Just to "add" some feedback to all of this. I've listened at length (2-3 months) to the Benchmark DAC1 circa 2002, the "new" Benchmark DAC1 circa 2008 (for a week), the Apogee Mini DAC (for about a year), the Lavry DA10 (for a weekend), and a $600 Stello DAC (for 2-3 months) though not with a volume control, i.e. a different model than mentioned.
Whomever commented on what you work with may not be what you want to play with seems to hit the nail on the head, for me at least. How you might want to listen would make a huge difference. If you want to know everything that's going on, and sit in the first rows of a concert, you'd probably want something like the Benchmark. If the product is supposed to recreate a "live experience," what live experience is that? Does that make front row "correct/accurate" and mid hall "euphonic/inaccurate/wrong?" Reference experiences or equipment are just that, something from which or to which to refer. It's not "RIGHT" it's just a reference.
Returning to the DAC1, FWIW, I don't hear a lot of difference between the 2002 and 2008 DAC1, though the latter seemed a little bit less intense. Naturally, my 2002 and 2008 systems weren't the same, so MY mileage varied.
Neither DAC1 was grainy. It might be fatiguing, though I'd say it was more like a new and stronger eye glass prescription with more detail than I was used to and hear when I hear live music. It was also more detail than I hear in my preferred concert seats, which are mid hall. I expect that extraordinary focus would be great in the studio, and if that's what you listened to at the office you might want the same at home, though I wouldn't. It's imaging was unquestionably the best of any of the gear I've heard, but to me that's so far down the line of important things as to be a "so what" character. Overall, it's an extraordinary product, though not one I'd purchase.
The Lavry DA10 was much softer sounding than the DAC1, and to my ears clearly more euphonic and less engaging, if also not the infusion of adrenaline that the DAC1 was. It's a nice sounding DAC, though not a really compelling product for my taste and experience. I felt like I was hearing a lot less and would probably choose the DAC1 before the Lavry, though this is not a binary world/choice. The DA10 is probably a desired product for those that listened to hyper detailed, etched and nasty sounding digital from the 80s and 90s.
The Stello DAC was more like the DA10 than the DAC1, but lacking sufficient performance or character for that matter (a good thing), I was less engaged by its performance than either of the pieces above. This was an OK, polite DAC rather than a "high end" piece.
The Apogee Mini DAC was less resolving than the DAC1 but seemed more natural to me than all of the above. Used as a DAC-preamp, it was better than as a simple DAC and gained some of the intensity of the DAC1 without becoming too much of an adrenaline ride. Or said differently, it was more like what I hear with live instruments in my normal listening room. I heard it as musical, engaging and certainly highlighted differences in equipment, including if not especially cables, whether connected to the Apogee or elsewhere in the system. I'd choose the Apogee over the DAC1 or the DA10 or the Stello DAC without question. I really disliked all of the dancing lights on the front of the Mini DAC, which is one reason I didn't keep it. Yes, that's a strange way to make a choice, but factors are factors.
The best digital piece I've used by a long shot was the way more expensive EAR Yoshino Acute CD player. It's retail of $5500 seems fair, considering what its competitors charge and that the Acute beat them all. The Acute is too rich for my blood just yet. And, it only plays CDs. I've been holding out for a DAC with multiple inputs. I hear Tim de Paravicini (EAR and Acute designer) has been working on such a DAC for a while. A prototype might be available at CES 2009, though it might not be, too. I'd be very interested in that, but again that might be a bit rich for my blood, and is certainly way more expensive than the DACs mentioned above. I brought it up, however, because it's very musical, presents detail the way I hear it in mid hall and at home in the same carpeted and draped room where our piano and multiple brass instruments play. Yes it has tubes, though it doesn't have a tube sound. And, for those that can truly afford ANYTHING, e.g. Paul McCartney, Tim designs custom equipment for that ilk. As a piece of equipment, I'd call the Acute a very worthy reference because it also sounds like live music in my listening room.
Having said that I'm considering the Twisted Pear Buffalo DAC. It fits my current diminished budget, it's less expensive than the $1,000 DACs, though it requires soldering and other assembly and so isn't directly comparable. I have not heard it, but have been experimenting with a DIY DAC I purchased from Taiwan that sounds quite nice. Given that experience and what I have read about the Buffalo's performance I'm interested. This last paragraph may have no value to the rest of the discussion, but it's where I'm looking rather than at any of the $1,000 DACs. This opinion (mine) is like other's, just an opinion. And intended to provide a bit broader feedback, given my opportunity to listen to several of the DACs mentioned.
Hope that provides something for other posters or those interested. And, just my $0.02.
Larry
