-
When should you upgrade your hi-fi? How to control ‘upgradeitis’
Benchmark DAC2 HGC - A new reference?
- Thread starter krolikgena
- Start date
As a DAC1 owner I'm interested to see what the reviews are like for this one. Also, what features and prices the more stripped down versions will have. It is smart to see Benchmark go in the opposite direction this time (from flagship to base) assuming that is what they are doing.
I think:
- technically: likely to be state of the art, have top build quality and accurate sound
- some very useful features: HT bypass, 12V triggers, passthrough, plenty of inputs and outputs
- some not so useful features: like DSD
- looks: very debatable (black may look better?)
- price: a bit high
I wonder if they reduced the brightness of the LEDs - they are way too bright on the HDR.
- technically: likely to be state of the art, have top build quality and accurate sound
- some very useful features: HT bypass, 12V triggers, passthrough, plenty of inputs and outputs
- some not so useful features: like DSD
- looks: very debatable (black may look better?)
- price: a bit high
I wonder if they reduced the brightness of the LEDs - they are way too bright on the HDR.
SpursGator
Well-known member
I have had my DAC1 since 2002, when nobody had heard of it. I absolutely love it - it's the only thing in my system that has not changed since 2002 (in fact I think everything else in my main system has changed at least twice).
So of course I am intrigued. Is it really possible, with my somewhat-high-end-but hardly-exotic system, that I would replace the DAC1 with the DAC2 and immediately notice a $1000 difference? Doesn't seem possible...but usually when reviewers test an ultra-high-end DAC they do get really excited. People always claimed that the Benchmark DAC1 was so good that you had to spend 10x its cost to do much better (not true, but 3x or 4x might well be true). So if the DAC1 indeed sounds like a $3000 DAC for $1000 (which is the root of the legend around this product), then what does their $2000 DAC sound like? A $10,000 Zanden that has made some reviewers actually wet themselves? That's not possible, right?
What is clear to me is that this product is very much targeted towards audiophiles. The DAC1 was already legendary among professional musicians even before audiophiles discovered it. BM later sold versions of it that were clearly designed for audiophiles (the DAC1 USB and Pre) but they were really just repackagings of the same basic DAC.
The DAC2 seems to be different. The professional market is already well-served by the super-accurate DAC1 and mostly will see no reason to pay double for the new one. On the other hand - and here's the proof that they are really going for it - they throw in that little American bit that says, "Discover the analog sound of the DAC2 HGC." I don't think that an 'analog' sound is designed to attract guys building pro rigs...we the audiophiles are now firmly in the sights of this company (finally).
After listening to the DAC1 for ten years, the only real criticism is that it's just a bit clinical. The turntable junkies are always stunned by how much better 'digital' can sound when they hear it, but it still doesn't flow with enough warmth to make them give up the game, especially with CDs - DVDs and high res are another story (note to turntable junkies: the scientific term for that warmth is called 'distortion' - but it's ok, I like it too). The tubes in my Pathos, speaking of distortion, smooth this out rather nicely actually...which brings me back to...
How much better can it really be? I suspect they just tinkered with it to sound warmer and more analogue, then slapped a bigger price on it for us fools to pay. But you never know. There are few products that have shaken up this market in the last 15 years like the 'accidental' success of the DAC1. Maybe they can do it again.
So of course I am intrigued. Is it really possible, with my somewhat-high-end-but hardly-exotic system, that I would replace the DAC1 with the DAC2 and immediately notice a $1000 difference? Doesn't seem possible...but usually when reviewers test an ultra-high-end DAC they do get really excited. People always claimed that the Benchmark DAC1 was so good that you had to spend 10x its cost to do much better (not true, but 3x or 4x might well be true). So if the DAC1 indeed sounds like a $3000 DAC for $1000 (which is the root of the legend around this product), then what does their $2000 DAC sound like? A $10,000 Zanden that has made some reviewers actually wet themselves? That's not possible, right?
What is clear to me is that this product is very much targeted towards audiophiles. The DAC1 was already legendary among professional musicians even before audiophiles discovered it. BM later sold versions of it that were clearly designed for audiophiles (the DAC1 USB and Pre) but they were really just repackagings of the same basic DAC.
