"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:C-ydnaWXzbzCpIDVnZ2dnUVZ_tOtnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Scott, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought I had you down in
> the DBT contingent. But you're showing the same
> preferences that I have, for perfection at all costs.
There's a major conceptual error: Perfection is unobtainable at any cost.
> Yes, I'd go for the Benchmark, but Arny and Graham would
> probably show, by methods I consider flawed,
No doubt you think the methods we'd likely use are flawed, because they
don't sup****t your opinions.
> that the Benchmark is a waste of money in pursuit of inaudible
> perfection.
If you have sufficiently flawed sources, a DAC like the Benchmark might
even
make sense.
> I don't have a DAC that good. My two "boutique DACs" are
> Musical Fidelity A3, and a Perpetual P3A. I also have a
> Sony EP9ES, which though an HT device, incor****ated
> Sony's best DACs circa 2003.
There is no evidence that Sony has any sort of unique abilities when it
comes to making DACs. Indeed, they are famous for dispairing of ever
making
a good DAC, and instead popularized SACD which has the potential to
essentially eliminate conventional DACs.
> My theory about CDs is that
> there isn't enough in a 16/44 recording to require an
> instrument of the caliber of the Benchmark.
That's not a theory, it is a fact.
> Hires masters are another story.
The actual weakest links are your listening room, your speakers, and your
ears.
|
