Bel Canto CD-2 and Benchmark DAC1

Im after a decent CDP for my DAC1 and now I keen on getting a Bel Canto CD-2.

I just wonder whether the build-in DAC module of CD-2 is better than DAC1 or not? How they sound for this combo?
The only audible difference between expensive and cheap transport is jitter (noise in time domain). Benchmark has such high jitter suppression (-100dB) that transport (or digital cable) won't make any difference. I use Benchmark with cheap DVD player (great tracking) or AirportExpress.
This is assuming that player is "bit transparent" (all 16-bits, no digital volume control etc.)
This sounds interesting cuz I heard a lot that DAC1 need really good digital source for better performance.
Capq - That's the main advantage of DAC1. It doesn't benefit from good transport or digital cables.
I've tried using the DAC1 on both my laptop (macbook pro via optical) and Marantz CD52 MK2 CDP and I have to say I can't agree with your opinion. Both of them are kinda low-end source but they sound huge different via DAC1. That's why I think to upgrade my CDP to a higher grade one.

As well as I saw a couple of fellows in Head-Fi use 3K+ CDP with their DAC1 or Apogee Mini-DAC. So I guess DAC1 can benefit from good transport.
Borrow good transport before you buy!
I agree completely with Kijanki. The transport should make little difference (assuming bit perfect transfer) to the DAC1. I've used a Cambridge 340C, Arcam FMJ CD23T and Denon 3910 as transports into my DAC1 and heard no obvious difference to me.

It's possible that via the Macbook software upsampling is taking place and so the bitstream the DAC1 is seeing is not the same as from the Marantz.

I suspect you have identified Capq's most likely problem. PC audio is a minefield. iTunes defaults with the EQ on and some versions of iTunes are buggy (sample rate issues and volume control issues). The best way to get transparent is to make sure the sample rate is set correctly and that the volume control and EQ are off.
Thanks all you guys, Kijanki, Bob and Shadorne. I should think twice before I buy a transport.

But I still cannot get it about the bit perfect. Wadia 170i has this bit perfect technology so does it mean that even low sample rate mp3 files can get similiar SQ with good transport & DAC1 combo by bit perfect? If yes those good transport are non sense...

Correct me if Im wrong.
I believe that the term "bit perfect" means that the transport is able to output the exact bitstream encoded on the disc. I do not know what Wadia means by bit perfect technology. But, obviously since MP3 is a lossy compression format it can not be considered a bit perfect match to the original source.
So how about those hi-end expensive DACs & Transport? Since DAC1's bit perfect can fix jitters from cheap transport to get exact info on compact disk, why we need those hi-end stuffs?
Capq - good question. Upsampling that DAC1 uses is relatively new technique. In addition all oversampling and upsampling DACs have specific sound that some like while others prefer non-oversampling DACs. I don't have much experience - Bob and Shadorne can say more, but as I understand it DAC1 brings very clean airy sound while non-oversampling DACs have more earthy "organic" sound.
Capq,I had a Krell KPS 25sc some years ago. I was kind of thinking of this, cheap drive units compaired to expensive. So, i connected my $500 Pioneer dvd as a drive unit to the dac of the KPS 25sc. Wow, what a difference. The soundstage was flat, bass was virtually dead compaired to the slammering krell transport. Sound was thinner etc etc, well. I can say, it was a totally different unit without mention all here. In this specific design, it was more than night and day. I have also been trying some drives with the dac 1. It is no obvious difference. I also confirmed this with Benchmark. I am no tech, but i can hear. No use in buying a world-class drive unit for Benchmark. Sadly many seem to fall victims of payning to much for to little and placebo effects is a common disease. Been there, done that:(
If an upgrade would be of interest, maybe the analog part could be modified further. I have a very good moding company over here. But, moding the unit costs as much as the unit holds in second hand value. Not sure it's really worth it at thsi moment, for me. This does not affect the gain of the level control either, just the analog part.
Capq, as Kijanki was saying, the DAC1 does upsampling. It uses an asynchronous sample rate converter from Analog Devices so that the data stream that its internal DAC actually sees consists of 110,000 24-bit data samples per second. Redbook CD consists of 44,100 16-bit samples per second. So even though the exact data stream is being delivered by the transport (cheap DVD player), the DAC1 is actually processing (converting to analog) a completely different data stream.

How a 16-bit sample is extended to a 24-bit sample and the number of new samples are created will have an affect on sonics of the DAC. The Cambridge DacMagic uses a different sample rate conversion system (from Anagram Technology) than the DAC1 so it would not be surprising that those devices could sound different.

Plus the digital processing is only part of the problem. The analog section is just as important.

Some high-end transport/DAC systems use a shared clock so they wouldn't require an ASRC to manage jitter.

You might want to read through this for more explanation: