Benchmark DAC2 HGC

[KingFiercer 323 4 Тракты]

Я ещё)

[kachinskii 150]

Первый обзор

http://everythingaudionetwork.blogspot. ... media.html

[ALF 182]

Заочно окрещу его отличным. Но предпочел бы авторский, вылизанный, почти бескомпромиссный дак +)

Бенчмарк молодцы, молодцы. Народ начнет сливать первую версию дешевле при переходе на второй. Уже видел за 20к

[clubnewmen 3 321 2 Тракты]

Убрать поддержку DSD и цап перестает быть интересным за эти деньги. Впрочем он и самый дорогой из доступной троицы Mytek, Chord.

[deeone 81]

А вот еще какой появился ЦАП, тоже с поддержкой DSD: http://www.digitalaudioblog.com/2012/10 ... a-dac.html

[kachinskii 150]

Неужели никто не купил до сих пор??))ау!

 

Отзыв с форума

I've had a Benchmark DAC2 for nine months and was able to borrow a Mytek DAC for a few days to do a direct comparison. I played 16/44, 24/96, 24/192 and DSD files during the comparison. My conclusion? They are both very good DACs but I prefer the Benchmark's sound and connectivity options.

 

Connectivity: Compared to the Benchmark, the Mytek has more digital connection options but has only one analog input. The Benchmark does not have Firewire and AES/EBU inputs like the Mytek, but the Benchmark's 2nd analog input is more useful to me. The Benchmark's analog line stage is excellent so I use the Benchmark as my preamp and DAC.

 

Interface: The Mytek has more studio-oriented functions than the Benchmark, which may or may not be useful to a hi-fi user. But to pack all those features in there, the Mytek uses a menu navigation system that I found to be a PITA to use. The Benchmark's button and light interface is easier to figure out and use.

 

Sound: The two DACs sound quite similar, but I did hear differences in how high frequencies are reproduced. Compared to the Benchmark, the Mytek sounds a bit rounded off and less extended in the high end. The Benchmark conveys more energy through the upper midrange and treble region which results in better delineation of inner detail, more leading edge transient energy and a bigger, airier sound stage. I would say the Benchmark gets more out of good recordings while the Mytek is more forgiving of rough recordings.

 

Ещё

I had Benchmark DAC2 for about 4 months and my thought of it echoes what russtafarian describes.

Very well extended highs and lows. Clear instrumental separation and good soundstaging width + depthwise.

Very well implemented pre and analog connectivity etc.

Ultimately I compare it against Chord QuteHD and exaSound e20 mkII for a while and ended up selling it.

Even though it sounded great, Chord and exaSound had better synergy with my magnepan + REL setup.

Especially e20 had more PRaT, musicality that I felt slightly missing in DAC2. However when I played DSD64 materials both DAC

sounded equally great.

 

И вот

 

I had both the Benchmark and Mytek in house for a 30-day trial. I preferred the Benchmark (though I ultimately wound up purchasing neither, and got an Exasound e20 instead).

 

I particular, I found the analog volume control on the Mytek poorly implemented, and imparted a veil to the sound. The Mytek used with a digital volume control was better, but I still found the Benchmark more detailed and natural. The sound signature of the two units was fairly similar.

 

Сравнение

We had a great listening session last night. Among other things, we were able to directly compare the Ayre DX-5 DSD to the Benchmark DAC2. The DX-5 is a Universal disc player and USB DAC that goes for around $11k in its current DSD upgraded status. My understanding is that the DX-5 DSD uses the same USB input,DAC circuit/filtering and output stage as the QB-9 DSD DAC. Participants were me, Mr. Benchmark owner; my buddy, Mr. Ayre owner; and our comrade, Mr. Head-fi guy who refereed the match.

 

To get right to the point, the Ayre is a better sounding DAC than the Benchmark. It is more relaxed, refined and liquid sounding while retaining the resolving power and extension of the Benchmark. Very impressive! Now to be fair, one would hope the Ayre sounds better given the price difference. It did. No doubt.

 

Playback setup for the comparison was a Macbook Pro running Amarra and an Audioquest USB cable. The test track was Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On @ 24/192 from HDTracks. We listened for “maximum Marvin mojo” when judging the two DACs. The Benchmark revealed some smooth, suave mojo, but Ayre unleashed “lock up the ladies, Marvin’s in the house” mojo.

