benchmark and apogee

left a lengthy response the other day, but don't know what happened, never got posted. lets try again in short form. basically, liked the apogee slightly better than the benchmark, and picked up 2 apogees and 1 belcanto dac2 for my 3 different sonos setups. bottom line: apogee was slightly fuller sounding, whereas the benchmark was maybe slightly more analytical but drier. since the apogee was several hundred cheaper new vs new price, i went with apogee. test system includes B&W 803s2, acurus dia100. hope this helps. feel free to email if you need more info. regards jeff

Jeff,

What you report about the Benchmark DAC1 is very consistent with what I observed and many others have reported. To my ears it happens to work well with my speakers so I am happy with a less "full" sound. I have not heard anything quite as detailed as the DAC1 without sounding harsh and I understand that many people will not like this aspect but it suits me. I admit though that there is not a lot in it between one good DAC and another - at least to my "tin" ears.

Shadorne,

I have to admit, in researching the benchmark, I was VERY excited and very much wanted to hear it live up to it's press, but it just didn't do it in my set-up. In fact, I could barely tell any difference between the 3 different dacs. However, to be fair, all three were being fed by the sonos unit, and I was trying to see how close I could get the sonos to sound like my main rig (now my second best rig, hooray!). Fact is, all three got the sonos pretty close to the main rig, but just couldn't match it. Seems like the old Adcom GCD600 feeding the old Acurus DIA100 integrated couldn't be bested by this sonos-to-outboard dac setup. I did NOT, however, try any of the dacs being fed by the adcom cdp as a transport, and that may have yielded different results. So that's my big disclaimer.

OT: BTW, most impressed with your HT setup. Do the embedded ATC's give decent imaging and localization of instruments? My HT system has N803's in cabinets, and this really detracts from imaging/localization (at least until I pull them out of the closet for serious 2 chnl listening!!).

Do the embedded ATC's give decent imaging and localization of instruments?

Jeff,

Yes and No. Let me explain. If you mount speakers in a cabinet or wall - it is
essential to build a frame around the speakers in order to make a smooth
tranistion between the speaker baffle and the wall surface. Without the "picture framing" around the speakers you get a lot of edge diffraction which kills the imaging and soundstage. When you have a smooth transition (rather than just a "hole" for your speakers) then you actually get better imaging and soundstage than with the speakers freestanding. Most studio main monitors are built this way - installed in walls (there are several good reasons to do this).

Like these ATC's in Doug Sax Studio If you look at my virtual system you may notice a similarity in the way my ATC speakers are mounted. Of course I have a place for a TV and the wall provides equipment storage space in my case too - which is less
ideal but a lot more practical.

Doug Sax is working on a new recording format. As far as I know he chose
Benchmark DAC1 for his studio to go with the ATC's. The Mastering Lab (Doug's studio) has more audio engineering awards (Grammy's etc.) then anyone any other and his lengthy mastering credits reads like a who is who of the music industry. I trust his ears much more than mine - I doubt I'll change this DAC anytime soon.

Shdorne, thanks for the reply. I have repeatedly tried to reply, but agon doesn't seem to like me anymore, lol. Short answers: can't build a frame around top mounted tweeter like N803, but see the logic. as for apogee vs benchmark, lets just say that both are very good and highly regarded units, and it really depends on ones setup and ears. Good luck to OP, try them both.