Should I go to a Benchmark DAC1 pre in my system?

How are you going to hook up your TT? The Benchmark has three digital only inputs (or at least the model that I had did). You cannot bypass the Benchmark because you need a volume control.

You have a Musical Fidelity A3.2. Is that a preamp or an integrated?

I went from a Benchamrk DAC1 to a Musical Fidelity A3.24 DAC. I prefer the MF. A little more warm bass (not a huge difference). You can pick them up for $600 or less. You can run you server and CD player into it. Whichever fires first will be recognized by the 3.24 DAC.

Tigerwoodkhorns,

The DAC1 pre has a single line level analog input in addition to multiple digital inputs, I believe. I would have to add a separate phono preamp also for my Denon DL103R low output MC cartridge. Suggestions for that anyone?

I also have a cassette tape deck and FM tuner that would be left out however, but I do not use these much these days and can probably manage somehow.

The MF A3CR in my system is a power amp only. I like it a lot. It has far surpassed my expectations when I acquired it for only about $600. It's sound is not unlike what you describe with the MF DAC. I'm thinking it may synergize well with the Benchmark. Won't know for sure though unless I try I suppose.

On real problem I might have with the Benchmark DAC1 pre is my dbx dynamic range processor, which is analog and has to have the line level signal fed in an out.

Not sure I'd want to part with the DBX. It brings lesser source material with compressed dynamic range, both analog and digital, back to life.

I might be able to put in series between the pre and power amp in lieu of a processor or tape loop in the pre, but I am not sure how well that would work.

My current Carver pre-amp has two tape loops and two pre-processor loops, so it can handle a lot of peripherals. That's a hard thing to find in a lot of the newer pre-amps out there. They seem to go more the keep it simple route in general.

Regarding some of the posts above, skepticism is fine but it's a shame when conspiracy theories have to surface, as well as opinions from those who've never actually heard a Benchmark DAC1!!! But they have their opinions a priori because the unit just "can't" sound that good.

I've actually heard one. In fact, I have two of them, soon to add a third (for headphone listening in my bedroom). I've done a lot of comparisons and I agree with the reviews, not only last month in TAS but also the rave review the month before in HiFi News (by Ken Kessler), and the earlier ones in the various publications around the world, both pro and consumer (check out the Benchmark website). I think it's a great unit and I've voted with my wallet. I took the chance to try one initially and am glad I did.

One thing I would mention: while differences in transports and digital cables may be minimized with the DAC1, the differences still remain, so the better the transport and cable, the better the sound, in my experience.

I also found that using the DAC1 direct to the amp was better than using the DAC1 connected to a passive preamp (I used a fine passive for the test, as Reference Line Preeminence One, Series II). What surprised me was that the
DAC1 beat the passive in detail and transparency, which is one area where the Reference Line passive should have excelled.

DNe,

Thanks for the input.

What exactly is the difference between an active and passive pre-amp anyway?

The DAC1 pre is a pre-amp as well as a DAC. Is it active or passive or something else?