it's own signature which I hadn't noticed before. To me it was pretty instant but for your situation maybe you need to spend a little more time with the unit to get out of it what it's capable of doing.

All mid-level cdp's by NAD, NAK, Denon, Sony, Onix, Cambridge, Yam, Rotel, etc. are nice sounding units but they will never outperform a high end DAC regardless of the transport you use. So while your NAD is a nice sounding unit the Benchmark hooked in the audio chain should be giving you better results.

Maybe all our hype has lead you to set your expectations artifically high and now your mind is playing tricks on you. Don't laugh this is very possible that in your mind you were expecting someting so big and now since it's less than expected you're not processing the true difference that's there. Kind of a let down effect. Who knows???? Just trying to throw out some possibilities here.

What else are using in the system? If you still have it, give it another shot and make sure to use a variety of music.

Good luck I hope it works out for you

H9

heiney9

Forgot to add a good demo disc on my last post....If you own or know someone who owns Jewel-Spirit cd this is a great demo disc. It's very well recorded, close mic technics, acoustic guitar, great cymbal work and solid drums and well defined bass very little processing on the recording and oh...what a beautiful voice. Very open and dynamic recording. If you don't hear a difference on this recording you have some other issues

FWIW

H9

W WALDECKER

all audio tweaks are subjective what sounds good to one person may have the exact 180 degree effect on someone else. dont worry what everyone else is buying or doing to thier audio systems. in the end you can only please yourself. we all hear and perceive music differently. i dont own a outboard dac. this is something i have been considering but my system sounds very good to me now so it is not a big priority at this time. maybe you could demo some dacs in your system or just put them on the back burner until you come across one you like.........WCWIII

heiney9

W WALDECKER wrote:

all audio tweaks are subjective what sounds good to one person may have the exact 180 degree effect on someone else. dont worry what everyone else is buying or doing to thier audio systems. in the end you can only please yourself. we all hear and perceive music differently. i dont own a outboard dac. this is something i have been considering but my system sounds very good to me now so it is not a big priority at this time. maybe you could demo some dacs in your system or just put them on the back burner until you come across one you like.........WCWIII

I agree with you.....but the reason your system sounds so good and a Dac is not a big priority is because your Symphonic Line Vibrato is a high end player (as is the rest of your system) that probably sounds as good or better than most high-end stand alone Dac's. I still personally believe a great way to improve a system with a mid-level cdp is to add a high quality outboard Dac. It's night and day, IMO.

But we all have different idea's about how it should sound, etc.....and what part of the audio chain is the weak link, etc...

H9

pearsall001

Yo guys, thanks for all the great responses!
Maybe it's me? I might have been looking for too much of a WOW factor. But I can sit here while typing this & say w/ a straight face I did not hear any noticable difference in the sound when the DAC was in-line. When I hear heiney9 say that there was a HUGE DIFFERENCE, steveinaz says that it TRANSFORMED his system, that's the kind of WOW factor I was expecting. I don't want to sit there & question if the guitar strings sound better or the cymbals crash better or the voices have more air. I want it to jump out & bite me, as in WOW I really hear a better sound! Any time I upgrade, especially paying a nice piece of change for the item I expect it to be quite a noticable difference or the upgrade to me isn't worth it. Talking to Benchmark they did say that the transport should not make a real difference in the DAC's performance. It is merely sending the signal to the DAC which in turn does it's job.

heiney9

pearsall001 wrote:

Yo guys, thanks for all the great responses!
Maybe it's me? I might have been looking for too much of a WOW factor. But I can sit here while typing this & say w/ a straight face I did not hear any noticable difference in the sound when the DAC was in-line. When I hear heiney9 say that there was a HUGE DIFFERENCE, steveinaz says that it TRANSFORMED his system, that's the kind of WOW factor I was expecting. I don't want to sit there & question if the guitar strings sound better or the cymbals crash better or the voices have more air. I want it to jump out & bite me, as in WOW I really hear a better sound! Any time I upgrade, especially paying a nice piece of change for the item I expect it to be quite a noticable difference or the upgrade to me isn't worth it. Talking to Benchmark they did say that the transport should not make a real difference in the DAC's performance. It is merely sending the signal to the DAC which in turn does it's job.

I dunno man....I'm at a loss All I can add is just make sure you've given a fair amount of time to evaluate it. If you have a 30 day return policy...use all 30 days. Atleast you're giving your best and if just doesn't float your boat...then that's it. It's really designed to bring everything into focus musically...it's not going to bash upside your head. But the cumulitave effect of eveything sounding truer more in focus should make a marked difference.