The DAC2 seems to be different. The professional market is already well-served by the super-accurate DAC1 and mostly will see no reason to pay double for the new one. On the other hand - and here's the proof that they are really going for it - they throw in that little American bit that says, "Discover the analog sound of the DAC2 HGC." I don't think that an 'analog' sound is designed to attract guys building pro rigs...we the audiophiles are now firmly in the sights of this company (finally).
After listening to the DAC1 for ten years, the only real criticism is that it's just a bit clinical. The turntable junkies are always stunned by how much better 'digital' can sound when they hear it, but it still doesn't flow with enough warmth to make them give up the game, especially with CDs - DVDs and high res are another story (note to turntable junkies: the scientific term for that warmth is called 'distortion' - but it's ok, I like it too). The tubes in my Pathos, speaking of distortion, smooth this out rather nicely actually...which brings me back to...
How much better can it really be? I suspect they just tinkered with it to sound warmer and more analogue, then slapped a bigger price on it for us fools to pay. But you never know. There are few products that have shaken up this market in the last 15 years like the 'accidental' success of the DAC1. Maybe they can do it again.
I think it will not be possible to hear any difference in sound and the update is mainly for some headline features like asynch usb, dsd etc and some practical features like HT bypass, i/o, triggers - which should inrease its appeal to audiophiles and those wanting better system integration and/or use it as the main preamp.
REVIEW:
http://everythingaudionetwork.blogspot.se/2012/10/exclusive-first-review-benchmark-media.html
:dance:
:bounce:
:cheers:
http://everythingaudionetwork.blogspot.se/2012/10/exclusive-first-review-benchmark-media.html
:dance:
:bounce:
:cheers:
SpursGator
Well-known member
NHL said:
The reviewer sais, in effect, that the answer to my question is yes - he swapped out the DAC1 and noticed a stunning difference.
Well f me.
Quote...
The DAC2‘s audio performance is stunning — in that it projects a smoother texture, with increased accuracy in the bass and mid-frequency soundstage. But the top-end is full of energy and detail. Usually, a DAC’s subjective improvements are subtle, but the DAC2 HGC’s audible improvements are obvious on first listen.
This says it all. The thing is most people in this budget range will expect better looks, although there is no questioning the build.
The DAC2‘s audio performance is stunning — in that it projects a smoother texture, with increased accuracy in the bass and mid-frequency soundstage. But the top-end is full of energy and detail. Usually, a DAC’s subjective improvements are subtle, but the DAC2 HGC’s audible improvements are obvious on first listen.
This says it all. The thing is most people in this budget range will expect better looks, although there is no questioning the build.
this review is meaningless (apart from listing and interpreting the features).
On sound quality, as any subjective review, it is nothing more than a set of comments that are impossible to take into account in any way. Just a positive subjective review.
On sound quality, as any subjective review, it is nothing more than a set of comments that are impossible to take into account in any way. Just a positive subjective review.
SpursGator
Well-known member
AlmaataKZ said:
Well, he does an A/B comparison with the DAC1, and reports that not only is there a difference, but it was instantly obvious on first listen, even before doing A/B testing. So he's heard the machine and is offering a subjective, but hardly meaningless, answer to my question. Yes, he hears a difference, and no, it is not subtle. Others may disagree but the fact that the first guy who heard it has this opinion is not meaningless at all. It's what I was asking.
Book reviews are subjective too - and books do not have technical specs or measurements. Are they meaningless too? Movie reviews - the plot summary matters but the rest is impossible to take into account in any way? Of course you may disagree with a reviewer sometimes or often, and some reviewers may be biased (how did this guy get the first review unit when according to WHF they have never received a review unit from Benchmark even as it became one of the biggest stories in hifi in the last 12 years?).
But opinions are not meaningless just because they are opinions. Our civilisation rests on this not being true.
SpursGator said:
Nothing wrong with subjective reviews, they are just low on useful, usable info for comparing and making decisions. This is especially true for gear, where (also, if not principally) objective performance is in question and not just subjective opinion, like e.g. with wines, books, movies etc.
Re A/B comparisons - I do not take any notice of them unless done blind and statistically valid.
I highly doubt that there is any audible difference between the sound of Dac1 and dac2 (even if there are measureable improvements in some performance parameters like distortion and s/n ratio). As mentioned above, I think dac2 is about introducing audiophile (async, dsd) and practical (i/o, triggers, HT bypass) features in response to the market and maybe user requests. Which I think is fantastic, btw.
