How good is Benchmark DAC1 comparing to......

Rainchild, ...Another comparison:

A few of us audio industry guys got together today in SB to listen to a few items that came out of the G****** Technology rooms at CES. One item was actually a Gorgeous pair ... (oh behave) of high gloss black tubed mono blocks, but this is not the thread to discuss those. The main item of interest was the very beautiful $3950.00 Lector CDP-7T cd player with outboard PS. I'm going to cut to the chase... I had a chance to evaluate a Lector integrated amp a few weeks ago and it had a similar sound. Rich in immediate presentation but unnaturally balanced to the warm. The Lector's bass was far less natural sounding than the DAC-1. It sounded a bit like a poorly executed tube amp in comparison. With a slightly exaggerated lateral spread, little natural depth, and dynamically slow and undefined when compared to the Benchmark. What's interesting is that a major manufacturer chose this as his personal player and by many accounts this unit sounds pretty involving etc. But compared to the Benchmark dac-1 (properly set up!) everyone agreed it was the more involving, alive, nuanced, dynamic, rythmic, and needless to say, accurate and honest of the two. You could just walk into the soundstage of the dac-1 instead of "being impressed" with the "sound" of the Lector. What's really impressive though is what Harry Pearson (The Absolute Sound) said recently in his review of the Lector CDP-7T.
"The Lector CDP-7T plays music nearly on par with the over-60-grand top-of-the-line Burmester CD drive and DAC. At the very fair price, this piece is a solid steal.

If the four grand Lector is a steal what would you call the benchmark? a give away? Pretty close.

I'll add some thoughts on what has helped my dac-1 to sound its best in my next "response".

After-hours, that's very very interesting. Please do let us know what you found that helped the Benchmark to sound its best. Thanks.

I think I can roughly guess what kind of sound is the DAC1. Should be quite a safe bet. Or a win win bet rather. If I'm not wrong it's sonic characters should be toward the ML side. Highs is detail but toward the dry side, Mids is organic with a little bit of sweetness and Lows is like MSB Link III, play with conviction.

When is yr next response coming Afthrs.

Alex - Too bad we could not do the shootout. Guess we will never know now.. Unless you will be at the Denver show in Oct.??? I plan to be there. BTW - your buddy David C. spent some time listening in our suite - he wanted to hear the shootout too.

Rainchild - As for the Benchmark - the highs are not dry or dark, and the mids and bass are improved with mods. See this review (last post):
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewtopic.php?t=15010&start=10

Rainchild,

Actually the highs and upper mid are not dry at all. But rather are about as pure and vibrant as I've heard. The mid I wouldn't label sweet. That doesn't begin to convey the natural textures and uneditorialized presence that this dac is capable of. I distributed Linkdacs in the late nineties and the bass doesn't come close to the power, speed, agility and naturalness of the benchmark.
One thing I can add in comparing the Lector is... I might have left you thinking that the Lector was bigger and fuller but slower. It was way slower but the fuller impression came from noticably muted highs, somewhat small midrange presentation and exagerated mid-bass. Listening to the opening track of "the Poet" the voice was bigger and more life-like going through the benchmark with the sense of REAL "space" around it. On the same track using the Lector the voice sounded pinched, smaller and "cheaper" to quote a friend that was there.

Also, I did submit my response of helpful hints but the AG editors must be holding it. I made some "observations" in regard to the 'modder' so I may need to resubmit it.