michael

Hi Chris, I kindly request that we are careful with language. You say that you're not seeking to attack me and then you contradict yourself by taking a positive comment "Being a runner up" and misconstruing it by making a negative implication in the following sentence. Sadly, that exaggerates your point out of context and while expressing an attitude, fails to give your readers correct information. We can play with semantics all day long, but the fact is that DACport (http://www.dacport.com) is a USB DAC with a headphone amp. The only way to experience DACport is over USB. You could say that the category name is not ideal for it, but that's a different matter. We didn't invent the category name, we only got the mention. Sorry if in haste I chose imprecise phrasing in my earlier post. I can see how that offended you. Let's put away our armor and get on with the business of listening.

I stand corrected - DACport is not the "Runner up", but "One of four runners up". Sorry for such a glaring omission... The rest, however still stands: 1) Benchmark DAC-1 HDR uses CEntrance Adaptive USB transfer mode 2) DACport uses CEntrance Adaptive USB transfer mode 3) None of the components in the running for Headphone Component of the Year offer asynchronous USB transfer mode. Adaptive and Asynchronous are different technologies, in theory. But there is a crucial distinction between comparing dictionary definitions and actual practical implementations. That's where the argument falls apart, because what you buy is the experience of a designer, not a dry dictionary definition. The final product, no matter what's under the hood, is where reality takes over and theoretical argument alone does not carry the day. Actual implementation is what wins you the award, not a textbook definition. Now for my turn to address an "incorrect at best and purposely misleading at worst" comment in your reply: Adaptive Mode USB Audio ... "The USB DAC must derive its clock from a frequency synthesizer." ... This phrase may be written by someone who either doesn't know of other options, or purposely twists their words around. All of our Adaptive DACs get their clock from a precise, local, mil-spec, 1ppm, quartz oscillator, and NOT from a frequency synthesizer. Using the word "must" therefore is misleading to the customer and spreads disinformation. --- Just listen to the gear guys, don't fall for marketing terminology... a buzzword doesn't a DAC make.

Hi Chris, Comparing two DACs on the basis of Adaptive vs. Asynchronous is like compaing two cars on the basis of motor oil. Somehow we are forgetting engine power, steering responsiveness, gas tank capacity, ride quality, comfort features, etc. People on his forum are smarter than that. They know that a buzzword doesn't a successful product make. Less than a year since it's release, DACport was just named runner up in Stereophile's DAC of the year award. And funny thing is - the winner of the line-up also uses our Adaptive USB technology. May be we can finally cast some doubt on the validity of a single buzzword? What if it's actually not an issue how you communcate with the computer if you know what you are doing? Thousands of customers can't be wrong... Before we focus on an isolated buzzword, perhaps we should actually listen to sound quality. Cheers, Michael

Hi Chris, Yes we have raised the gain by about 3-4 dB after your excellent observations at RMAF, so now the output level is loud enough with most headphones - Sennheisers, Beyerdynamics (incl. 880, T1), Grados and IEMs. There is still about 4 db of headroom left in the output amp, which is nice because we know that it will never clip, even at full volume, even into 32 Ohm cans. The fact that it doesn't clip lets many people use DACport as an external USB DAC, by simply setting the level knob to Max and leaving it there. If you are coming to CAN JAM June 5-6, please stop by our booth and take a listen. We will be premiering a new product there as well. Michael