I own a DAC3 and just read the review. I agree with some of what Edgar Kramer, the reviewer, said, but not all.
I also owned a DAC2 in the past, so I can only go on memory. I also owned a Benchmark DAC1.
First off, I don't agree that the DAC2 "a large dollop of the same with a smidgen of warmth thrown and the fatter bottom end.." The DAC2 is not cut from the same cloth. Kramer claims the DAC2 "transmits nearly as much detail." No way. It is far less detailed. It bunches instruments together, which, in the end, caused its demise for me. The much smaller power supply on the DAC2 does NOT provide the bottom end Mr. Kramer claims, nor are its dynamics anywhere in the same league as the DAC3. Don't get me wrong -- I liked the DAC2, it's just that time marches on. The Benchmark had it beat in many areas, although warmth was not exactly a characteristic of the Benchmark, which had a thinner but more incisive, clearer and defined sound with a cleaner, grainfree treble.
On to the DAC3. The areas I agree with Mr. Kramer on are that the DAC3 has a wide, deep, large soundstage that clearly resolves images, with "oodles of detail", dynamics and speed. It's a very musical DAC that is easy to listen to and into. The Benchmark may still have the edge in crystalline clearness in the treble, but this is hard to say, as my DAC3 was not fully broken in when I made this comparison.
The body the DAC3 gives to the whole sonic fabric is something I've been waiting for in a moderate priced DAC. I don't know how Mr. Kramer can consider its bass lean, but I don't have Watt Puppies. The bass on my Von Schweikerts has more heft plus detail than with any other DAC I've used. I should point out, however, that I have seen the insides of another DAC3, and it had smaller transformers than mine, which might account for some differences in drive and bass, though I know Bel Canto would disagree with me, saying the tight regulation of the power supply makes it a moot point. I don't agree, but what do I know?
It is the first player/DAC that I could run direct into a power amp and live with. It sounds very much as Mr. Kramer describes: it has surprising bass, body and drive and does not collapse the soundstage, like most units do when run without a preamp. But I also agree with him that a preamp gives more body and drive, a more expansive and fleshed out soundstage. As Mr. Kramer put it, "lots more flesh... on the bones," and a more realistic spatial and physical presence. Running direct gives a bit more transparency, but at the expense of things like the full ring of cymbals, brushes and other treble information. Like smaller images (though still a good-sized soundstage) that don't 3-D as well or as large.
For someone who doesn't want to spend money for a preamp, I could see them being happy with the DAC3, and compensate for some of this with interconnects that exaggerate image size in the mids and highs, or a power amp with an overblown sound. Sounds crazy? Well, so much is about mix and match.
Is the DAC3 the greatest DAC in the world? I'm sure there are even better things out there. I haven't heard a lot of them, so I can't say. A newer Wadia direct? Possibly, or not. But plan to spend $8,000 plus. For now, the DAC3 is staying in my system.
