In response to some of the comments above, let me first say that some of them are understandable since the posters are apparently unaware that this thread is simply a continuation of a prior thread started on 11/1/04.
My goal in that thread and this one has been to promote discussion and provide a balanced viewpoint of the Benchmark DAC1, as an offset to a persistent negativity by certain individuals, e.g. Redkiwi, Nealhood and others. I wanted to do this so that readers looking to buy a dac can have unbiased information to make an informed purchase. (I have in fact received 5 emails from potential buyers asking quesions.) And to have fun. My intent has never been to start a flame or to provoke the strangely self-righteous or even self-serving statements reflected by the above individuals. However, the unwarranted nature of their comments unfortunately requires a reply, at a time when I am already bored with this thread.
I stated in a post above that "No one is claiming that the Benchmark DAC1 is the world's greatest reference dac in absolute terms. What a multitude of people are saying...including users like me...is that the DAC1 provides, at its relatively modest price, superb performance on an approximate par with much more expensive dacs, e.g., in the $5,000-$10,000 range."
So much for the pseudo physological verbiage about wanting to purchase "the best there is", to "reduce anxiety", and indulging in "self-delusions", etc. Where does that nonsense come from? I could care less whether the ML, Lavry or any other is ultimately held in higher regard by anyone. I don't have an agenda.
However, by contrast, in the prior thread I and others commented upon Redkiwi's, Nealhood's, and some other individuals' perplexing negativity, posted in multiple threads. And there may well be an agenda there, unwittingly or not. Others posters said "What is the deal with these people...trying to discredit a product..." As mfgrs. and/or dealers who apparently know one another, do they have an agenda?
Redkiwi seems to acknowledge this when he says in the prior thread: "As one of the "negative guys"..."I acknowledge a backlash (against the DAC1)..." And some other similar comments too.
Redkiwi's unfortunate and defensive response to my comments indicates that he is guilty of the very things he accuses me of. Is there an attempt here to stifle discussion? Am I not entitled to offer criticism without being attacked? Can't he take the heat of the forum without lashing out, couched in eloquent but defensive language? He would be well served to heed his own advice.
As for Nealhood, when will the comparison with the $32,000 dCS end?
Regarding the quote from John Atkinson, it is absurd to misinterpret this and say I was taking JA's written opinion instead of listening and forming my own opinion. I own a DAC1 and an Apogee -- do you? I was simply stating that Redkiwi is a less credible source than JA. They are both just "writers" who have listened and provide their opinion. Is there any debate about credibility-- JA v. Redkiwi? (Redkiwi who?) We all compare reviews, reviewers and their mags all the time. So what else is new? That doesn't imply we don't listen or have our own opinion.
Re: "QED": anyone have a sense of humor here? I guess not.
So, to conclude, I am most surprised at the defensive, sharp and unwarranted reactions by the above individuals to some legitimate criticism, put forth by me and others as well. I hope those individuals can in the future tolerate some opinions that differ from their own.
Lastly, to quote another individual from the prior post, in response to the same comments that I am responding to now: "This post is lame. I'm moving on to a new thread where those who have a Benchmark and a clue..." And I too am moving on, and won't even get to enjoy the inevitable self-righteous comments that will follow here. See you in the next thread.
