I also compared Mojo and Benchmark. Agree that Mojo is more emotionally engaging. Sold the Benchmark. I also had a Border Patrol dac and really liked it. I have 300B amps. One might conclude that I like distortion, but what I listen for is dimensionality (presence, immediacy, life size weight), tonality, and a naturally put together soundstage. When listening, I prefer to think I am at a performance in front of me instead of being in the seat of the sound engineer. Benchmark is a good analytical tool but not something I could relax to for extended sessions.
Good measuring DACs vs.
I recently owned and compared a number of DACs in my system and was particularly interested in the sound of two "perfect measuring" DACs, the Mola Mola Tambaqui and the Benchmark DAC3 HGC. With either of those, it seemed every note came out clearly, cleanly, and accurately, without a hint of distortion. Both have been reviewed by Stereophile, and John Atkinson concluded his review measurements with,
"The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance. I am not surprised HR liked its sound."
and,
"Benchmark’s DAC3 HGC offers state-of-the-art measured performance. All I can say is "Wow!"
So, why is it that neither of these two objectively perfect DACs seem to emotionally engage me to the same level as my Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro, which is an R2R design using (basically antique) AD1862 "Z" chips? How can I not perceive the same levels of body, tone, or dimensionality from two DACs which exhibit "state-of-the-digital-art measured performance" and that really do nothing wrong?
- ...
- 40 posts total
mclinnguy: The Doors was one of those countless bands that never put out a descent sounding recording. Probably sounds better in your car because your car's audio system is less resolving than you your home system... |
A number of DACs have come through my system (most not owned by me) and I couldn’t tell much if any difference between them. The two I have, use chips nearly 20 years apart in design and I can’t make out predictable difference. I know, that’ll likely get me banned 😉 I chalk it up to DACs do their job and any “flavor” through distortion or anything else must be pretty darned finite (again, if it’s there) for the device to be working as it should. I would also suspect it’s as simple as many speakers, rooms, or speaker x room interactions just exact more influence on overall sound than kit further upstream. Could be wrong, but doesn’t make much sense otherwise given how sound waves and reflections (vs. electrical signals) work. Amps and speakers have both had serious (albeit model-limited) investigation on the correlation between certain measurements and listener preference. I know of no such thing for DACs, disappointing. Obviously measurements are only useful for this sort of kit if they can be demonstrably correlated with listener preference (and on a meaningful scale). Using uncorroborated measurements to predict/determine suitability of a device is about as well-informed and free of bias as expecting one DAC to sound better than another because of chassis color. And here’s a real pitfall: if one tests/studies measurements (that you understand) before listening to the device, irreversible bias has been introduced. Measurements and consumer pref studies are like turkey and dressing - different groups might prefer one or the other, but relatively few will argue they’re gonna go better together. |
@czarivey thanks for agreeing with my post, even though you apparently (or purposely) don't understand it. |
- 40 posts total