 

Some other observations from the evening:

 

Software makes a big difference! We tried Amarra, Decibel, and Jriver on the Mac and Jriver on my Win7 laptop. On the Mac, Amarra is noticeably clearer and more resolving than Decibel. Jriver for Mac is NOT ready for prime time. It sounded inferior to every other hardware/software combo we tried. We only used it for DSDfile playback on the Mac. As for Mac vs. Win, Mac/Amarra and Win/Jriver on the same DAC were both very good and hard to tell apart. Just to show the interactivity of all these factors, Win/Jriver/Benchmark sounded different, but equally as good as Mac/Decibel/Ayre, all other factors being equal. Go figure…

 

Vinyl still rules! We finished our head to head DAC comparison with Steely Dan’s “Hey 19” from Gaucho (24/96 HDTracks). After the Ayre once again revealed its more refined sonics compared to the Benchmark, I pulled out my 33 year old, bought it the week it was released vinyl pressing of Gaucho. From the first to last note, vinyl playback just killed anything we had heard that night from the digital domain. My two guests are not vinyl guys, but they heard it and couldn’t deny it. Kinda depressing that the latest and greatest in digital playback still misses that elusive liveliness that vinyl delivers. Oh well…

 

The Benchmark’s preamp is really good! The cleanest configuration we could come up with for the DACcomparison was to use the Benchmark as a USB DAC/Preamp connected directly to the power amp and send the Ayre DAC’s analog output through the Benchmark’s analog preamp to the power amp. This would theoretically give the Benchmark DAC an inherent advantage in the comparison. But give credit to the resolving power of the preamp. It clearly and cleanly passed on the delicate character of the Ayre DAC as well as the kick-ass energy of the phono rig. I was impressed before. I’m REALLY impressed now.

 

Computer audio comparisons require patience! Switching back and forth between various combinations of computers, playback software and USB DACs can be challenging and frustrating when you just want to get the music flowing. Is the USB cable swapped and properly seated? Is the correct input and volume level selected? What menu setups need to be checked or changed when swapping DACs? Does the software and/or the DAC need to be restarted to establish the USB handshake? It’s a good thing we had two guys there to calm down the guy doing the configuration swaps or stuff might have gotten busted up!

 

All in all, I’m still happy with my Benchmark. I think it acquitted itself pretty well in the comparison. But now I know what better sounds like, and that helps me maintain perspective.

Изменено 29 декабря, 2013 пользователем kachinskii

[Asheraddo 3 754]

Неужели никто не купил до сих пор??))ау!

 

Да у нас народ как-то на комбайны не очень падок Так-то да, судя по забугорным отзывам второй бенчик удался на славу, особенно в режиме DSD.

[kachinskii 150]

Толковое сравнение по ссылке

http://scamperingsea....wordpress.com/

Both DACs arrived and I’ve been burning them in the last few days, settling on system configuration options.

Early thoughts: Benchmark DAC2 HGC via USB – Laptop vs Squeezebox Touch using EDO plugin

• The DAC2?s USB port is very close to the right-angled IEC inlet, meaning it will be hard to have secure connections if your power cord has a humungous plug. Radiuses larger than a Wattgate will be a very tight fit if using USB.
   
  
• USB straight out of my laptop (no matter which port) sounds like dreck with the Benchmark. Congested, 2-dimensional, sibilant, shrill; a smorgasboard of grating digititus.
   
  
• SPDIF out of the Squeezebox Touch (with Triode’s EDO plugin) into the DAC2 sounds great, completely ameliorating (2) – it sounds like a different DAC.
   
  
• Asynchronous USB into the DAC2 from the Touch also works using EDO! It sounds as good as if not better than SPDIF.
   
  
• More comparison between (3) and (4) will follow but this is my first experience proving that it’s critical to isolate computer noise for USB audio to sound any good.
   
  
• I’m now even more in love with my Touch. Very glad I don’t have to fork out for a Mac Mini or CAPS + expensive aftermarket supply + dumb iTunes software add-ons or extra peripheral USB card accessories.
   
  
• I’m not saying dedicated computer servers don’t perform well. I’m saying that making one sound good is expensive and a pain in the arse. The Touch is ridiculously much more cost-effective AND offers a more turnkey experience than buying or building a headless server and then having to optimize it to combat the computer noise which the Touch solves implicitly and elegantly out of the box. This is money saved I’d rather spend on music, booze, eating out…or an even higher end DAC.
  

NAD M51 back in the chain

 

1. Unfortunately, USB out of the Touch into the NAD doesn’t work

2. So I’m going to focus first on comparisons over S/PDIF

3. I’d read some users say they the NAD doesn’t perform as well via USB input than on coax

4. From cursory listening, the NAD doesn’t sound much different to me on any of its various inputs; it seems less sensitive to transport than the DAC2, which would make sense based on its PWM resampling behavior driven by that Zetex technology.

