Naim vs Benchmark

Starre, looks like you'll need to judge for your self. Never expect a concensus on a message board. All that matters is that you're happy with your personal choice. Have fun.

@ JS

quote:

Max res doesn't mean this

I actually said max res for a price point and is taken from the manufacturer in this contect:

quote:

The DAC1 is designed for maximum transparency and is well suited for critical playback in studio control rooms and in mastering rooms.

Notice, it doesn't add 'it could screw the EQ's due to sonic presentation'.

quote:

Try some good pro gear and you may be surprised

Thanks, I do every day.

quote:

I don't find it especially informative anyway. Just sterile.

Compared to what? You can't slip in this throw away comment without substantiation! You may mislead the jury into taking this on as fact.

quote:

The idea that worse is better for this purpose is just wrong.

I fail to see where this is mentioned. Worse is never better

Starre,

If you plan to use Naim through-out your whole system then traditionally it would make sense to use a Naim source. You would still be happy!

The flip side often argued is that the source component has been hugely less relevant since the advent of CD. Though improvements have been made by specialist manufacturers over the years like Meridian, for the most part an old Marantz, Phillips CD player will still give you startling performance in a good system.

The goal of using a DAC (most importantly the DAC1) is to provide connectivity to many source components supporting PCM. Whilst I might add, murdering the likes of an average mid-priced CD player until you reach the heights of the Naim CDS3, 555 etc., which offer a more fleshed-out sound as found in the Lavry DA10.

Peter

>> murdering the likes of an average mid-priced CD player until you reach the heights of the Naim CDS3, 555 etc., which offer a more fleshed-out sound as found in the Lavry DA10.

That is quite an exaggeration. If the like of Lavry DA10 and Benchmark DAC1 murder CDX2 and downward, I must be in digital heaven without paying the extravagant amount of money. Because the humble source I have now is substantially better then the two DACs you mentioned, which I owned previously.

This may be due to deficiencies of my hearing or taste, but I am quite sure that these two DACs do not murder digital players twice or thrice or quadruple its price, they may (or may not) be comparable, but not night and day better.

quote:

Originally posted by JYOW:
>> murdering the likes of an average mid-priced CD player until you reach the heights of the Naim CDS3, 555 etc., which offer a more fleshed-out sound as found in the Lavry DA10.

That is quite an exaggeration. If the like of Lavry DA10 and Benchmark DAC1 murder CDX2 and downward, I must be in digital heaven without paying the extravagant amount of money. Because the humble source I have now is substantially better then the two DACs you mentioned, which I owned previously.

This may be due to deficiencies of my hearing or taste, but I am quite sure that these two DACs do not murder digital players twice or thrice or quadruple its price, they may (or may not) be comparable, but not night and day better.

Certainly not trying to exaggerate.

I can't disagree with you, because I don't know your system, indeed your taste and how you setup these DAC's for comparison purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by sonofcolin:
@ JS

quote:

Max res doesn't mean this

I actually said max res for a price point and is taken from the manufacturer in this contect:

quote:

The DAC1 is designed for maximum transparency and is well suited for critical playback in studio control rooms and in mastering rooms.

Notice, it doesn't add 'it could screw the EQ's due to sonic presentation'.

quote:

Try some good pro gear and you may be surprised

Thanks, I do every day.

quote:

I don't find it especially informative anyway. Just sterile.

Compared to what? You can't slip in this throw away comment without substantiation! You may mislead the jury into taking this on as fact.

quote:

The idea that worse is better for this purpose is just wrong.

I fail to see where this is mentioned. Worse is never better

Less musical and more sterile is worse if it sounds less like the original source (and here that's the case). It offers no benefit to a mix.
Take it anyway you like but a $600 Music Hall is better and SN better again. It's just not special in any way unless it's been much improved since my audition. Nagra VI is the current DAC of choice if you must know. An under $3000 Nagra LB though not quite a VI is both a far better DAC and A2D then anything mentioned in this thread and yes I've compared to a Lavry A2D recently also. The fellow that owns it is buying a Nagra for transfers. The Nagras are improved with a Naim PS and are somewhat limited for home audio but can be used as one input DACs. Sorry, no TOS.
I'm personally waiting to hear a Naim DAC before making any decision for my 500 system. I may know a bit more than I should about it's bits and circuits and I'm very encouraged. Don't ask. Know nothing of it's final configuration or market stance projection.

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
JYOW uses a Slim Devices Transnporter phono to 202/200 Harbeth M30.

Hi Munch,

Oh, I'll byte my tongue, since I wouldn't use this system to judge a source component. It's all about the music though, and I quite like the Harbeth TBH.

