George-lo-fi just won't let it go. He believes he is right and will state so over and over again.
There was this guy on Audioasylum that would always say DVD-A sucks or something like that.....he would say it over and over....eventually we made up a #9 game........meaning when you post #9 it would mean "DVD-A sucks". After anyone would mention DVD-A then someone else would immediately post #9 and the guy had nothing to say.....it was already said. I think we can do that with George......since He likes multibit maybe we could give him #11......as in two bits....which is what his comments are usually worth....he he....just funning.
Most everyone else can see that implementation is more important then whether the DAC chip is R2R or not....not George...it is everything to him.....As I stated before Schiit has 4 $75 20 bit exotic r2r DACs in their $2300 DAC....no way it is going to sound as good as the $15,000 Berkeley DAC that uses the $7 Analog Devices thang.
However, all things being equal I would also vote for multibit r2r....however, they are rarely if ever equal.
Back in 2000 I made my Millennium DACs and the second to forth versions I used the 1704 r2r DACs....the first Millennium DAC used the AD1853 cheapo. The 1704 version sounded a little better but also only had one op amp on the output whereas the AD1853 had two. Very similar sound. Now, if you use a super digital filter with the 1704 or no filter then you get something much, much better....I was using the stock BB DF1704 filter....not good by todays standard at all.
When I made a proto back then using the 18 bit dual r2r AD1865 DAC chip with NO digital filter and one op amp on the output it creamed my 24 bit r2r 1704 DAC with discrete output stage.....slaughtered it. Implementation is paramount.....however, parts are important as well.