Not trying to be critical just trying to get a better understanding...what music are you using, amp, pre, speaks, etc.....

Ultimately it just may not be what you're looking for

Again good luck and if you haven't given it serious seat time, try it; it certainly can't hurt

H9

EDIT: I re-read your oringinal post and now see what equip you are using...my bad

pearsall001

Only 3 pieces of gear used. The Benchmark DAC, modded Jolida 502B int. tube amp, Energy Connoisseur C-7's. All tied together with the cable supplied by Benchmark & Signal cables silver resolution analog IC's. It can't get any simpler than that. Still no difference in the sound to me.

heiney9

Well you gave it a good shot....still at a loss. That's excellent equip and the NAD w/out the Dac isn't the same caliber as your other equip. The Benchmark should have been a 'nirvana' piece for your system In the end ya gotta go with what you hear, or don't hear, your ears don't lie.

H9

pearsall001

Oh I forgot the music: Elton John, Nora Jones, Chris Botti, Mariah Carey, Ray Charles, James Taylor, Henry Mancini, KD Lang, Diana Krall, Martina McBride, LeAnn Rimes, Beatles, Steppenwolf, Steve Miller, Shania Twain, Gordon Lightfoot, Alabama, Charlie Daniels, Dan Fogelberg, The Boss, Meatloaf, Warren Zevon, just to name a few. I threw everything but the kitchen sink at it & I still did not hear any better sound.

dragon1952

One thing that never gets mentioned in our upgrade paths is ourselves. I think this is a prime example. You need to upgrade yourself, man. New ear drums, hammer, anvil, cochlea....the works. Go for it dude!

steveinaz

For me the "wow" factor was really how easy the Benchmark made everything sound. It wasn't so much that something had been added, but more like the digital glare was gone. Well recorded CD's sound like a "digital turntable." The 2-dimensional sound turned into a 3-D soundstage with instruments appearing to hang in front of, behind, and to the side of the speakers, as if on an invisable wire. Mid-bass had serious drive again.

In a nutshell, the DAC1 (for my system) just made everything far more listenable and realistic in scale.

Zero may have nailed it with the 'synergy" factor.

You gave it a shot, what the heck, Benchmark has a great return policy. I have a feeling your Energy C-7's may have given you all the "audio nervana" you needed; I know I attribute my satisfaction with my system to my C-9's, best speakers I've owned in 23 years.

W WALDECKER

Zero wrote:

You could bring in some of the most renouned pieces of a given price class, lump them together, and obtain only modest performance. I am not certain what is resulting in the lack of performance with the Benchmark in the loop - but it is most likely another fine example of the often uncertain realm of 'synergy'.

you did hit the nail on the head!you could take a fifty thousand dollar audio rig vs a modest system and the modest system may have better sound based on how well the components interact with each other. synergy is a huge factor in any audio system. the lack of synergy could make the high ticket system sound like fingernails on a chalk board!

W WALDECKER

heiney9 wrote:

I agree with you.....but the reason your system sounds so good and a Dac is not a big priority is because your Symphonic Line Vibrato is a high end player (as is the rest of your system) that probably sounds as good or better than most high-end stand alone Dac's. I still personally believe a great way to improve a system with a mid-level cdp is to add a high quality outboard Dac. It's night and day, IMO.

But we all have different idea's about how it should sound, etc.....and what part of the audio chain is the weak link, etc...

H9

the amount of money i have spent on my system does not factor into how good it sounds. if i fell into the trap of buying my system from a highend audio dealership the amount of money i spent would barely get me into entry level equipment. i agree that my system sounds highend but i did not pay a kings ransom for it.i bought my cd player used for a once in a lifetime price and the only reason i was looking at dacs was for upsampling capability but i may just send my cd player back to Germany to have it converted to the latest Mk II 24 bit version that costs around 1.100 usd for the conversion. why ? synergy!

PolkThug

You did the right thing. Tried it out, realized it didn't make a difference, and got your money back. Now, you still have the money to keep on trying out other things.

tryrrthg

PolkThug wrote:

You did the right thing. Tried it out, realized it didn't make a difference, and got your money back. Now, you still have the money to keep on trying out other things.

