2. digital
  3. 158509-95184

DAC Measurements vs Actual Experience

I have spent the last two days evaluating which of these two DACs I will be keeping:
1) Benchmark DAC3
2) PS Audio DirectStream

I'm foregoing the use of a dedicated preamp; the chosen DAC will serve that purpose.* 

I had read up on the technical side of each of these exhaustively before purchase. For those of you who aren't familiar, the Benchmark DAC3 measures quite well in every category. The PS Audio DirectStream, on the other hand, not so much. In fact, Audio Science Review places these two near opposite ends of its SINAD (signal-to-noise-and-distortion) list with the PS Audio being positioned near the bottom. Stereophile also provided measurements in their review that painted the PS Audio in an unfavorable light. 

And yet the DirectStream is proving to provide a sound that is more, dare I say, musical. It's a bit more relaxed, sounding a tad reserved in comparison to the DAC3, and the presentation of 100 Hz and lower seems to be slightly vague, but it's also less edgy, possessing a better soundstage, and is overall ever-so-slightly more enjoyable. So what am I doing wrong?

* Is it worth considering putting a dedicated preamp downstream of the DAC3 in hopes of gaining a more favorable sound? 
sixfour3
djones51
4,947 posts
 
Again, the level of noise isn't perceptibly different than that of the Benchmark in my current system
If that were the case they would sound the same since the Benchmark is considered transparent. The "noise" would not be perceived as noise like hiss or hum  but a certain sound like relaxed, reserved, laid back, limited dynamic range. 
djones51
4,947 posts
 
I’ve owned the Benchmark it’s brutally honest if the source is lousy, harsh, bright then that’s what you get . If the source is great then it gives you great. There’s no middle ground with Benchmark that’s the way it’s designed and marketed. That’s what I loved about it and it’s what I still get since the DAC in my integrated is transparent. PS Audio is on the other end of the spectrum as you've pointed out. 
sixfour3 OP
21 posts
 
Again, the level of noise isn't perceptibly different than that of the Benchmark in my current system
"If that were the case they would sound the same since the Benchmark is considered transparent. The "noise" would not be perceived as noise like hiss or hum but a certain sound like relaxed, reserved, laid back, limited dynamic range."

This may very well be one of those fundamental pieces of information that I hadn't yet grasped. So noise, at least at levels in the -70dB-ish range, is responsible for the relaxed, laid back nature of the sound? And the somewhat stunted dynamic range comes across as a sound that is "less forward."

That's great information. I'm still curious about the imaging, however. Does this also somehow contribute to what I perceive to be a more detailed soundstage? 

Thanks very much for this! 
djones51
4,947 posts
 
The type of distortion I'm talking about limits the dynamic range making the bass sound a little soft and highs exaggerated. I'm not sure how that translates to more detail.  Maybe you're more sensitive to middle frequencies and are concentrated there try listening to female vocals and see if the high notes sound like she has a lisp. 
djones51
4,947 posts
 
Don't think of this as criticism of the Direct Stream while it measures lousy a lot of people like the sound which is what we're looking for. Some don't like anaylitical and the DS is definitely not that. 
More to discover