BENCHMARK DAC3 HGC
Benchmark DAC3 HGC Reviews
- The EAR – by Trevor Butler
- Stereophile – by Jim Austin (2017) (measurements by John Atkinson)
- Stereophile - by John Atkinson (DAC3 B follow-up, 2023)
- Enjoy the Music – by Tom Lyle
- GoldenSound Audio – by an unnamed reviewer
- GoldenSound Audio - measurements
- The Master Switch – by Rob Boffard
- Head-Fi Forum - by T Bone
- Future Audiophile – by Michael Zisserson
- Hi-fi+ - by Alan Sircom
- What Hi-Fi - by unnamed reviewer
- Audio Science Review – by Amrim (with measurements)
Benchmark DAC3 HGC
Benchmark Media Systems, Inc. is essentially a manufacturer of professional audio equipment that has crossed over into the home audio realm. They offer a full line of audio electronics including DACs, ADCs, preamplifiers, headphone amplifiers, power amplifiers, and cables. Their products are known for being rugged, no-frills, good-sounding, long-lasting, and to provide excellent measured performance. Consistent with their pro audio background, Benchmark products are balanced designs and offer balanced connections.
The Benchmark DAC3 HGC is Benchmark’s top-of-the-line DAC and, in addition to DAC duties, the DAC3 HGC offers an analog preamp, a special digital/analog hybrid volume control, and a headphone amplifier. I purchased a DAC3 HGC to perform as a DAC/preamp combo for my outdoor system and, when I tried it in my main home system, I was a bit surprised at how good it sounded.
In these DAC comparisons, I am using the DAC3 HGC as a DAC only, and not as a headphone amplifier or preamp. I listened from the balanced outputs only. The DAC3 HGC costs $2,399 making it by far the least expensive DAC out of the six I am currently comparing. Since I am using it as a DAC only, I could have used the DAC3 B for $1,899 since that unit is a DAC only, sans headphone amplifier and preamp, with the exact same DAC sections and input/output connections as the DAC3 HGC. If you want the DAC and the preamp but not the headphone amplifier, the DAC3 L provides that combination for $2099.
The linked reviews provide just about every bit of information you could possibly want about the DAC3 HGC including measurements, that are included with the Stereophile, Audio Science Review, and GoldenSound reviews, so please read the reviews for more information about the design, construction, aesthetics, and performance measurements. The Head Fi Forum review by T Bone is very positive and surprisingly comprehensive, from an end-user standpoint, and the Stereophile measurements are concluded by John Atkinson, who wrote, “Benchmark’s DAC3 HGC offers state-of-the-art measured performance. All I can say is ’Wow!’”
Amirm, at the (dreaded by some) Audio Science Review measured the DAC3 HGC (see linked review) and said, “The Benchmark DAC3 HGC …has substantially lower noise than all the other DACs I have tested.” Amirm concluded, “Measurements are exceptional with no faults found anywhere. OK, there is a setback in linearity for unbalanced output but otherwise, this is as good it gets guys.”
Most of the reviewers praised the DAC3 HGC not only for its reliable operation and performance measurements, but also for how good it sounds. Reviewers called out the DAC3 HGC’s bass response and power, low-level information, drive and dynamics, expansive soundstage, stability of pitch, and tonal balance. Some of the reviewers allude to an opinion that certain (usually more expensive) DACs provide a little more of some sonic attribute than what they heard from the DAC3, but they mostly agree that this is a good-sounding DAC that faithfully converts and reproduces the digital signal that is fed into it. In his 2023 Stereophile follow-up review of the DAC3 B, John Atkinson says about the sound, “Perhaps there wasn’t quite the sense of ease I had become used to with the ($18,680 N31 CD player/DAC) MBL processor, but the fatigue-free wealth of recorded detail was a consistent factor in my auditioning of the DAC3 B.”
One interesting review of the DAC3 HGC was posted at GoldenSound Audio and written by an unnamed author, who gave the DAC3 faint praise by calling the sound “good-ish”. The reviewer stated, “I couldn’t point out any particular problems or specific issues in the sound. There were no troubles with sibilance, no lack of impact on energetic tracks, it could stage decently, and detail retrieval was good.” However, the reviewer found the “spatial presentation” to be lacking compared to other similarly priced DACs from Gustard, SML, and Holo, and vocals to sound a bit “dry”. In the reviewer’s opinion, “The DAC3 provides something of a ‘wall of sound’ as opposed to a fully separated and distinct rendition of each element.” The reviewer also stated, “Soundstage is another element that was remarkably ‘just ok’ on the DAC3,” and “vocals are just slightly too dry, without the required body and warmth that his (i.e., Jon Batiste, St. Augustine High School Marching 100) voice portrays on various other chains.”
