So... erm... regarding those ATCs (SCM50 vs. SCM100)
- Thread starter vln
- Start date
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
I use SCA2 and it has loads more bandwidth than directly plugging in a DAC with variable output (Benchmark DAC1). They also do a variety of pre-amp boards for different moving coil cartridges.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
I use Benchmark DAC1 HDR; I'm happy with it. I had to set the internal jumpers to -30db. Regards, Darren
NAC 52 into ATC SCM 100ASL, since 2002. I think am the original ATC person on this forum. I've owned the 52 since '98. I haven't changed anything in my system for about 9 years, and that was a turntable upgrade (LP12 to SME). ATCs are bad news for hi-fi dealers, but good news for you.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Out of interest, which model of DAC1 did you try? The HDR and Pre models use different op amps to the others. (As I understand it this should make a difference only for certain cable runs and power amps, but I'm curious.)
Also, did you set the internal jumpers up so that you were using typically the middle of the volume range? This is recommended by Benchmark and it's a good idea in general for analogue volume control.
Darren
vln
Shuns mooks. And MQA.
I'm assuming "loads more bandwidth" is your subjective impression? (nothing wrong with that) On paper, I they both should measure pretty much identical.
How do you find the volume control of the SCA-2? I have been enjoying electronic/digital volume control for the last 2 or 3 years, and found it so much better in terms of user friendliness than conventional volume pots, i.e. the volume can be set much more precisely, and you have no problem finding the exact volume you want. Furthermore, it does not have any problems with L R channel imbalance at the low end of the volume spectrum.
So how does the SCA-2 fare in that regard? I know it has a gain reduction button on the front, which should give the volume control more useful range, but is it enough?
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
Subjective of course
But it didn't take a double blind test to tell one from the other. Setting the dac1 to fixed output via the sca2 is much better than using its volume control to vary the output direct to the speakers.
I don't do much fiddling with the volume control, just set it once at the start of a session tbh
Finding replacement batteries for the remote is a pain as they aren't just plain AAs
vln
Shuns mooks. And MQA.
I've heard about that. Why do they do this?!
The remote looks and feels though as if it could survive a nuclear first-strike.
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
my BM Dac1 is from 2005 vintage
vln
Shuns mooks. And MQA.
So it was either a DAC1 or a DAC1 USB, but not a DAC1 Pre or a DAC1 HDR?
Sorry for being pedantic, I am trying to convince myself that the DAC1 HDR is all the pre amp I'll ever need, and that the SCA2 is an unnecessary luxury!
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
At the risk of repeating myself. Mine is the "DAC1" and this was the only model available in 2005. All the others came out later (USB, PRE and HDR)
so the only thing the HDR will give you over my DAC is
"HDR-VC™ High Dynamic Range Volume Control
The DAC1 HDR features Benchmark's HDR-VC™ (High Dynamic Range Volume Control). The HDR-VC™ is achieved with a custom-built motorized Alps potentiometer. The DAC1 HDR's motor-driven volume control maintains the dynamic range of the converter and audio output. In contrast, digital volume controls reduce dynamic range, and analog volume IC's introduce distortion and noise"
darrenyeats
pfm Member
And as mentioned this:
"State-of-the-art LM4562 high-current, low distortion opamps in critical analog circuits"
AFAIR, BM say this makes a difference only in certain situations when used as a pre. I don't know whether it would be relevant to the comparison you made. It might be, it might not.
I think setting the internal jumpers for attenuation as recommended would be relevant.
Darren
Igloo Audio
Registered User
We always use an ATC Preamp.
It's a nice idea to think you can connect a DAC directly, but we've pretty much tried every DAC on the market direct to either Active ATC or the ATC P1 dual mono amplifier, and every time the *relatively new* ATC CDA2 was superior. The Eximus DP1 DAC with its analogue value control was close, but it still doesn't quite render the dynamics, control and bass weight of the CDA2. The Benchmark HDR is a good choice, though we feel a higher quality sounding DAC via the ATC CA2 or CDA2 phono inputs provides the best results.
It's a nice idea to think you can connect a DAC directly, but we've pretty much tried every DAC on the market direct to either Active ATC or the ATC P1 dual mono amplifier, and every time the *relatively new* ATC CDA2 was superior. The Eximus DP1 DAC with its analogue value control was close, but it still doesn't quite render the dynamics, control and bass weight of the CDA2. The Benchmark HDR is a good choice, though we feel a higher quality sounding DAC via the ATC CA2 or CDA2 phono inputs provides the best results.
vln
Shuns mooks. And MQA.
