What DAC are you using and why?

[Bob Olhsson]

As some of you know, several years ago I won a DAC-1 here on Gearslutz. Now that I've spent a few years using it, I'd frankly be very hesitant to use anything else until I was absolutely convinced that it wasn't just a more flattering sounding converter.

Really good audio sounds really good on the DAC-1. A lot of CDs sound "brighter" and a lot of CDs sound more distorted using the DAC-1 than listening with other converters. I've never heard of any problem created by zapping the warts and making something sound truly great on the Benchmark. The bottom line for me is results and my DAC1 has yet to let me down.

It definitely can be picky about loads and that can make other converters sound better in a quick A-B comparison. Under the right load conditions, the DAC-1 has also trounced some of the most expensive converters when I've compared. Interface is always a moving target.

I'm not interested in being hyped by my monitoring setup and quick A-B comparisons are pretty meaningless for determining translation. It's much better for the CDs I work on to sound great than for my monitor chain to sound more impressive!

[mosrite]

As some of you know, several years ago I won a DAC-1 here on Gearslutz. Now that I've spent a few years using it, I'd frankly be very hesitant to use anything else until I was absolutely convinced that it wasn't just a more flattering sounding converter.

You are used to it and how it translates.

Really good audio sounds really good on the DAC-1. A lot of CDs sound "brighter" and a lot of CDs sound more distorted using the DAC-1 than listening with other converters. I've never heard of any problem created by zapping the warts and making something sound truly great on the Benchmark. The bottom line for me is results and my DAC1 has yet to let me down.

It definitely can be picky about loads and that can make other converters sound better in a quick A-B comparison. Under the right load conditions, the DAC-1 has also trounced some of the most expensive converters when I've compared. Interface is always a moving target.

I'm not interested in being hyped by my monitoring setup and quick A-B comparisons are pretty meaningless for determining translation. It's much better for the CDs I work on to sound great than for my monitor chain to sound more impressive!

I'm glad that the DAC1 works for you Bob but that in itself does not mean that it is a better converter than, for instance, the Lavry DA10.

For me it has nothing to do with a more impressive monitoring chain either. But if I am hearing further into the sound stage with a DAC then I do not believe that to be some trick employed by the engineers to make the converter more pleasant sounding. This extended depth is real, and with lesser recordings that sense of depth is less palpable (as it should be).

[Robobo1]

I want to bump this... just as the conversation was getting real interesting it died!

[lakeshorephatty]

I'm just seeing this thread now, and as a DAC1 owner i have to say i understand the "graininess" comments, but take them as an advantage not disadvantage.

If i don't hear this detail in the spectrum on other converters I can't take steps to avoid this issue or correct it. I believe we are looking at masking on the part of the other converters rather than something superior in them.

In other words, I know for myself, since NOT EVERY RECORDING of high fidelity contains this mid grain, that it is a detail of the audio, probably caused by certain types of mics/pre's and AD that it is desirable to avoid.

That said if we cannot hear this detail on any other conversion system, should we be ignoring it?

As a happy user of the benchmark i'm not pleased to see that when a company takes the time and effort to post information on gearslutz they are met with some hostility. I'm certain everyone has the right to their own opinion and let the debate ensue, but I don't think the information here should be thrown into a negative light.

Take it for what it is, and belive what you like.. i found the thread very entertaining.

Russell

[mosrite]

As a happy user of the benchmark i'm not pleased to see that when a company takes the time and effort to post information on gearslutz they are met with some hostility. I'm certain everyone has the right to their own opinion and let the debate ensue, but I don't think the information here should be thrown into a negative light.

Dont be so soft

[MichaelPatrick]

Mosrite,

I just read this thread and couldn't help but wonder if you broke the DAC1 in? I know some people think it doesn't matter. I do because I've heard all manner of active devices change in their first 100 hours.

[mosrite]

I just read this thread and couldn't help but wonder if you broke the DAC1 in? I know some people think it doesn't matter. I do because I've heard all manner of active devices change in their first 100 hours.
Yesterday 01:33 PM

Even if there is some truth in that you cannot test gear on the premise that the sound will 'evolve' into something wonderful later.

I would also be a touch concerned by a DAC that altered that much through usage. How could you set your reference? Where's the continuity?

[videoteque]

All the equipement must break in. Speakers the most...

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by mosrite

Even if there is some truth in that you cannot test gear on the premise that the sound will 'evolve' into something wonderful later.

I would also be a touch concerned by a DAC that altered that much through usage. How could you set your reference? Where's the continuity?

All active devices change until they're broken in. As a rule I start running new gear as soon as it arrives and usually give it 100 hrs to get happy. Speakers and headphones take longer. It doesn't take high levels, just enough to let electrons flow and any mechanics to flex. My Grado GS1000 headphones took almost 3 weeks 24hrs/day to get sweet enough to use without pain.

Lots of devices just look good until they've had a chance to work, then they start to sound good too. It's just physics. Electron paths need to form in solid state devices just like optimal walking paths take time to form in a large new landscape. In my experience, simple tube systems can break in faster if there's not much else in the box.

At high levels of resolution like you're working with, every subtle factor makes a difference because you can hear the effect everything in the chain.

[mosrite]

All active devices change until they're broken in.

I don't believe I disputed that. However, the fact remains that when testing gear it is not always feasable to have an optimally 'broken in' device against a number of other optimally broken in devices. Therefore judgements must be made on what we hear at the time of testing. There are unlimited factors that could affect the performance of the gear including the temperature of the listening room. There must be a condition where we are satisfied enough to believe that we can determine a devices attributes. I believe I was at this condition when doing my testing.

As regards headphones and loudspeakers, they are a bit of an exception requiring arguably much more of a breaking in period to sound their best than, for example, a DAC.

just like optimal walking paths take time to form in a large new landscape.

Nice analogy

[EliasGwinn]

Originally Posted by lakeshorephatty

I'm just seeing this thread now, and as a DAC1 owner i have to say i understand the "graininess" comments, but take them as an advantage not disadvantage.

If i don't hear this detail in the spectrum on other converters I can't take steps to avoid this issue or correct it. I believe we are looking at masking on the part of the other converters rather than something superior in them.

In other words, I know for myself, since NOT EVERY RECORDING of high fidelity contains this mid grain, that it is a detail of the audio, probably caused by certain types of mics/pre's and AD that it is desirable to avoid.

That said if we cannot hear this detail on any other conversion system, should we be ignoring it?

Russell,

We've even had a few people that returned the DAC1 because it was "too revealing"!! These were audiophiles who, after putting the DAC1 in their system, heard details in their recordings that were being masked by 5-digit D/A's! These details were "too distracting" for them, and they realized that they would rather have them masked.

Of course, as recording, mixing, and/or mastering engineers, we MUST hear these details to take appropriate measures to correct them.

Thanks,
Elias

[EliasGwinn]

The DAC1 does not require any 'break-in' period. At the studio I work at, we have an original DAC1 from 2003 which has not been powered down since we've owned it (except 2 or 3 times to briefly re-arrange power distribution). There are no sonic differences between it and a new build DAC1.

Thanks,
Elias