How does 10+ year old technology compare to modern: Musical Fidelity M1 DAC

@boltapuresource

An audiophile DAC goes well beyond just getting the major sounds right. It is highly refined. So the thsss of a drumstick hitting a cymbal sounds like brass. the highly complex sound of a trumpet or sax has the full complexity for a brass instrument not just a cartoonish impression. The human voice becomes fully fleshed out. Very often on budget equipment, Schiit being a good example, the voice is recognizable but thin and a bit week... heard through a really good DAC it has real serious midrange weight.. I am not a fan of Tony Bennett and Frank Sinatra.... but the difference through a great DAC (with appropriate associated equipment) is simply astonishing... the power and depth of their voices. While, they are not my cup of tea... on a great system with a great DAC you can’t help but understand why they are so famous.

Some examples of Audiophile DACs would be Berkely Alpha Reference 3, Audio Research Reference 9, dCS Bartok (although I find this a bit thin... polite as it often referred to), MSB.

Within a given DAC budget (say, ~$5k) I'd go with a used ref. model - even if it's quite a few years old - rather than a new "mid-level" ditto. From my chair the DAC chip evolution, with a few exceptions, has if not stagnated then moved very slowly over some years now. The real culprit is its implementation, the quality of the analogue output stage, PSU and overall construction. Some recent DAC chips, like the dual-board chip from Hypex, provide for a staggering resolution and transparency, but I find it comes at the expense of tonal authenticity - i.e.: it robs tonal richness to my ears, even if it possibly cuts away what's considered excessive "fat" and which then that calls for substantial re-tweaking of acoustics (less absorption), speaker placement, etc. 

@phusis 

+1