AlmaataKZ said:
how can a device which exhibits pre and post ringing have accurate sound at the same time :?
jaxwired
Well-known member
I like how long it took benchmark to update the original DAC1. They had a very long run with no meaningful changes. This implies they waited until they really had something worth changing.
I have to ask "anti-Hifi for Life!" how the DAC2/Power amp matches up to his departed(?) (out of interest) NAD M2, as the new NAD M51 / 390DD also have a similar DAC and are very highly rated.
-N-
-N-
jaxwired
Well-known member
Neon K said:
To be honest, I thought I had an amp I could stick with in the M2. I loved the NAD M2. Best integrated I've ever owned. It was a bit on the smooth/dark side, but the clarity was still outstanding and you can crank the heck out of it and the sound never gets harsh. And the NAD M2 has the best bass I've ever experienced. The bass is to die for. So why'd I switch off the M2, well, I really hate to say anything negative about NAD since I really like their products but...I went through 3 different M2s. All 3 had serious operational defects. And none of the 3 had the same issue. 3 units, 3 different problems. And I'm not talking about nit picking issues, these were problems that rendered the amp non functional entirely. I finally gave up. And there was no way I could ask my dealer for a 4th unit. It was a miserable situation. I miss the M2. Wish I could have kept it.
Now, with that explained, regarding the DAC2 HGC, well, it's hard to say if it's an improvement over the DAC1 since I am using the DAC2 as a preamp and I never did with the DAC1. I can tell you that the DAC2 sounds very good to me. I can also tell you that the DAC2 acting as a preamp into my Belles amp is a more open, slightly more transparent sound than the M2. The bass is not as good, but I think that's the amp, not the DAC.
jaxwired said:
Well maybe another Class D poweramp is in your future: a Bel Canto, Wyred4Sound, AR or Roguee?
'Tis a pity as I was looking forward to seeing your M2 on A-gon and was considering it. Makes me a little hesitant on the other s/h ones out there; glad you went through a dealer.
I'm hoping W4S will put their DAC into their larger Integrated amps, I'm sure it's coming. I think the Benchmark has the perfect feature set though.
-N-
Chippy_boy
Well-known member
I am reminded of the review of the DAC1-HDR by The Audio Critic. Here's their summary:
http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=40&blogId=1
The Sound[/b]
I am adding this paragraph strictly for the sake of my newer readers. The old regulars know exactly my position regarding the stupidity of ascribing a “character” to the sound of an utterly neutral signal path. Oohing and aahing over the vast improvement in soundstaging, front-to-back depth, bass delineation, or treble sweetness obtainable with this or that electronic component may sell high-end magazines but is totally unscientific and delusional. What the Benchmark DAC1 HDR adds to or subtracts from its input signal is borderline unmeasurable, so the sonic character of its output is obviously the sonic character of its input. It’s as simple as that. It has no sound of its own. Furthermore, its measurements could be 20 or 30 dB worse and it would still sound the same. I have convinced myself of that over and over again in double-blind listening comparisons of all sorts of electronic components at matched levels. The 100% purity of the DAC1 HDR is of benefit mainly in professional systems, where the integrity of the equipment chain needs to be verified and guaranteed. To audiophiles it’s a somewhat abstract luxury—but not an excessively costly one.
Conclusion[/b]
All in all, the Benchmark DAC1 HDR is damn close to a perfect piece of equipment. Neither its digital performance nor its analog performance could be meaningfully improved. That’s really all that needs to be said. If I could change anything at all about it, it would be to add a couple more analog inputs. I realize that there is no room for that, so I use a small input switch box that sits on top of it. Most users won’t need it. There exist DACs and preamps at ten times the price of the Benchmark, but they aren’t any better. Let the high-end police come and take me away in handcuffs.
It is inconceivable to me that the DAC2 could be head and shoulders better sounding than the DAC1. If that was the case it would demonstrate that the DAC1 is a very poor DAC, which very clearly it is not.
