Thinking about getting a R2R DAC

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

ML36 is what 25 years old? In 2005 that would have been considered old tech and not nearly as good as new stuff. Suddenly is is great again? No.

Both your DACs are good but you prefer one. Much different implementations. One thing that has changed in 25 years is you of course if you are the original owner.



Personal preference which is impacted by prior experience, your specific system and environment and yes age.

Never discount flavor of the day and the impact of suggestion either.

@audio2design 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject. 

I'm the first owner of the ML39, vintage 1996, which I had upgraded to a ML390S in ~ 2002. 
As for the ML36, I'm the 2nd owner for all I can tell. 
And yes, both are some 25 years old - with one laser unit replacement for the ML390S, about 1 year ago. 

During mid to end 2000 I had A LOT of Systems auditioning going on (semi-professionally), and this across the board of high-end digital systems, culminating in some way-out Bösendorfer-Lyngdorf system. Actually too many to mention. 

All this did for me, was to set-up an analogue side system to my existing digital one, and repurches LPs I'd gotten rid of during end 1980. 

I mention all this for some perspective, as even listening to far more expensive and more sophisticated set-ups, I could not be convinced (by LISTENING) that this so considered 'new'(er) technology sounded any BETTER - different ok, but not better. 

The more resent listening to some full blown latest B&W802D3 diamond tweeter speakers and Esoteric gear failed to make any further 'upgrade' desire as well. 

All I keep hearing is more 'resolution' and less of any 'realness' - more artifice, for lack of a better word. 

That's when I came across that 'ancient' ML36 (R2R) so since it integrates easily into my existing system I decided to give it a go. 

It sounds the least artificial, though a good LP sounds 'easier' on my ears - still.
A question of more real harmonics/timber I'd say. 
In closing, by my personal experience, I'm this far unconvinced, that high-end digital has made the kind of progress that is generally banded about.
Been surching for close on 25 years and good analogue *still* has the edge for me. 

Enough said for now, 
M. 🇿🇦