The Emperor DAC has no Clothes

do you exclude the possibility that a tube dac , with a tube gain stage and a particular nos tube cannot sound very different than a solid state dac ?>>>>

I'd like to address this question, especially given the fact that I heard the Minimax + in two very different systems.
The answer is no. The Mimimax sounded pretty much the same. Extended listening revealed TINY differences in soundstage (weaker in the tube stage), slightly sweeter top end (audible mainly on older harsher recordings) and a bit of thickness in the midrange, especially on vocals. Going the SS mode retained the sweetness and improved other areas.
So the tube added nothing substantial, certainly not in the way my Manley amp does. I've also heard my share of tube CD players now and I'm well convinced that the tubes do little and perhaps even detract from the designs.
My opinion, shared by some and denied by others, is that tubes belong in amps and preamps, but NOT digital source gear. Of course folks will say they heard the greatest tube CDP or DAC, but I believe those units would be even better without the tubes.

Cheers,

Rob

audioengr, very interesting post with many valid points about the economics of small high-end manufacturers--you're clearly well informed. to be clear, the "only 5% is in the actual electronics" quote is a statement from the mf guy, not my personal view. i also have no absolutely doubt that, for the reasons you list, you'll get better performance from higher cost, better-designed DACs utilizing better parts. the issue, as ever, is whether the incremental improvement in performance is worth the extra cost. personally, i subscribe to the OP's original premise--that (unlike speakers or preamps) the sonic differences between good lower-cost DACs and good higher-cost DACs can be small and, subjectively, may not be worth the extra investment. others with better ears or greater desire for sonic nirvana will disagree. finally, i'd reiterate that cost is an imperfect measure of performance--hificritic (which is generally regarded as one of the more credible professional reviewers) tested the v-dac and rated it higher than a lot of other, much swankier products.

Well then I guess I'm going to have to try the Rega just for the hell of it all to see how what you describe will play out in my rig, really curious now. Interestingly it isn't the extra detail of the Wyred that jumps out at me over say the Oppo or the Plus, in that area there are more similarities, it is tonality and the natural flow of the music plus greater weight, notably brass and piano and of course the bass resolution and weight as well. Those are the obvious differences so clearly discernable a reason I find comments regarding it sounding "analytical" baffling and wonder if system differences are somehow coming into play. Is there anyone else out there that hears these differences? Is is no subtle thing to my ears. On another note the characteristics in the Plus with every premium tube, without the tube in the circuit does not CHANGE the leanness of the unit although I agree that the top end upper frequencies are quite exquisite which is what I was initially drawn to. It is the overall tonal balance of the design, it is just too lean for my tastes and system based on what I suspect a compromised power supply.

My experience has also been that the impact of a tube in a CD player or DAC is rather minimal. However, I've heard several people state their preference for EE DAC + tube stage after changing out the stock tube. I've ordered a NOS Mullard to replace the EH. Will see how that goes.

Lots of interesting comments on this thread. I think there’s some truth in Rob’s observation that dacs in the same price range have similar sound quality. The same thing could probably be said of preamps, amps, and even speakers. The same thing could also be said of other consumer items. Cars in the same price range have a similar build quality and design quality, which largely determines their “drive quality.” Dacs in the same price range have a similar build quality and design quality, which largely determines their sound quality. Let’s treat this as axiomatic…

(1) Build Quality + Design Quality = Sound Quality

This statement is intended in the same spirit at Steve N.’s comment that…

What makes a really stellar component is the other "STUFF", as well as the IMPLEMENTATION.[emphasis added]

I agree with Steve, though my opinion about these things is far less informed than his. The point is that Rob’s observation that dacs in a similar price range sound similar can be largely explained by the fact that the similar price reflects similar design quality and build quality, and that results in similar sound quality. You get the idea.

Having said that, I think Statement (1) is true ONLY UP TO A POINT. That is to say, design quality and built quality are not the only determinants of sound quality. Another major determinant of sound quality is the SYSTEM in which a piece of equipment is heard. So, to revise…

(2) Build Quality + Design Quality + System Quality = Sound Quality

That’s more like it. Statement (2) is intended in the same spirit as Al’s comment that…

…while it is easy (and very common) to blame THE QUALITY OF A SYSTEM when there is a reported inability to perceive differences, that is not necessarily what is going on. And in fact an inverse correlation may often exist between THE ABILITY OF A SYSTEM to resolve musical information, and its ability to resolve differences between components, cables, tweaks, etc.[emphasis added]

I agree with Al. The system in which a component is heard is an essential (and somewhat paradoxical) determinant of sound quality. That would seem to be the end of the story. But it isn’t.

There is another major determinant of sound quality, and that is THE LISTENER. To revise again…

(3) Build Quality + Design Quality + System Quality + Listener Quality = Sound Quality.

You see where I’m going with this. The variables are increasing, the equation is expanding, and “Sound Quality” is becoming less and less easy to determine. But before I get into that, what do I mean by “Listener Quality”? I mean both the listener’s EXPERTISE and the listener’s VALUES, both of which vary widely from audiophile to audiophile. Statement (3) is intended in the same spirit as Audio Oracle’s comment that…

…pay me a visit I can demonstrate to you that your findings are only accurate in your limited set of circumstances: your system setup and your EARS, extrapolating your particular BIASES and EXPECTATIONS to the rest of an industry is fallacious.[emphasis added]

So where does this leave us? In a state of uncertainty, I’m afraid. Here is the reason: As you move through the various “Qualities” listed in Statement (3), they become increasingly subjective. In other words…

Build Quality… slightly subjective
Design Quality… a bit more subjective
System Quality… more subjective still
Listener Quality… largely subjective
Sound Quality… quite subjective

If sound quality were merely a matter of build quality and design quality, then estimates about sound quality would be quite uniform. But add into the equation different systems, which includes different rooms and different source material. Then add different listeners, which includes different expertise and different values. What you get when you add all that up are estimates about sound quality that vary widely, EVEN FOR equipment with similar build quality and design quality. Some will see the Emperor’s new clothes, and some will not. Some will find his new clothes beautiful, and some will not.

I generally don’t like to conclude something so Subjectivist, but I don’t see any way around it.

Bryon