Hopefully, I won't be dismayed when I likely go for the Benchmark DAC3 HGC DAC, not that I'll have any other DACs to do creditable A/B/A testing. Yet, as you say, however many DAC makers use this same DAC chip, the qualitative sonic differences between them would seem to lie in PSU, Vref, clocking, output stage design, and thus perhaps even more than the fact that Benchmark DACs largely prevent intersample overs distortion natively, rather than having you do it via settings in your Windows or Mac player.
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/ap...-in-cd-recordings?_pos=1&_sid=0eeb1f150&_ss=r
And regardless that the DAC3 HGC's output impedance was essentially flat at 30 ohms across the audible range. https://www.stereophile.com/content...preamplifier-headphone-amplifier-measurements
Indeed, even among those who are musicians, teachers, orchestral conductors and highly accredited DIYers like forum members g3dahl https://www.bremertonwestsoundsymphony.org/gary-dahl-bio and design engineers like Lynn Olson, both were delighted with an early Exasound DAC (circa 2014), which presumably used an ESS DAC chip, and perhaps of lesser sound quality than those used in today's Exasound DACs.
https://www.exasound.com/Products/e62DAC.aspx
Surely, Benchmark's John Siau and other staff members must do some degree of comparative DAC brand listening tests but found no significant differences. But apparently Benchmark was aiming at a stiff price since the Exasound
e62 isn't hardly expensive than the DAC3 HGC. https://www.exasound.com/Store/e62DACandBundles.aspx
Very strange.
Last edited:
My comment: if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger. Who cares what others think about you? We are not soldiers in a communist country.
Not always true. Long Covid may not kill you, but it can leave you much weaker. There are many other examples as well.
If you tell the truth and are branded a liar for it, you may be a citizen in a country turning towards fascism.