Peter

quote:

Originally posted by connon price:

Because you engineer and market a product to the people who "make" the music does not make your product superior to the people who engineer and market a product to the people who "replay" music.

Since the people who "made" the music in the first place (a) have the best idea of what they wanted to convey when they performed their music and (b) are among the few who heard the music as it was being recorded, it seems to me that they are likely better positioned to judge the capabilities of the gear that is used to playback the music.

Consequently, anyone making equipment for such a market probably has to do better than those making equipment for folks who have never heard the original performances in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

Since the people who "made" the music in the first place (a) have the best idea of what they wanted to convey when they performed their music

Sincerely,

Brittany Spears, that Cyrus girl, and 95% of all recorded "music" out there.

If the replay market starts focusing on what the uneducated, prepubescent, oxycontin addicted, talentless, ball-less and soul-less think is "good", we are all screwed.

And to address (b), most of them didnt "hear" it, didnt write it, only laid down their part, collected the check and left, then play concerts in shit venues only to maximize profits...... i digress.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Sincerely,

Brittany Spears, that Cyrus girl, and 95% of all recorded "music" out there.

If the replay market starts focusing on what the uneducated, prepubescent, oxycontin addicted, talentless, ball-less and soul-less think is "good", we are all screwed.

And to address (b), most of them didnt "hear" it, didnt write it, only laid down their part, collected the check and left, then play concerts in shit venues only to maximize profits...... i digress.

pcstockton - thanks for your comments. However, I can only speak for the music and musicians that interest me. I am (unlike you, it appears) not familiar with the music of Brittany Spears or "that Cyrus girl" (whoever she may be). Where they are concerned, I bow to your obviously superior knowledge and am sure that your comments above are fully applicable.

Best,

JF

Sometimes there's an analog master that needs to be transfered. Makes for a good comparison.

I want to update. I still have not taken my final measure of the Benchmark (speaking of marketing, what a name!). However I am not perceiving it as being edgy any more. Maybe a little, but only slightly more than the CD5/hi.

It has an impressive bass. It's lighter weight than the Naim, but I have no problems with it, whereas most non-Naim gear I run through my system sounds bloated.

It have an extremely impressive level of detail too. It resolves things that the CD5 does not. A nice effect, though not a main course for me. And it is clean sounding, and not hyped in the presence region. It is also very wide sounding.

However, I still have reservations about the degree to which sounds are fleshed out. JS said soulless and I don't disagree. I describe it as being the outlines of the instruments, but not enough of the oomph, the feeling of vibrating air, the beauty, the visceral punch. This adds up to music not having as much traction emotionally as I would like. This is obviously extremely subjective and speculative and subject to change and possibly heavily biased (long-time Naim user).

Also, it is a bit grainier and drier than the CD5 (which itself is on the dry side).

Maybe I'd say it's more like digital video and Naim is more like film?

Nonetheless, I can see many people choosing it over the CD5 and I am impressed at what it does for $975. I don't like it as much as the CD5, but the CD5 won't decode a stream from my computer.

quote:

Originally posted by PMR:
Certainly not trying to exaggerate.

I can't disagree with you, because I don't know your system, indeed your taste and how you setup these DAC's for comparison purposes.

I have a pretty entry level system by this board's standard:

202/200/HiCap/NAPSC/Powerline/Hi-line Din-RCA driving Harbeth Monitor 30.

Source is now Slim Devices Transporter. But before that I used a combination of a Squeezebox 2 and Pioneer Universal Player fed into different DACs - DAC1 then Beresford DAC then Lavry DA10, finally settling on the Transporter. I also had the Ariva speakers before the Harbeths.

The Monitor 30s are very resolving and sensitive to changes in the system. Nobody murdered anyone, except maybe the Beresford who died a natural death... But my order of preference is: (Sorry for the lack of proper audio description, I am no reviewer, and I never bothered to make A/B comparisons. I am a strong believer in long term listening).

1. Transporter - Basically stopped my upgrade spiel. Very smooth and non fatiguing, lots of details. Gives me the most goose bumps amongst the 4 DACs.

2. Lavry DA10 - Warmer sounding then the Benchmark DAC1, gave me goose bumps once in a while but not often enough.

3. Benchmark DAC1 - Improved detail on the Squeezebox 2, but stark and sterile sounding. I do not recall getting any goose bump moments at all.

4. Beresford DAC - Different sounding but not much better than the stock DAC in the Squeezebox 2. But then the cost kind of reflected that.

I went for an audition of the Linn Klimax last weekend, I'd say it beat the Transporter but not by much. (I brought along my Transporter to humour my friend.) It has an extremely black background, but in terms of enjoyment I could live with the Transporter and save tens of thousands of US dollars worth.

