I concur with your calculation.The THD+N vs frequency graph does not seem to match SINAD. Isn't 0.0005% -106 dB? That would not match a SINAD of 112 dB, would it?
I concur with your calculation.The THD+N vs frequency graph does not seem to match SINAD. Isn't 0.0005% -106 dB? That would not match a SINAD of 112 dB, would it?
I showed linearity in my graph above. I also briefly pulled up the dashboard and it too is better numbers than the other unit I tested.Now the unbalanced performance would be interesting.
but it wouldnt it be 4v rms (+6dB) if you were trying to compare to output levels of typical"domestic" DACs, which begs an interesting question about testing of these "pro" interfaces. Should we include a low level test?Not here because I am testing balanced output.
Sorry, thats why i recommend to use the calibrated mode. Think about that.Wouldn't it make more sense to test at 2V?
Sorry, thats why i recommend to use the calibrated mode. Think about that.
Yes we should (imo) as we want to be testing for potential use in a home system so all things being equal a 4v rms seems a good addition.but it wouldnt it be 4v rms (+6dB) if you were trying to compare to output levels of typical"domestic" DACs, which begs an interesting question about testing of these "pro" interfaces. Should we include a low level test?
If I read the manual, what is left for you all to do???And it is important to configure the dac in a right way. Use USB mode 2 and use the right driver. Maybe amirm you should read the manual first. Their are a lot of thinks to take care.
Greetings Fu
Also, these reviews are interactive. I expect you all to read them and comment for what is missing. As you see, I almost always run additional tests to address points people raise. It is not like a print magazine where reviews are published once and that is that.
BTW, when I tell you I hate installing drivers, there is a reason. See this pop up after I installed the Benchmark drivers:
snip...
There is a reason Microsoft creates class drivers and companies should follow suit: to avoid this mess.
Hi amirm,If I read the manual, what is left for you all to do???
The latest tests were run in USB Mode 2 as it is required in the installation of Benchmark drivers. Since all of my tests are at 44.1 and 48 kHz anyway, the USB mode makes no difference as I showed earlier in the thread. And again, the driver makes no difference whatsoever. ASIO4ALL is bit-exact.
BTW, when I tell you I hate installing drivers, there is a reason. See this pop up after I installed the Benchmark drivers:
View attachment 14235
I scratched my head, checked everything twice and nothing would make it show the Benchmark. Then I see that the Benchmark's ASIO interface is alive and well and the above applet is broken in not recognizing its existence.
With so many drivers trying to install the thesycon drivers, I have a mess on my hand already. Look at this list from a few drivers I have installed:
View attachment 14236
Three separate XMOS drivers? And exactly which device is TUSBAudio ASIO Driver talking to?
There is a reason Microsoft creates class drivers and companies should follow suit: to avoid this mess.
Anyway, the manual was read with respect to matching level and that is why I used the jumpers to reduce output by 10 dB, both in the original review and this one. And based on follow on recommendation by John.
Also, these reviews are interactive. I expect you all to read them and comment for what is missing. As you see, I almost always run additional tests to address points people raise. It is not like a print magazine where reviews are published once and that is that.
garbulky said:
So we see not only that he presented the measurements of a balanced dac using its unbalanced outputs which isn't the most optimal way to measure a balanced DAC (becaused the balanced out measures better in this case).
As I noted elsewhere, this is an incorrect argument. Just about any DAC silicon has balanced output. Yet many manufacturers put unbalanced outputs on them and using those, I am able to get superbly better results than Schiit multibit. You are being fed and PR response line and taken advantage of the fact that you are not a design engineer and don't know what I just explained about other DACs.
Conclusions
The Benchmark DAC3 as expected is a state-of-the-art digital to analog converter. Other than one set of noise spikes in jitter test, the rest of the measurements show exceptional performance. No glaring faults are seen at all. Its higher output level can be useful in room EQ applications to boot.
So of course the DAC3 goes on my recommended list.
Here is the unbalanced tests from Benchmark DAC3.
Unlike balanced output, the unbalanced response is considerably worse with one channel worse than the other.
As a way of reference, I put the Topping D50 through the same test and as before, it has textbook output to -120 dB.
While the benchmark DAC3 generally measures well on its unbalanced output, reproduction of low level signals is not very accurate. There certainly is no excuse for a $250 DAC to beat it in such tests as linearity.
So sadly, I cannot recommend the Benchmark DAC3 for unbalanced output.
There is actually. See this thread where I even match results of someone using a completely different analyzer: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ts-of-schiit-yggdrasil-dac-inconsistent.3812/When i take a look on all the measurements, starts with stereophile, yours, jude and now yours again. I can not see any repeatability .
Where possible, I work very hard to equalize outputs. See my reviews you will notice that levels are close to each other in the pairs compared. This is from the very review here in Post #1:Now to the facts: if you measure once 2 VRMS and than 12 VRMS, it is clear that the SNR changes. A lower voltage can not offer the same SNR as a higher voltage do. Comparing two dacs without the same output is to compare apples and oranges.
Can I assume that terms "balanced inputs" and balanced input" are typos here? The Benchmark DAC3 has no balanced inputs, only balanced outputs.Well here we have me asking Amir to measure balanced DACs using their balanced inputs. And he thinks this is unnecessary. However even a “state of the art” DAC like the Benchmark, does differently on its balanced input.
My guess is that this is noise modulation or crosstalk. Normally the linearity curve should stay flat and then bend upward when the test tone disappears into the noise floor of the measurement. But, when you see the output level dip lower than expected, before subsequently curving upward, this is an indication that there is noise modulation or crosstalk.Yes, they are pretty much the same. Interesting..
At the end you are right, but it would be nice to know.
@John_Siau, maybe you can share your thoughts on the cause of this deviation from linearity?
Yeah typo. SorryCan I assume that terms "balanced inputs" and balanced input" are typos here? The Benchmark DAC3 has no balanced inputs, only balanced outputs.
The device should be tested at +24 dBu at 0 dBFS which is what you will get at the HT setting. Turning the volume full CW will improve the SNR test results but it will eat into the 3.0 dB of headroom that we provide for the DSP. The last 3 dB is available for boosting a weak signal, but should not be used for normal listening. THD will still be excellent, but the DSP headroom is diminished inside the ESS chip but not prior to the ESS chip. Our filters prior to the ESS chip always have 3.0 dB of headroom above 0 dBFS. Most other converters have no headroom above 0 dBFS.I don't agree with this - when the pot is cranked to the max that is exactly the point to measure how the device works.