Just shows how different everyone's perception is: My dealer, who normally is a dyed-in-the-wool ATC fan, thinks very little of the CDA2, both from a sound quality and a usability POV. On the other hand, he thinks the SCA2 is ace.
vln
Shuns mooks. And MQA.
Your clarification is greatly appreciated, Cliff.
vln
Shuns mooks. And MQA.
In general, I think buying an good (and possibly expensive) pre makes more sense as a long term investment than buying an expensive DAC or CDP.
An analogue pre will probably change very little in the next 10 years - likewise, someone who bought a top quality pre 10 years ago would probably have to pay a rather high amount of money to significantly better it today.
On the other hand, on the DAC and CDP side of things, who can say if in 5 or 10 years USB will still be used, or if everything will be wireless anyway, or if CDs will still be available, etc.
An analogue pre will probably change very little in the next 10 years - likewise, someone who bought a top quality pre 10 years ago would probably have to pay a rather high amount of money to significantly better it today.
On the other hand, on the DAC and CDP side of things, who can say if in 5 or 10 years USB will still be used, or if everything will be wireless anyway, or if CDs will still be available, etc.
Hm. I take the view if you are working at line-level signals why put the signal through another gain stage that it doesn't need?
Got a new DAC for the home setup. Needed one with asynchronous USB for the studio feed and Coaxial SPDIF instead of just TOSLINK so went for a TEAC [mumble mumble model number] at Richer Sounds. Bit bigger. No wall wart (which is nice). Balanced and RCA Outs. Same passive volume pot as before. I tried it using Digital volume and this horrible spanish inquisition of a passive pot as well as the fancy-shmancy output options of the Preamp in the SSL desk and there's nothing in it so feck it. Big knob time for the home audio setup.
Sounds to me as good as it gets. Can't say its much better than the £20 DACs I've been extolling. PCM 44.1 isn't exactly hard to nail in this day and age on a single chip DAC. Interesting to hear how it copes with HiRes audio though -- which is why I bought it.
No, the volume on the DAC is just for the Headphone socket. Bummer really.
Got a new DAC for the home setup. Needed one with asynchronous USB for the studio feed and Coaxial SPDIF instead of just TOSLINK so went for a TEAC [mumble mumble model number] at Richer Sounds. Bit bigger. No wall wart (which is nice). Balanced and RCA Outs. Same passive volume pot as before. I tried it using Digital volume and this horrible spanish inquisition of a passive pot as well as the fancy-shmancy output options of the Preamp in the SSL desk and there's nothing in it so feck it. Big knob time for the home audio setup.
Sounds to me as good as it gets. Can't say its much better than the £20 DACs I've been extolling. PCM 44.1 isn't exactly hard to nail in this day and age on a single chip DAC. Interesting to hear how it copes with HiRes audio though -- which is why I bought it.
No, the volume on the DAC is just for the Headphone socket. Bummer really.
vln
Shuns mooks. And MQA.
I see your point fox.
Replacing something like a BM DAC1 after 5 years is not such an issue, but you would probably want to (and should) cling on to your Accuphase or ATC pre for as long as your ATCs, i.e. for the rest of your life (ideally).
Given that I also need a phono pre, it's either three boxes (CDP + phono pre + DAC with analogue inputs) or two boxes (CDP with digital inputs + pre with phono inputs).
The first option has two components with potential obsolescence (the DAC and the CDP) plus a redundancy (the CDP has also a DAC which I wouldn't need), the second option has only one obsolescence (the CDP) and no redundancy, which is why I am currently gravitating to the latter option.
Hooray for legacy!
Replacing something like a BM DAC1 after 5 years is not such an issue, but you would probably want to (and should) cling on to your Accuphase or ATC pre for as long as your ATCs, i.e. for the rest of your life (ideally).
Given that I also need a phono pre, it's either three boxes (CDP + phono pre + DAC with analogue inputs) or two boxes (CDP with digital inputs + pre with phono inputs).
The first option has two components with potential obsolescence (the DAC and the CDP) plus a redundancy (the CDP has also a DAC which I wouldn't need), the second option has only one obsolescence (the CDP) and no redundancy, which is why I am currently gravitating to the latter option.
Hooray for legacy!