The sound differences must be marginal at best, and probably in audible. Certainly I expect I would not be able to hear any difference. There comes a point when - unless you have limitless money - something is actually "good enough", and I think the DAC1 already reached that point. That said, if I did not already own a DAC1, I would likely buy a DAC2 in preference to a DAC1 as the marginal price hike does seem worth it for the extra features.
http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=40&blogId=1
The Sound[/b]
I am adding this paragraph strictly for the sake of my newer readers. The old regulars know exactly my position regarding the stupidity of ascribing a “character” to the sound of an utterly neutral signal path. Oohing and aahing over the vast improvement in soundstaging, front-to-back depth, bass delineation, or treble sweetness obtainable with this or that electronic component may sell high-end magazines but is totally unscientific and delusional. What the Benchmark DAC1 HDR adds to or subtracts from its input signal is borderline unmeasurable, so the sonic character of its output is obviously the sonic character of its input. It’s as simple as that. It has no sound of its own. Furthermore, its measurements could be 20 or 30 dB worse and it would still sound the same. I have convinced myself of that over and over again in double-blind listening comparisons of all sorts of electronic components at matched levels. The 100% purity of the DAC1 HDR is of benefit mainly in professional systems, where the integrity of the equipment chain needs to be verified and guaranteed. To audiophiles it’s a somewhat abstract luxury—but not an excessively costly one.
Conclusion[/b]
All in all, the Benchmark DAC1 HDR is damn close to a perfect piece of equipment. Neither its digital performance nor its analog performance could be meaningfully improved. That’s really all that needs to be said. If I could change anything at all about it, it would be to add a couple more analog inputs. I realize that there is no room for that, so I use a small input switch box that sits on top of it. Most users won’t need it. There exist DACs and preamps at ten times the price of the Benchmark, but they aren’t any better. Let the high-end police come and take me away in handcuffs.
It is inconceivable to me that the DAC2 could be head and shoulders better sounding than the DAC1. If that was the case it would demonstrate that the DAC1 is a very poor DAC, which very clearly it is not.
The sound differences must be marginal at best, and probably in audible. Certainly I expect I would not be able to hear any difference. There comes a point when - unless you have limitless money - something is actually "good enough", and I think the DAC1 already reached that point. That said, if I did not already own a DAC1, I would likely buy a DAC2 in preference to a DAC1 as the marginal price hike does seem worth it for the extra features.
Chippy_boy said:
+1. I wouldn't mind some extra optical inputs. And thankyou for bringing The Audio Critic to my attention, they have this on their home page: Until early 2005, this was a print publication. Our migration to the Internet has not changed our basic approach to audio reviewing. Determining the accuracy of audio reproduction is a completely objective process. Evaluating aesthetic satisfaction derived from audio reproduction is, on the other hand, totally subjective. Critics who confuse or conflate the two are doing the consumer a great disservice and are responsible for most of the grotesque misinformation that blights today's audio journalism. We believe in measuring and we believe in listening but we don't believe in measuring with our ears. I think I'm in love!
I almost wish I was in the market for some new kit. :read:if you don't mind i'll quote another opinion from Stereophile, where a top Bel Canto Dac 3.5VB is reviewed and compared to Benchmark Dac1 HDR.
" The Sound of Silence
The e.One DAC3.5VB didn't sound like anything. Tonally, it had no sonic character of its own. Bass was very extended and full, yet had nice slam. The bass-drum machines in Kraftwerk's nicely remastered Trans Europe Express (CD, Kling Klang 5099930830325) were delivered with both speed and weight. (It frightens me that this album was made when I was still in diapers.) The DAC3.5VB's midrange was fleshy, even, and full of texture. Gidon Kremer's violin in Vladimir Martynov's exquisite Come In! (CD, Nonesuch 79582-2) offered the right balance of the instrument's wooden body, steel strings, and rosined bow.
The DAC3.5VB's treble was among the cleanest, clearest, and most extended I've heard, and imposed no emphasis or grain on any recording I played. For me, the differences between the good and the best digital sound can be most easily heard in the top octaves. Good digital gear gets the tonal balance in the top octaves right, but smears and smooshes treble sounds into slightly homogenized information. The best digital gear delineates each treble sound in space and with a distinct timbre—sibilants sound like sibilants, shakers like shakers, cymbals like cymbals—each surrounded by the proper halo of acoustic. In this regard, the DAC3.5VB produced among the best digital sound I've heard."
/............./
"It's now 2011, and I thought I'd set up a shoot-out between each company's latest models, the e.One DAC3.5VB and the DAC1 HDR ($1895). I matched the volume levels between the DACs with a RadioShack SPL meter and the test tones on Editor's Choice (CD, Stereophile STPH015-2), then played some tunes, beginning with a track from that same disc: pianist Robert Silverman's reading of Liszt's Liebestraum.
