Holographic DAC With Air And Decay

Topping E70 Velvet. Even when level-matched (which most comparators fail to bother with), it sounds a fair bit better than many costlier options.

DAC technology is completely mature. Dacs like the Benchmark DAC3 and Bryston 3 are old news. One reason for this is that DAC technology has largely mirrored the evolutionary pace of other consumer electronics such as TVs and smartphones. The same can’t be said for the likes of 2-channel amps and large speakers. A $300 DAC made today meets or exceeds the performance of $3000 DACs of a decade ago. And no, I’m not saying that as a zealot of the ASR forum cult. I say that because it’s true in my personal experience.

If you want more “air and decay” from your system, in 99/100 cases, the best route is to upgrade your speakers, especially to models that are phase and time aligned and incorporate truly high end drivers. That or invest in room treatments.

In terms of DACs, if you’re convinced of the alleged superiority of R2R, then I recommend going with one of the only couple brands that manage to employ that topology and still manage high resolution: Holo or Denafrips.

I would definitely look at the Wyred4sound 10th anniversary DAC, one of the reviewers put it up against his VPI turntable with a $5,000 Japanese cartridge and he said it was every bit as analog sounding, on that review I decided to buy it and try it and I totally agree it is so smooth and detailed but not analytical, best DAC I've had in my system and they also give you a 30-day trial period if you don't like it you can send it back and get your money back I obviously didn't, this dac has also gone up against DAC's double and triple the price and beat them from many other well-known companies.

Since you mentioned you prefer R2R DAC’s maybe look into the Dutch made Metrum and Sonnet DAC’s.

Depending on the model the price point for new or used would be within your budget.

@fsonicsmith wrote:

The truth; it is not the role of a DAC, nor is it realistic to expect any DAC to provide holography, air, or decay. Those attributes come from two things-the recording and the loudspeakers. Everything in between can only screw it up. But add it? Nope. 

The truth, you say? Why would a DAC that contributed notably to holography, air, etc. do so as an "addition" rather than expose what other DAC's might not be able to, and by doing so more readily reveal what's actually in the recording? Moreover, from my chair removing the passive crossover of a speaker and replacing it with a high quality digital crossover/DSP situated prior to quality outboard amps actively will most surely aid the resolving and micro/macro dynamic capabilities of such a speaker, and thus make for a more transparent solution to reveal what goes on on the DAC side of things (and prior to it with the source delivery).

A specific recording statically is what it is, and the source delivery --> DAC (+ amp to speaker interface) can definitely more or less "conceal" what's entailed in it; opening up that potential isn't an addition to what a recording is but rather unfolding it into something more uninhibited/less concealed. 

Having said that: personally I wouldn't hunt down a DAC that über excelled in the areas mentioned, as I find it can be at the expense of tonal authenticity, texture and density of presentation (say, rather than a Mola Mola Tambaqui perhaps I'd go with a Weiss DAC1). Preference and all that jazz. 

Btw, most DAC's do screw up decay due to the necessary time domain filtering. So if you don't want to SCREW UP decay, look for a non-filtering DAC. 

That seems presumptive. Do you know that as a fact? 

+2 for Lab 12.