Listening!

 

Parameters:

Listening was conducted on a fine sunny evening in Seattle, on a bottle of Macallan! I’ve run the system in over 4 weeks before critical listening, but looking back, there wasn’t much change in sound beyond 2 weeks. In the end, comparison was done over S/PDIF only from the Squeezebox Touch, and using balanced XLR outputs into the ATC P1. FYI, the DAC2 needs 45 minutes to warm up.

Playlist:

Most every song I used is in this Spotify playlist. I listened to everything in FLAC, though, at good old 16-bit/44.1khz cause…that’s what I listen to.

Cocteau Twins, Serpentskirt

M51: top-end is silky. All strands in the complex mix are intelligible, but vocals are given center stage. Rhythm section detail is present but not over-emphasized.

DAC2: midband and top-end clarity are see-through and sharp. The multi-layered vocals are also discernible though there’s a flatter presentation in terms of stage depth.

Hans Zimmer, A Dark Knight

DAC2: On bass drum flourishes, the Benchmark seems a semi-octave short of sub-bass compared to the M51. Is this brutal accuracy or roll-off? Bass is tight, damped. Energy and attack are present in the crescendo but there’s less finesse when the instrumentation is in full chaotic bloom.

M51: Bass drums are sonorous, with real wallop – like the subwoofer is on…but it’s not! Detail is not thrown at you but you have to peer into the presentation to inspect each orchestral section.

Harry Escott, Unravelling

M51: You hear all the inflections on the strings as the piece reaches its declension. The crescendo is played with real pathos.

DAC2: I didn’t hear as much of the inner harmonics of the strings. The textures seemed less analogue sounding, if you like, more digital? More accurate?

Fuck Buttons, The Lisbon Maru

DAC2: The lower midbass motif is well-defined and sizzles. Sub-bass again is absent compared to the M51, but what bass there is is taut, snappy. Midband and electronic treble noises lose contrast when the song gets overloaded at its end, as if there’s some compression in the presence region.

M51: bass is weighty and fat. Panning stereo effects are well projected and fun to listen to. Drums are less etched than the DAC2. Overall presentation is thicker and more ponderous, but still rhythmic.

Burial, Loner

M51: the drop is really clean – the noise blast near the end is there and doesn’t shred your ears.

DAC2: hoovers up every spectral ambient sample at the opening of the song. Noise blast is more pronounced than the M51 but as the Benchmark again doesn’t dig as deep through the lowest bass, the track loses counterpoint.

Massive Attack, Protection

DAC2: Hi-hats at the intro extremely clear. Presentation tight and punchy, but kind of matter of fact. Tracey Thorn’s vocals sound ultra-clean with no overhang.

M51: It’s less prominent, but you can also hear every filigree of the opening percussion. Thorn’s voice sounds more breathy and lilting. Which is more accurate to the recording? Don’t know without being in the studio.

Radiohead, Arpeggi/Weird Fishes

M51: Wonderful! The drums lead this rendition; guitars layer the rest. Every bass note can be heard loud and clear, and it all converges in a majestic sense of the group’s ensemble performance.

DAC2: guitars are to the fore – drums are less pronounced. Vocals are if anything clearer than the NAD but critically, that lowest bass is again gone missing, making the track sound more dry than juicy.

Iamamiwhoami, Sever

DAC2: the recording quality of this album isn’t the best, but it’s still an absolute cracker of a song. Unusually, the DAC2?s faithfulness to each track in the mix flatters this CD, making the rough splices sound more even as a whole. Timing and tempo stop on a dime.

M51: again handles multi-layered, dense tracks with aplomb. And the bass drop is awesome. Am I a basshead? Who isn’t?

Daughter, Medicine

M51: The NAD’s strengths are expressed once more with subterranean, church-pipe lows and assured command of polyphonous instrumentation. However, it’s slightly unkind to this less than stellar recording, showing up some compression in the vocals.

DAC2: As ever, plays the song cleanly but it’s still lovely. Interestingly, the even-handedness of the Benchmark’s playback presentation also benefits this track by being more forgiving of level imbalances.

Sigur Ros, E-Bow

DAC2: no overhang in any part of the mix – every note is controlled and played clean as a whistle.

M51: Yet having seen Sigur Ros again in concert last week, I can say their engineers mix not only to avoid a piercingly sharp sound, but rather to impart some reverb and well, euphonic distortion in the guitar and e-bow. These are relayed by the NAD. The razor frequencies are there but so is the lowest bass and so are the kick drums, The crescendo is just like at the gig – sonorous, implosive and irradiating.