There was very little tonal difference between the DACs. Each presented a very neutral and revealing picture of this piano playing in this hall, the Bel Canto letting me more easily "see" the piano's outline in relief against its acoustic surroundings.
It was when I turned to music with more complicated mixes and more information at the frequency extremes that the Bel Canto outshone the Benchmark. The DAC3.5VB had deeper bass, a sweeter, more extended, more grain-free treble, a more liquid midrange, and a bigger, more layered soundstage. Don't get me wrong, the Benchmark DAC1 HDR is a fantastic product, but I feel that the DAC3.5VB's clearly superior performance entirely justifies its significantly higher price. In fact, I think the Bel Canto e.One DAC3.5VB is in a league altogether different from the still-impressive Benchmark DAC1 HDR."
So if the Benchmark has already reached perfection 10 years ago, why there is still room for improvement?
this race will never end..
" The Sound of Silence
The e.One DAC3.5VB didn't sound like anything. Tonally, it had no sonic character of its own. Bass was very extended and full, yet had nice slam. The bass-drum machines in Kraftwerk's nicely remastered Trans Europe Express (CD, Kling Klang 5099930830325) were delivered with both speed and weight. (It frightens me that this album was made when I was still in diapers.) The DAC3.5VB's midrange was fleshy, even, and full of texture. Gidon Kremer's violin in Vladimir Martynov's exquisite Come In! (CD, Nonesuch 79582-2) offered the right balance of the instrument's wooden body, steel strings, and rosined bow.
The DAC3.5VB's treble was among the cleanest, clearest, and most extended I've heard, and imposed no emphasis or grain on any recording I played. For me, the differences between the good and the best digital sound can be most easily heard in the top octaves. Good digital gear gets the tonal balance in the top octaves right, but smears and smooshes treble sounds into slightly homogenized information. The best digital gear delineates each treble sound in space and with a distinct timbre—sibilants sound like sibilants, shakers like shakers, cymbals like cymbals—each surrounded by the proper halo of acoustic. In this regard, the DAC3.5VB produced among the best digital sound I've heard."
/............./
"It's now 2011, and I thought I'd set up a shoot-out between each company's latest models, the e.One DAC3.5VB and the DAC1 HDR ($1895). I matched the volume levels between the DACs with a RadioShack SPL meter and the test tones on Editor's Choice (CD, Stereophile STPH015-2), then played some tunes, beginning with a track from that same disc: pianist Robert Silverman's reading of Liszt's Liebestraum.
There was very little tonal difference between the DACs. Each presented a very neutral and revealing picture of this piano playing in this hall, the Bel Canto letting me more easily "see" the piano's outline in relief against its acoustic surroundings.
It was when I turned to music with more complicated mixes and more information at the frequency extremes that the Bel Canto outshone the Benchmark. The DAC3.5VB had deeper bass, a sweeter, more extended, more grain-free treble, a more liquid midrange, and a bigger, more layered soundstage. Don't get me wrong, the Benchmark DAC1 HDR is a fantastic product, but I feel that the DAC3.5VB's clearly superior performance entirely justifies its significantly higher price. In fact, I think the Bel Canto e.One DAC3.5VB is in a league altogether different from the still-impressive Benchmark DAC1 HDR."
So if the Benchmark has already reached perfection 10 years ago, why there is still room for improvement?
this race will never end..
Overdose
Well-known member
krolikgena said:
That reads as a rather flowery and typically vague hifi review to me and doesn't really tell anyone anything of any real worth, only that the reviewer prefers the Bel Canto.
The race is already over as far as audibility goes. Once you reach audible transparency, where else is left to go?
The advancements for the latest Benchmark DAC are mainly of functionality, the unit measures better, but as I've said, the DAC1 was already transparent so the new better measurements are basically only for bragging rights in a home audio situation.
Just to highlight one small part of that review, "The DAC3.5VB had deeper bass...". This is quite clearly completely untrue. The Benchmark is flat to below 10hz! How on earth can it have 'deeper bass' when the Benchmark goes lower than can be heard? Subjective reviews are unreliable and worthless.
Sorry to butt in on this debate, but if i was to buy a Dac1 could i connect my CD-T80 up to it and what would be the best way? I noticed the balanced outputs which is grande as i have balance inputs on my pwr amp...... also are all units universal 115/240v?
Thanks in advance
MrB
Thanks in advance
MrB
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Something is not right and I’m hoping a forum member will help me
- Started by Fuel4life1234
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram