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

Thanks for that. It makes a bit more sense now. Suitably configured, I don't find the Benchmark lacks liveliness, and it is already pretty smooth, but do agree that midrange palpability would be welcome, and more firmness to dynamics from the lower mids down would be very valuable. Depending how effective the improvements are that would leave its only flaw (to my ears and in my two systems) as low level inner detail/nuance. Although one hastens to add that I refer to a flaw only in the context of tough and more expensive competition.

For what it is worth, in playing around with configurations I found one seemingly paradoxical outcome. I tended to prefer the interior gain set to -30dB, and highish output calibration, whereas I had expected to find the 0dB gain and low output calibration to sound better. However I did not spend a lot of time with these permutations because I was really just trying to see if I could get it to outperform my Lavry, as opposed to spend lots of time optimising the Benchmark.

These days I just use the Benchmark as part of a portable high end system comprised of laptop, Wavelength, Benchmark, Sennheiser. Great travel to with.

Does this mean that it wont benefit those of us using a preamp?

Abrahavt, I finally got you Audio Space's contact details.
Top International Electric Hong Kong Ltd
1/F, 151-153 Apliu Street,
Sham Shui Po, Kowloon
Hong Kong
Tel: 852-2729 7271
Fax: 852-2307 9476

I just bought one unit (the model is called DAC-1US) and upgraded several items like capacitors (to blackgates), wiring (to pure silver), tubes (to telefunken), RTX REL Caps and the resistors. And the result? MAGIC. I have not heard the EMM Labs but the older Wadias and Levinsons are no match for the upgraded Audio Space. Try to listen to one if you happen to be in Hong Kong.
By the way, the upgraded unit costs only US$1800.
Have fun.

I began reading this thread because I wanted to learn about the Benchmark DAC-1. At first it sounded very impressive. Then I quickly began having some doubts based on the comments of people who own the product and who pointed out its short-comings compared to other DACs. In particular, on 01-25-05 Redkiwi stated:

"As I have stated in other Audiogon forums, the DAC1 is great value for money, so much so that I could not resist buying one even though it spends most of
the time in its box.. . . I prefer my USD1200 Lavry Blue over my DAC1."

Well there you have it, and from someone who actually owns a Benchmark. The Benchmark spends most of its time in a box. Despite the comments of some of the posters, he has no axe to grind; He bought the product and is simply giving me and all others his honest unbiased opinion.

Somewhat disappointed, I read a few more of the threads concerning the Benchmark, but it appeared to be a no go for me. Then much to my surprise, I found an earlier post from Redkiwi on 12-21-04
which stated:

"The Benchmark is very very good but is not perfect. I came very close to buying one, but when I found that
the pros generally had a higher regard for the Lavry Blue I tried that and found it had all of the performance I enjoyed in the Benchmark but with a more
natural presentation, one that I think (but do not claim) most audiophiles would prefer."

I am puzzled. Apparently sometime between December 21, 2004 and January 25, 2005, the poster decided to purchase a Benchmark DAC-1 that he had already decided he liked less than the Lavry Blue he already owned.

Credibility is a serious problem on these forums. I must confess that I am often suspecious of the "informed evaluations" offered here. Where have so many found access to so much equipment that they are able to offer informed opinions? I realize that audio stores will lend equipment, but I do not think this explains what we are reading. If I want to read fiction I will check out a book from the library in the fiction section. It is my understanding that Audiogon has the power to suspend members for specific reasons. I do not know what infractions can lead to this remedy, but I do think that if posters are caught posting "fiction" this might be a good reason.

Dgclark0007

I bought the Benchmark DAC1 on 30 day eval and returned it. I liked it, but did not think it was the giant killer that many are professing it to be. I thought it was fairly clear, and uncolored but a tad thin and unnatural sounding in the midrange. It did not seem to be particularly dynamic. Detail retrieval was very good but not great. I thought it was a very competent and clean DAC, but not special. I compared it to my EVS Millennium II DAC and thought that the Mill was superior. It was fuller, more acuurate and handled the dynamics of music better. I also did not think it really improved on the stock 3910 I have. The 3910 is kind of dark, and pinched off sounding but it has a good soundstage, a balanced sound and good dynamics. It can get a little shrill in the uper registers. Even with those issues though, it still feels a little more natural and musical than the DAC1. I can easily see why there is so much success with 3910 mods. The DAC1 on the other hand is very digital sounding but without the digital edge and hardness. If data accuracy is the ultimate end for you, maybe it is the right DAC. For my ear I am primarily interested in the timbre of the sound and having it sound more like real life, which in my view is actually much darker and less detailed and planar in the soundstage than we want to admit. Go to a symphony and think of it in terms of a home audio setup and you will see what I mean. Don't know if this helps any but those are my thoughts.