Eliminating jitter "completely" - Benchmark DAC1 approach - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Source

Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11th April 2005, 11:59 AM   #21
PHEONIX is offline PHEONIX  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Default BENCHMARK DAC1

Hello

There seems to be a mistake here that needs correction, the DAC1 uses 28.322Mhz clock and not 25Mhz. If technical things are to be discussed we should facts straight.

Benchmark DAC1 should be looked at as a whole thing and not reduced just to its bare bone chips. This unit is very competently put together unit, with a good PCB design. Thats why it works well.

Regards
Arhur Rappos
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2005, 01:16 PM   #22
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Default Re: BENCHMARK DAC1

Konnichiwa,

Quote:
Originally posted by PHEONIX
There seems to be a mistake here that needs correction, the DAC1 uses 28.322Mhz clock and not 25Mhz. If technical things are to be discussed we should facts straight.
That would be good. Now, IF the DAC1 used a 28.322MHz Crystal the ASRC and DAC would work at an integer divisor of either 128, 256 or 384 giving either 221.2656KHz, 110.6328KHz or 73.7552KHz. The one frequency it could NOT work at, with a 28.322MHz X-Tal is the claimed (in Benchmarks Literature) constant 97.65625 kHz.

So, it would indeed be good that if wish to discuss technical things we should get our facts straight. Either Benchmark has theirs wrong or you yours.

Quote:
Originally posted by PHEONIX
Benchmark DAC1 should be looked at as a whole thing and not reduced just to its bare bone chips.
I believe that is what was done here, to consider the whole operation and interaction of the various sections of the DAC and the result as a whole.

Sayonara
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2005, 01:56 PM   #23
PHEONIX is offline PHEONIX  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Default DAC1

Hello Kuei Yang Wang

I have in my possesion a DAC1, I just read off the frequency written on the clock , which reads 28.322Mhz (clock frequency) ECS-2100(MANUFACTURES series no).

Regards
Arthur Rappos.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2005, 02:04 PM   #24
PHEONIX is offline PHEONIX  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Default Re: Re: Eliminating jitter "completely" - Benchmark DAC1 approach

Hello Kuei Yang Wang



"The DAC does not accept 192KHz input."

The DAC1 does accept 192Khz input it then down converts this to 96Khz.



Regards
Arthur
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2005, 03:30 PM   #25
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Default Re: Re: Re: Eliminating jitter "completely" - Benchmark DAC1 approach

Konnichiwa,

Quote:
Originally posted by PHEONIX
I have in my possesion a DAC1, I just read off the frequency written on the clock , which reads 28.322Mhz (clock frequency) ECS-2100(MANUFACTURES series no).
Then the in your posession DAC1 does not operate according to the claims of Benchmark Media.

I find it interesting insofar as this would shift the sample rate of the resampled signal to > 110KHz or about 14KHz above 96KHz in which case any claims of avoiding problems in the transtition would make marginally more sense.

Quote:
Originally posted by PHEONIX
"The DAC does not accept 192KHz input."

The DAC1 does accept 192Khz input it then down converts this to 96Khz.
Interesting. I found no reference in Benchmarks materials to any sample rate above 96KHz, must have overlooked it or it is another change in production compared to what the promo material claims.

Sayonara
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2005, 03:50 PM   #26
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: .
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Eliminating jitter "completely" - Benchmark DAC1 approach

Quote:
Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,

Interesting. I found no reference in Benchmarks materials to any sample rate above 96KHz, must have overlooked it
Sayonara

You mean you missed the description of the DAC1 as "a two-channel, 24-bit, 192-kHz Digital-to-Analog audio converter" as stated on the cut sheet, in the manual and on the website? Well, no one is perfect.

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/digital/dac1/index.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2005, 05:05 PM   #27
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eliminating jitter "completely" - Benchmark DAC1 approach

Konnichiwa,

Quote:
Originally posted by rfbrw
You mean you missed the description of the DAC1 as "a two-channel, 24-bit, 192-kHz Digital-to-Analog audio converter" as stated on the cut sheet, in the manual and on the website? Well, no one is perfect.
http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/digital/dac1/index.html
No, I noted the DAC1 as "DAC1 - Two Channel 24-bit, 96-kHz D/A Converter " as stated on Benchmarks website:

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/digital/

and failed to observe any explicitly different statement which is only in the part of the blurp I never read at:

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/digital/dac1/index.html

All I noticed where claims of using a 192KHz capable DAC Chip, which however does not imply acceptance of a 192KHz fs S/P-DIF or AES/EBU Datastream.

Sayonara
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2005, 06:38 PM   #28
00940 is offline 00940  Belgium
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Paris
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...ight=benchmark

You can have the comments of a Benchmark engineer in there (starting post99). He notably justifies the use of the ne5534 against opa134 or the frequency picked.

Btw, the old models are 24bit/96khz, the new ones 24/192. The old ones can be upgraded.
__________________
Ben.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2005, 08:52 PM   #29
atticus is offline atticus  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mogadore, Ohio
Just an FYI, but I worked in the marketing department at Benchmark when the DAC1 was released in 2002 and there was no intended misinformation given. The engineering staff was simply trying to make the most accurate dac they could in the price range and we (there were two of us at the time) just tried to tell people about it. Thanks.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My "audiophile" LM3886 approach mauropenasa Chip Amps 4325 28th November 2014 06:50 AM
which FR driver and approach don't "gargle too much"? freddi Full Range 2 8th February 2009 11:14 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2