Benchmark DAC1 -> Benchmark DAC3 HGC.
Shadorne review helped me to decide. DAC3 is not only more refined but also fuller sounding in the lower midrange. DAC1 in comparison now seems a little "thin" sounding. Imaging is also better. I enjoy remote with source selection, volume control, mute, dim (lower volume), polarity and power on/off. The only negative, I found in reviews, is signaling the "state" (polarity, source, signal res/rate, mute, dim, power) by LED lights while other DACs use graphical LCD displays. I disagree. LEDs not only allow for low physical size, but also are better visible from the distance. LCD display would have to be pretty large to be readable from about 13 feet, while LED pattern, once familiar with, I can read from any distance. I don't have analog sources yet, but getting linestage for about 10% more was investment for the future. I also like volume control. It is of high quality and is "hybrid" meaning, that it adjusts digital sources in digital domain, while analog sources stay analog.
Shadorne review helped me to decide. DAC3 is not only more refined but also fuller sounding in the lower midrange. DAC1 in comparison now seems a little "thin" sounding. Imaging is also better. I enjoy remote with source selection, volume control, mute, dim (lower volume), polarity and power on/off. The only negative, I found in reviews, is signaling the "state" (polarity, source, signal res/rate, mute, dim, power) by LED lights while other DACs use graphical LCD displays. I disagree. LEDs not only allow for low physical size, but also are better visible from the distance. LCD display would have to be pretty large to be readable from about 13 feet, while LED pattern, once familiar with, I can read from any distance. I don't have analog sources yet, but getting linestage for about 10% more was investment for the future. I also like volume control. It is of high quality and is "hybrid" meaning, that it adjusts digital sources in digital domain, while analog sources stay analog.