The review was accompanied by measurements of the DAC3 HGC and followed by a few posted comments by readers, including comments by John Siau, VP, Benchmark Media Systems, Inc. Siau discussed how Benchmark’s ultraclock PLL provides an 85dB jitter reduction and that jitter would be essentially inaudible at anything below about 145dB SPL, a sound level you would never achieve from your home system.
Most interesting to me was how the GoldenSound reviewer made the effort to describe specific aspects of the DAC3 HGC that they presumed are affecting the overall listener satisfaction of music played through that DAC. The other reviewers didn’t go that far and mostly pointed out the many positive aspects of the DAC3 HGC, with some of them adding an “except for”.
A common theme seems to highlight the contrast of the DAC3 HGC’s transparency vs. the apparent greater musicality of some competitors. Is it possible the issues related to spatial presentation, soundstage, and timbre that were discussed by the GoldenSound reviewer transcend the importance of measurements alone in defining what sounds good? How else do you explain how a DAC that does nothing overtly “wrong,” displays technical measurements that seem to be close to exemplary yet, for some, falls a little short in a few key areas that are critical for listening enjoyment? Score one for the “not everything can be measured” crowd.
The audio forums seem split on the issue, with some posters believing the DAC3 HGC sounds great while others seem to respect the measured and technical performance of the DAC3 HGC yet find something critical to their listening enjoyment to be missing.
In my system, the DAC3 HGC sounded pretty good (I know, here we go with the faint praise), and particularly at the price-point. It is amazing to me how this (comparatively) very small box can perform at a level that at least approaches what I hear from units many times larger, many times heaver, and many times more expensive. I consider the DAC3 HGC as sort of a “Benchmark” (sorry, couldn’t resist) in that it seems to reproduce the sound as recorded, without sonic embellishment. The DAC3 HGC doesn’t seem to add a sound signature of its own, good or bad. I would describe it as being “even-handed.” It is better than competent, and IMO can be trusted to reproduce your digital files and streams with clarity, drive, and a realistic tone.
The positive attributes I heard included full, hard-hitting bass, accurate tonality, and a clarity through the midrange that is effective in the reproduction of vocals. To my ears, the DAC3 HGC is surprisingly more musical than the audio forum chatter would have you believe. However, in comparison to the other DACs in my room it did not seem quite as dimensional as the Mojo Audio DACs (spatial presentation?), was less refined than the Merason, and was less exciting and perceptively “flatter” sounding than the LTA Aero.
As to my music selections, the harder rockers were handled effectively and convincingly, and the DAC3 HGC was able to play loud without distorting or breaking up. All of the selections were played convincingly with the bass on the opening of Birds, by Dominique Fils-Aime’, being plump and full, and her vocals displaying a beautiful tone and life-like texture. The quiet background was effective on Steely Dan’s Babylon Sisters lending to the convincing play between Donald Fagen and the back-up singers with instrumentals filling in as intended. Alison Krauss’ vocals on Come and Go Blues were initially delicate and eventually building in emotion throughout the choruses, as intended. The keyboards sounded real and the sound of the strings matched the intent, from delicate to lively. Hall ambiance and crowd noise on live tunes like Gov’t Mule’s Thorazine Shuffle were well proportioned and properly positioned, and the solid bass from the DAC3 HGC added to the enjoyment of Allen Woody’s underpinning of Warren Haynes’ powerful vocals.
Sort of like what I heard from the Tambaqui, there doesn’t seem to be much to complain about with the DAC3 HGC, yet still, my listening perceptions lead me to believe there are intangibles that cause some listeners, including myself, to achieve greater enjoyment with other DACs. What is an intangible? Crap, I don’t know but it may have something to do with the factors discussed in the GoldenSound review. I seem to hear more “pop” and excitement from the LTA Aero and somehow a more realistic impression of instruments through the Mojo Audio and SMc Audio DACs. The Merason seems to play music in a more refined manner. Several of these other DACs seem to do a better job of transporting me to the live venue, or to the recording studio, where real musicians are playing and singing.
How can a DAC that almost perfectly reproduces a digital signal not sound better than other DACs, that are not quite so perfect? This hobby of home audio is subjective with most of us seeking enjoyment over perfection. That explains why so many manufacturers producing different sounding gear can be successful and why there is never a clear “winner” or “one to rule them,” no matter how hard some who frequent audio forums try to find one. This is another reason to consider these comparisons as nothing more than subjective observations based on my own experiences and preferences.
In summary, while I could happily live with the DAC3 HGC, in my main system, I prefer to listen to most of the other DACs here, which range from around 2x to 5x the price of the DAC3 HGC. However, I certainly appreciate what Benchmark has accomplished for what, in the world of high’ish end audio, is a very accessible price. It is accurate, dynamic, unflappable, and IMO more musical than many give it credit for. If I didn’t already have a fairly mature system, I would certainly consider upgrading my amplification chain prior to spending more on a DAC. I would also not argue with those who find the DAC3 HGC to be their end-game DAC.