Benchmark DAC2 HGC Summary

 

The DAC2 lives up to Benchmark’s Pro-Audio background in terms of a detailed, accurate and flat presentation. The midband is crystal clear and utterly shorn of harmonic distortion. Treble is detailed with strong energy in the presence region. Bass is taut and highly damped, yet does not plumb the sub-bass levels that the M51 reaches. Synergy with my ATC gear (already extremely neutral), results in a matter-of-fact, bleached canvas exhibited most on densely layered, complex material. In lieu of not having a separate preamp, I suspect that the motorized analogue pot or different attenuator pad options of the Benchmark’s XLR outputs might cause that, compared to the digital attenutation of the M51?s preamp section.

NAD M51 Summary

 

The M51 has strong, weighty bass that sets a foundation for an even and balanced sound that seems laid back but is in fact highly detailed. You can listen into recordings cause the information is all there, but it’s not doled out bombastically. One might perceive a slower cadence on high-BPM dance music, but in-depth listening confirmed the NAD can rollick along; the Radiohead track proves this most emphatically. Treble energy in the presence region is not as pristine/etched as on the DAC2. It sounds paradoxical; the NAD is not rolled-off but it definitely wraps the most strident leading edges of notes in a sheen of silk which makes female vocals breathy and alluring, yet guitar still sizzles when the recording calls for it. I wouldn’t describe this as tubey-harmonic distortion, but it’s not as ruler flat as the Benchmark here. On my system, it’s a welcome presentation that enhances the listening experience, and therefore I’ll be keeping the NAD.

Closing Thoughts on Synergy and Accuracy vs Euphony

 

I wasn’t certain where I stood on the accuracy vs euphony question. On one hand, everyone wants neutrality in order to listen to a recording as it was mastered. Then again, one listens to music for pleasure, and most modern recordings are not perfect so it makes no sense to have a high-end system that you don’t enjoy listening to your music on. I don’t have much any hi-rez material so I can’t speak to HD/DSD comparisons.

There’s also no such thing as the perfect equipment so system synergy seems a wholly more meaningful, pragmatic pursuit. I should think If your system is already too warm and overly weighted towards the low-end, the M51 may be too much of a good thing. The converse proved true for me. If your system needs a lift in detail without adding warmth, the DAC2 is a rational choice, but it could make things too lean if your gear is already on the analytical side. Insert your subjective listening preferences (i.e. your sonic tastes) based on the kind of music and recordings you listen to, plus the variable of the acoustics in your listening environment, then we’re back to the humdrum adage that you really have to audition things in situ if possible.

Изменено 29 декабря, 2013 пользователем kachinskii

[kachinskii 150]

Супер пупер сравнение http://www.audiostream.com/content/guitar-sings-dsd-dacs-shoot-it-out

Митек, тик 501, дак 2

The Benchmark DAC2 HGC was a mind-blower. Although questions remain as to whether some of its perceived superiority was due to a treble boost that some found worrisome, it produced, on all tracks we auditioned, richer bass, a much bigger soundstage, and greater height.

[uchujin 2]

@kachinskii, а это приборы одного порядка?

 

At session’s end, someone called for a blind listening test. Half the people present said it would be a waste of time, but Walters proceeded. Of the 10 who stuck with it, the only person to correctly guess the identity of the four DACs was seated in the worst listening position.

[kachinskii 150]

@uchujin,

А какие приборы? не могу найти откуда ваша цитата

[uchujin 2]

@kachinskii, дык Митек, тик 501, дак 2

а цитата из статьи Вашей: народ разницу не услышал между девайсами (глухие? )

спрашивал в ветке по митька, но ответа не услышал, может где-то здесь кто знает: что обычно в бандле с самим цапом идет? Силовой кабель с БП? Что будет если купить митька или бенч в америке? В европе?

[kachinskii 150]

Понял о чём вы.

Ну может под конец просто устали и запутались а может разница эфемерна. Кто знает. Митек и бенч - проф даки и должны звучать "никак" по идее. А вот с тиком спутать....ну не знаю

В бандле- силовой кабель, мануал. БП внутри корпуса.

Если купить их в америке или европе, то можно попасть на растаможку, а это 30% от суммы выше 1000 евро, то есть при стоимости бенча2 в 60К получится примерно 60К-45К =15К*0.3.

Я куплю бенча2, но позже, с наушниками заморочки надо разрулить

 

kachinskii, дык Митек, тик 501, дак 2 а цитата из статьи Вашей: народ разницу не услышал между девайсами (глухие? ) спрашивал в ветке по митька, но ответа не услышал, может где-то здесь кто знает: что обычно в бандле с самим цапом идет? Силовой кабель с БП? Что будет если купить митька или бенч в америке? В европе?

