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.