That's what happened in my situation. I bought the Bel Canto DAC2 and it didn't blow my skirt up. It sounded good when running off my NAD CD player but it just wasn't worth the BIG money difference. So I decided to sell the DAC2 and buy the Bel Canto DAC1.1 and a better transport, all for the same money as the DAC2. WOW, much bigger difference. I'm guessing the NAD as a transport is what kept my DAC2 from really shining. But by buying the DAC1.1 for half the cost I probably got 95% of the performance of the DAC2. It was a win win situation for me.

heiney9

W WALDECKER wrote:

the amount of money i have spent on my system does not factor into how good it sounds. if i fell into the trap of buying my system from a highend audio dealership the amount of money i spent would barely get me into entry level equipment. i agree that my system sounds highend but i did not pay a kings ransom for it.i bought my cd player used for a once in a lifetime price and the only reason i was looking at dacs was for upsampling capability but i may just send my cd player back to Germany to have it converted to the latest Mk II 24 bit version that costs around 1.100 usd for the conversion. why ? synergy!

I wasn't nec saying that $$$ = sound quality. I was trying to point out that your cdp certainly is of much higher quality than the Nad he was using, closer to what I would think the Benchmark + the Nad should sound like. I also realize there are systems 2x, 5x, 10x the price you paid for yours. Fact is you have a great system; and it seems to have that all elusive "synergy" we are all looking for.

heiney9

tryrrthg wrote:

That's what happened in my situation. I bought the Bel Canto DAC2 and it didn't blow my skirt up. It sounded good when running off my NAD CD player but it just wasn't worth the BIG money difference. So I decided to sell the DAC2 and buy the Bel Canto DAC1.1 and a better transport, all for the same money as the DAC2. WOW, much bigger difference. I'm guessing the NAD as a transport is what kept my DAC2 from really shining. But by buying the DAC1.1 for half the cost I probably got 95% of the performance of the DAC2. It was a win win situation for me.

Ok...I'm going to get in trouble here but this is what I believe......I'm not completely convinced that the transport makes all that much difference in the sound quality. Sure an el cheapo player vs. a well built unit...maybe. What is it about a transport that makes everyone think they sound different?

I recently have been doing a lot of reading on how a cpd works and I'm just not convinced that the MECHANICAL transport has much impact if any on how it sounds. I recently tore apart (2) players to get a look at the guts and see if I could fix them myself. I used to believe that a soild sturdy tray was the sign of a great sounding cdp. Guess what I have my well built Nak (OMS 4A) and and Pioneer DVD 333 which is not built so well and the tray on thr Nak is solid, smooth, rugged and the Pioneer is flimsy, noisy, cheap. I've found that all the tray does is transport the disc into the unit to get in line for the spindle and clamp. That's it....it has no other function or purpose and once the spindle engages the tray ceases to have any part of the cdp output. Sure it's nice to have a smooth quiet solid tray; is it nec for good sound, not in my opinion.

Next the spindle engages and the clamp engages and the cd is now ready to be read by the laser. The laser assembly is pretty much the same for many units. There have been variations over the years between 3 beam and single beam pick ups but they all pretty much work the same. Todays laser assemblies are exteremly compact and fewer moving part than some of the older ones. And there really are only a handful that actually produce the laser assemblies. My Nak has a Sony unit in it. Basically the laser assembly is on a suspension and is attatched to some sort of sliding track so it can move as nec. That's pretty much it for the mechanical portion of the transport.....from this point forward it's all about the electrical components doing their thing.

In essence, the optical pickup is an electronically steered and stabilized microscope which is extracting information from tracks 1/20 the width of a human red blood cell while flying along at a linear velocity of 1.2 meters per second! The optical pickup must perform all of these functions without any mechanical assistance from the CD. It is guided only be a fraction of a mW of laser light and a few milligrams of silicon based electronic circuitry.

First, laser light that remains precisely parallel - doesn't diverge - only can be found in bad Sci-Fi. Laser light still obeys the laws of physics and in order to get the required spot size on the disc - about 1 micrometer (um), 1,000th of a mm, 1,000,000th of a meter, it needs to be focused precisely at the disc surface. Due to manufacturing tolerances for disc flatness (warp), the surface may move up-and-down as much as 100 times this amount. And disc height from player to player isn't that precise either. Large diameter laser beams can be kept quite parallel but a beam 1 um in diameter would diverge at about a 60 degree angle. The lens in the CD player has a focal length of about 4 mm and focuses the light from a beam a couple millimeters in diameter to a 1 um spot on the disc surface and because of the small depth of focus, the distance needs to be kept constant to 1 or 2 um. For DVD systems, the required precision is even greater.

