DAC Shootout Starts This Weekend

Thank you for your response-  very very helpful.  I kind of thought Bricasti would likely be the way to go- and have been debating between an M3 and an M1 SE (assuming I could find a used one and within my budget).  A straight M1 would probably be in range but then wouldn't an M3 with MDx be a somewhat better sounding DAC?
What I had not realized is that a Nucleus vs a Mac Mini would make such a difference- I simply assumed the Nucleus, while a more tailored solution, would still have the same characteristics of using a computer.  Also, I thought that once a Dac with a network card was in place + using an ethernet connection then the Mac Mini (or similar) issues would be taken out of the loop (I guess I was thinking mostly of Usb "noise").
As someone posted already getting digital right is as complicated as analog.  I am just starting to get up to speed all the intricacies and have quite a way to go.

I know it doesn't seem obvious a server would make that much difference.  Part of it is the quality of the parts.  Part of it is the higher processing power and parts selected specifically for audio performance.  Servers make a difference more than most people think.  Think of it this way.  I have had quite a few people order Nucleus's while being skeptical if they actually make a difference.  I have never had one returned on my 30 day return policy.  

The M1 SE is going to be a bit more detailed than the M3.  Soundstage in both cases is huge.  I have not sold an M1 and have not heard it.   Bricasti said few people ever buy it vs. the M1 SE so I ordered and M1 SE and M3 for my initial samples.  The M1 SE is quite a step up from the M3 though the M3 is quite competitive in its price tier.  

@verdantaudio   I'm curious how you attribute an aspect like soundstage depth to a DAC, in context of the uniqueness of various systems, the rooms these systems are in, the listener positions, and the use / lack of use of room treatment (for the purchasing party)?

I'm not challenging...just trying to understand and learn.

Thanks. - David.

"Regarding DAC, if soundstage depth is your concern, I would avoid..."

I’m curious how you attribute an aspect like soundstage depth to a DAC, in context of the uniqueness of various systems, the rooms these systems are in, the listener positions, and the use / lack of use of room treatment (for the purchasing party)?

I’m not challenging...just trying to understand and learn.

@david_ten

am sure scott will answer, but my 2 cents, my own process:

- have my system set up ideally in my room (see my system page for pics)

- have my standard ’reference’ dac in place, know how music i know well sounds, how the soundstage is presented, in terms of size (width, height, depth) and separation / layering / relative distance of voices/instruments etc

- swap in new dac being evaluated, adjust for correct (same) volume level, listen and perceive how the sonic ’image’ is presented differently, if at all (don’t change anything else, even cabling)

- btw - having a well selected playlist of familiar music helps alot in this...

hope that helps

@david_ten I have been lucky to have heard dozens of these premium DACs with a variety of speakers in my home and in many friends and customers homes.  I am lucky.  

On a relative basis, certain brands/DACs exhibit certain properties.  In any system, I would expect a Rockna DAC to sound wider and flatter than Chord DAC which would be narrower but much deeper.  There are many ways to compensate but if everything is held equal, I would expect this relatively to be true.  
 

you are right though.  A combination of room treatments or different speakers and system components could achieve different results.  If depth of soundstage is a concern, MBL or Raidho speakers would have a bigger impact than a Bricasti DAC.  But, that necessitates rethinking amplification and a variety of things.  And it is true that a Rockna DAC in a system with Raidho speakers would probably sound deeper than a Chord or Bricasti DAC in a system with Magico speakers.  but that isn’t the exercise in this case.  The only variable proposed was DAC.

this does raise  an important point and something everyone should be reminded of.  The particular results in this thread are from a system that is intentionally held constant to provide relative characteristics.  And I think that is the key here, results are relative.  When you change a variable (speaker, amp, etc…), you do need to think through the implications.