Thinking about getting a R2R DAC


Dear community,

I currently have a chord qutest DAC. I like it a lot, very full sound, accurate detailed and exciting.  However, whenever I go back to vinyl (with a well-recorded nice pressing) I find the sound so much more satisfying.  There is a warmth, yes, but there is a presence, a 'there-ness' that I just don't get with the digital.  I'm wondering if an R2R DAC would get me closer to that?  my budget would be around the same as the qutest.  I was looking at the MHDT Orchid or the Border Patrol.  Don't get me wrong, I really like the Qutest.  I am thinking of putting it in the upstairs system to pair with the Node2i I have up there.  Any thoughts?  Will analog always just be a different animal than digital?

Currently in the main system I have a Sonore uRendu feeding the Qutest which is going to a LTA MZ2 going to a Pass XA 30.5

thanks!
adam8179
When you pass the very significant ultrasonic content of a typical unfiltered or lightly filtered NOS DAC through a non linear system which all audio systems are especially at ultrasonic frequencies and with tubes, that aliases into the audible band.
Again, misuse of the word 'aliases' - the correct term would be 'intermodulates'.
So I now do wonder, WHAT'S the bottom line of all this techno squabble?
Is there a bottom-line? At all. 
CAN an R-2R DAC sound better than any NON-R2R one, due to its DAC construction - if the analogue output stages are equally well implemented?
I'm sure this was the intended enquiry of the OP, no?
This also given, that initial analogue/digital and microphone recording limitations are discounted for. 
M. 🇿🇦 
There is no reason for an R2R to sound better or worse than a non R2R. It's all implementation including the up front signal processing. There is a reason why you may like or dislike a NOS DAC though and it is not because it is more accurate.
Thanks for this take. 
However, I have an R2R DAC (ML36) 20bit, 44.1kHz and an upsampling CDP (ML390S) hybrid, 24 bit, 352kHz.
(I hope I got that right :) 

So,... in short, I prefer the R2R item - by a small/tiny but important margin. 

Why?

Somehow R2R is sounding more natural/harmonically more complete.
Only referring to red-book CD reproduction. 
M. 🇿🇦 
I've been reading through all of the post on this subject. Thanks.

Like many I also have an R2R DAC, the Holo Spring Level 1, but also have at my disposal other DS DAC's. CD Player has an Analog Devices chip, and Burr Brown on HT processor. They all sound different for sure. As often as not everything else being equal (if possible) I prefer the rendering of the CDP with Analog Devices chip over the Spring DAC. 

The the big elephant in the room is, all music starts out as analog be it instruments or vocals and these analog signals have to be converted to digital. I know of no R2R analog to digital converters or have never heard of recording studios, or mastering studios using this technology.

The point is, even if using the subjectively best R2R DAC available, and that could be argued till the cows come home, no one will ever experience the full potential benefit of R2R DACs. From my perspective most musicians, recording engineers and others working in the industry consider audiophiles a bunch of nut cases anyway so its probably unlikely the demand for ADC with R2R capability will ever be designed and built.

Just something to consider in the equation.

Thanks