Having now read, and re-read, JA's review, I wish I hadn't posted anything earlier. I'll try, therefore, to make amends to all concerned:
My comments regarding the differences between "us" and "them" were unfair. I, for one, couldn't begin to put together the technical analyses, charts, etc. that accompanied JA's review, although I see little relevance in terms of component evaluation.(Which puts me right back to my original statement, I suppose!) It goes without saying that charts can be used to indicate the "superiority" of components that really sound terrible, and vice versa. Bring on the SUBJECTIVE stuff. To JA's credit, I get the impression that all of the charts are simply a routine part of a Stereophile review (to satisfy the technogeeks among us?), and have special meaning in this instance merely to explain the problems experienced with his two examples of the DAC64.
I feel that JA's words are quite fair. Admittedly, he certainly can't be accused of "gushing" about the Chord, as did Jimmy Hughes in two consecutive issues of HiFi+. (Hughes' initial review prompted me to buy a DAC64, and, in retrospect, his review now strikes me as a bit sophomoric. I'm glad I found it, nontheless.) At the same time, however, I think if anyone can have a gripe here, it would be he/she who has purchased either a ML No. 3, or a Wadia 861! JA gives a "nod" to the ML, at a price penalty of $14.5K. Duh. He goes on to talk about the Musical Fidelity components having less subtle differences
than the $8K Wadia, when compared to the Chord. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read this to mean that the Chord and the Wadia sound more alike than do the Mus. Fid. and the Chord (the Mus. Fid. sounding "better"). It's difficult/impossible to determine how much of the Wadia's $8K is for the dac, but I would guess it's somewhere north of the Chord's price of admission.
Seems to me that those who have the Musical Fidelity dac should be tickled pink! If I could have auditioned both the Chord and the Mus. Fid., I might very well have ended up with the latter. "...eye-poppingly gorgeous" isn't worth $1800 to me, assuming the sonic differences are as subtle as JA indicates. The Chord does have nice fit and finish, and no one can deny that it's built like a battleship, but I find it no less "utilitarian" than the Mus. Fid., truth be told. (I am amused by the many references in various reviews about the appearance of components. In the current issue's review of the Cairn amp, for instance, we are admonished to buy only the silver-finished version. Tellig says: "If you don't want to look at it, why would you want to listen to it?" HUH? Seems to me that, if one wants to listen without distractions, the black version would be preferable, although it might not be as impressive to the "common folke" heh heh. Different strokes, I guess. Makes the world go 'round.) JA says that the Chord "...glows like an internally illuminated jewel..." True, if you're standing and looking down at it. From a distance, however, it looks simply like a brushed metal lozenge, sitting on your shelf, giving no indication of why it's there.
I know one thing for sure: JA's comment about "silky smooth highs" pretty well sums up the main reason I bought a DAC64, and one reason for my continued satisfaction.
One statement intrigues me: "While its soundstage was a little less fleshed-out than those of the best CD playback systems I have auditioned..." And what, pray tell, was the cost of those systems? Bet they weren't cheap! BTW---the other five reviews in the July issue had "Associated Equipment" lists. Where's the one for the Chord review, eh?
Jim