Изменено 15 января, 2014 пользователем kachinskii

[kachinskii 150]

Оказывается в дак2 используется чип XMOS , приятная мелочь.

Изменено 22 января, 2014 пользователем kachinskii

[OlegSA 1 516]

В свистке M2Tek второй версии тоже используетася XMOS - вот это действительно приятная мелкая мелочь... А тут при таком ценнике положение обязывает...

[kachinskii 150]

А тут при таком ценнике положение обязывает...

Ну я об этом не знал и не подозревал даже, компания как то не афиширует это, умалчивает.

[ZOZIM 58]

А тут при таком ценнике положение обязывает...

Ну я об этом не знал и не подозревал даже, компания как то не афиширует это, умалчивает.

Они также не офишируют что заместо трансф.питания поставили импульсное.

Но хуже говорят не стал звучать а только лучше.

[kachinskii 150]

Они также не офишируют что заместо трансф.питания поставили импульсное.

Кстати да, блок питания точно другой, свой бенч разбирал - там стоял "традиционный"

Это радует.

[kachinskii 150]

I don't agree that the DAC2 is "not as resolving" as the DAC1. I've had 3 DAC1s over a 10 year period and the DAC2 for over a year and I know the characteristics and sound signatures of both very well. The DAC2, while sounding fuller and smoother, is still more resolving than the DAC1, and that's clearly apparent in listening to the same music on both dacs in an A/B comparison. Small details slightly obscured in the DAC1 are readily apparent in the DAC2. Others have mentioned the same in various reviews of the DAC2. I don't know how Benchmark managed that feat but they did.

Don't know why the poster above is "upset" about Benchmark's ad copy since, IMO, it is right on target. The fact is that current equipment cannot, i.e., is not sensitive enough, to measure certain characteristics of the DAC2 (but the same was true with the DAC1 -- see John Atkinson's various tests of both the DAC1 and DAC2, where he states that very fact.) And since the sound of the DAC is certainly fuller and smoother, calling it analog-like is not out of line. I note that MSB also describes the sound of their $60,000 dac as "analog".

To me, the sound of the DAC2 is quite superior to the DAC1 in all respects -- both in home and studio use.

[kachinskii 150]

Обзор

http://www.goodsound.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/431-benchmark-media-systems-dac2-hgc-dac-preamplifier-headphone-amplifier

[xtraktz 30]

А интересно, как у него с обычными записями 16/44, 24/96 ?

И где его по адекватной цене можно купить?

Или возможно ест смысл сейчас рассмотреть DAC1 HDR?

Изменено 1 февраля, 2014 пользователем xtraktz

[kachinskii 150]

Или возможно ест смысл сейчас рассмотреть DAC1 HDR?

Если есть деньги нужно брать дак 2, я считаю. ЮСБ дака 1 отстаёт от современных решений. Да и в целом будет хороший запас лет на 5 как минимум, с такими характерстиками

[xtraktz 30]

Ну цена второго в Рашке за 100тыр - безумие

Отдал бы сейчас ту цену, что на оф сайте за новый, не более.

Плюс первого дака последней ревизии наверное в том, что он вылизан, второй возможно та же участь постигнет и будет немного обидно

 

Меня смущает направление на хай-раз и дсд, как-то все ринулись обновлять свои железки, стандартные форматы CD провозгласили хламом, как-будто мп3. А куда все диски девать, топовые проигрыватели сд? Так ли оно надо? И разве качества 16/44 , ну край 24/96 недостаточно? Как бы не оказалось, что на этот формат производители забили и он играть будет посредственно. А для меня этот формат основной и уверен еще долго им останется в виду очевидных причин.

 

Зы кстати, дак1 и дак2 в native могут потоки воспроизводить? Без обработки, как есть.

[kachinskii 150]

Зы кстати, дак1 и дак2 в native могут потоки воспроизводить? Без обработки, как есть.

вроде нет, там все апсемплится (их ультралок). Впрочем, так или иначе все современных дакы делают апсемпл

Отдал бы сейчас ту цену, что на оф сайте за новый, не более.

+1

А интересно, как у него с обычными записями 16/44, 24/96 ?

http://www.head-fi.org/t/631329/a-nice-new-dac2-from-benchmark-showing-at-rmaf

там довольно много сравнений

[xtraktz 30]

Хм, моя Рега выводит сигнал как есть.

Если апсеймплинг постоянный то ну нах тогда. Смысл принудительных обработок? Кто знает как он их делает(((