The digital encoding for error detection and correction is called the Cross Interleave Reed-Solomon Code or CIRC. To describe this as simply as possible, the CIRC code consists of two parts: interleaving of data so that a dropout or damage will be spread over enough physical area (hopefully) to be reconstructed and a CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check) like error correcting code. Taken together, these two techniques are capable of some remarkable error correction. The assumption here is that most errors will occur in bursts as a result of dust specs, scratches, imperfections such as pinholes in the aluminum coating, etc. For example, the codes are powerful enough to totally recover a burst error of greater than 4,000 consecutive bits - about 2.5 mm on the disc. With full error correction implemented (this is not always the case with every CD player), it is possible to put a piece of 2 mm tape radially on the disc or drill a 2 mm hole in the disc and have no audio degradation. Some test CDs have just this type of defect introduced deliberately. Keep in mind this is the standard ALL player use for error correction

Two approaches are taken with uncorrectable errors: interpolation and muting. If good samples surround bad ones, then linear or higher order interpolation may be used to reconstruct them. If too much data has been lost, the audio is smoothly muted for a fraction of a second. Depending on where these errors occur in relation to the musical context, even these drastic measures may be undetectable to the human ear.

I'm gettin off track here....my point is this...seeing as eveything in the system has to be dead on precise to get any sound out of the player it would seem logical that one would need a highly stable, well constructed transport to even begin to get sound....this simply isn't the case.

What it all comes down to is the ELECTRONICS in the unit. Better DAC's, better filter circuits, better clocks, discrete output stages, power supply, high quality components, high quality boards, etc.... IMO the transport has very little to do with the sound you get. Can there be extremes? Absolutely. No doubt longevity of the unit certainly has something to do with how well not only the unit is built but the transport as well. But I'm not talking about longevity I'm talking about sound quality.

This is what I believe. Someone please point out to me a part of the mechanical transport that is so dramatically different between several kinds of players that a noticeable difference in sound can be detected? I will concede 1 point here that I'm still on the fence about and that's jitter....but jitter is not a component of the mechanical transport.

H9

jdhdiggs

Nerd!

heiney9

jdhdiggs wrote:

Nerd!

No....Bored Nerd

PolkThug

Engineering means little here. People will still paint the edges of their CD's green anyway.

Dennis Gardner

heiney9 wrote:

Someone please point out to me a part of the mechanical transport that is so dramatically different between several kinds of players that a noticeable difference in sound can be detected? I will concede 1 point here that I'm still on the fence about and that's jitter....but jitter is not a component of the mechanical transport.

H9

Since it really is a modern downsized version of a turntable.......

How about belt drive vs direct drive, speed control, isolation from disc vibration? You are correct that the tray disengages, but the clamp and drive motor take over the mechanical contact and that is where the differences in build quality show, not the tray. All contribute to the electrical correction components working less. Isn't less correction the goal, or is that not an audible factor?

heiney9

Dennis Gardner wrote:

Since it really is a modern downsized version of a turntable.......

How about belt drive vs direct drive, speed control, isolation from disc vibration? You are correct that the tray disengages, but the clamp and drive motor take over the mechanical contact and that is where the differences in build quality show, not the tray. All contribute to the electrical correction components working less. Isn't less correction the goal, or is that not an audible factor?

As far as I know atleast for the spindle drive that's direct, servo's control the speed and as long as it's within certain parameters it functions with no audible affects. Also remember speed has nothing to do with pitch on a cd player, it's simply the rate at which data needs to be extrated to the buffer so there are no interuptions in the data stream. And of course speed flucuations are needed because of the greater diameter of the outter portion of the disc vs. the inner portion. Thats my point there is no mechanical contact. Vibration?? How does vibration in the mechanical transport affect sound? On the extreme absolutely it affects it, but otherwise how? The clamp makes sure the disc is stable while it spins, but as I pointed out earlier a disc be 'off' up to 100 times the standard 1 micrometer that is needed for the laser to focus. The contact point for the spidle and clamp are pretty small for most transports. So yes a better clamping system may reduce this amount, but can that reduction be heard? If so, why? Isn't that the goal of the correction circuits....so there can be a greater variance from disc to disc (which there absolutely is) and still get the correct sound. Error correction was designed to allow variation in discs and correct for flaws on discs...not to compensate for transport issues. However, that may be a secondary outcome. I don't nec think error correction is a negative thing. Theoretically less error correction should be better....but how audible is it until it reaches the absolute extreme where we start hearing drop outs and glitches? Can anyone realistically say that they can detect when the error correction circuits are working just by listening, other than what I've described above?

I guess this is ultimately going to come down with a debate about error correction...how much is too much...can it be heard...does it affect the sound...etc.

H9

heiney9

PolkThug wrote:

Engineering means little here. People will still paint the edges of their CD's green anyway.

Understood just thought I'd try to have a stimulating debate. God knows I don't always believe the hard facts.....and believe it or not I'm really on the fence about the issue of transports etc...But logic doesn't lie sometimes and the further I understand the engineering the less I believe the so called "myths".

Hell...it's a crap shoot

H9