If the Benchmark has a flaw it is surely that it doesn't 'enhance' the music in any way (given a suitable digital source). Sure, my old CDX/CDPS has a more 'fleshed out' sound on some material, but with more listening (months now) I'm convinced the Benchmark is truer to the original recording. How do I know? Simply by listening to well recorded acoustic music. In particular, the human voice is undeniably (IMO) more realistic via the DAC-1 than my old Naim workhorse ever was.

If the source material is mainly non-acoustic, then the CDX/CDPS can paint a convincing enough picture, and may be preferable to some ears. I have no problem with that. However, those who prefer the 'enhanced' approach are not IMO in a position to slag off kit that plays it like it really is.

Mr Tibbs

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Tibbs:
If the Benchmark has a flaw it is surely that it doesn't 'enhance' the music in any way (given a suitable digital source). Sure, my old CDX/CDPS has a more 'fleshed out' sound on some material, but with more listening (months now) I'm convinced the Benchmark is truer to the original recording. How do I know? Simply by listening to well recorded acoustic music. In particular, the human voice is undeniably (IMO) more realistic via the DAC-1 than my old Naim workhorse ever was.

If the source material is mainly non-acoustic, then the CDX/CDPS can paint a convincing enough picture, and may be preferable to some ears. I have no problem with that. However, those who prefer the 'enhanced' approach are not IMO in a position to slag off kit that plays it like it really is.

Mr Tibbs

Well stated.

That really is my main point. People make very quick decisions as to what they think is right without careful thought. I certainly won't claim that active speakers like ATC are the best transducers money can buy, but by using the DAC1 or Lavry direct without the likes of preamps, cables, power-amps, speaker cables, racks and other expensive gadgets, I can confidently say they both are capable of near stunning performance and represent superb value for money. The great news for hifi & music lovers is that there are many routes (Naim being a pretty solid choice) with a lot of valve and horn based systems offering very interesting and rewarding alternatives if you fancy a change. Personally, I prefer warts and all, since I feel it tells you a great deal more about the recording, venue etc., and brings out the best in good recordings.

quote:

with a lot of valve and horn based systems offering very interesting and rewarding alternatives if you fancy a change

Yes definitely worth considering if you fancy a change from enjoying listening to music

Do they make you horny, baby

Nice suit, shouldn't it be green?

Based on my personal criteria of simply how much I'm enjoying listening to the music (in my room / system / personal tastes / etc), I frankly preferred even the mk1 CD5i to a Benchmark DAC1.

At the time I had a Nait 5i (mk1), and spent a couple weeks playing the CD5i, original DAC1 and some fancy modded DAC1 that cost almost 2x the cost of the regular DAC1. The DACs were fed via a Sony CD player / coax cable and an airport express streaming apple lossless files / toslink cable.

Both the DACs had clearly better resolution but I thought the CD5i was massively more fun. The BMs were too sterile and had no presence (I guess I like living with colouration etc...), though the modded one was a bit better than regular version.

Of course, my dealer was a sneaky b*stard and once all this was done, made me listen to a CD5x, which is what I eventually went home with.

Lack of proper color is a coloration. The idea that sterile is neutral is a misnomer

quote:

The DACs were fed via a Sony CD player / coax cable and an airport express streaming apple lossless files / toslink cable.

The airport express is only fit for background music streaming IMO. A 'bit perfect' output doesn't count for much if the data is plagued with noise and jitter. Benchmark claim the DAC-1 is not affected by jitter - IME it certainly is. The Sony CDP may also be afflicted by a poor digital output - even on an expensive CDP, it's not a given that the digital output is up to scratch.

I've found the macbook to be a great digital source for a DAC-1. The Mac/Lavry crowd are not wrong!

Mr Tibbs

quote:

Originally posted by js:
Lack of proper color is a coloration. The idea that sterile is neutral is a misnomer

Feed a DAC-1 with a high quality signal and there is absolutely no lack of 'proper colour'. Of course, for some that may not be coloured enough.

Mr Tibbs

I have pretty good sources and players with both USB and dig out. I also know what many of those sources sounded like before they were digital but it's fine if we disagree. Glad it works for you.

quote:

Originally posted by js:
I have pretty good sources and players with both USB and dig out. I also know what many of those sources sounded like before they were digital but it's fine if we disagree. Glad it works for you.

Oh I think you'll find it's not just me you disagree with, and it's not just me it works for. Legions of highly demanding music makers and listeners are more than happy with the performance of the DAC-1 <big grin>

Mr Tibbs