Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD

Steve,
I for one believe that synthetic materials generally seem to require extended burn in time compared to the natural materials. I also share your impression that natural material products tend to sound better more often than not.

Matt,

You wrote, "I may try running it direct to amp if I decide to keep it, otherwise I will do the entire audition running it through my Criterion..."

From what I've read, I *strongly* recommend that you try running the DS direct to amp before making a final decision. You might want to thoroughly A/B direct versus the Criterion.

I know of a couple of people who have gone direct DS-to-amp and have declared it to be better than running through a pre.

In my own experience, I recently demoed an ARC Ref 5se between my PS Audio PWD II DAC and amp, and it was worse than terrible! Such a highly vaunted preamp, and yet the result was like taking 100 steps backward. Though we gave it a number of hours for testing, we knew within 30 seconds that it simply didn't work. (Great way to save $13K, to boot.)

I'm just concerned that if you don't try direct-to-amp, you may be missing something big in the DS.

Rob

Where is the Asthetix digital players?, Are you still going to audition them Matt?

I don't think anyone is denying that equipment needs break in. It just does not need 1200 hours to do it.

Not having any dogs in this hunt, but definitely interested in the outcome, I agree with Matt's chosen audition methods. In fact, I applaud his efforts and am happy that he has established specific processes and has advised us of same.

If 500 to 700 hours of burn-in aren't enough, too bad. If one's in burn-in denial, an "absolute top tier" DAC thread probably isn't your cup of tea. So, now that we’re in agreement that burn-in has its importance, all we need to do is debate the length.

Somewhere between 300-700 hours of burn-in should be enough. Heck, my audio memory couldn't handle more than that. In fact, after a few hundred hours, I'm not sure that I could tell, or really care how hour 250 compared to 430, 670 etc…. How would I really know when the golden hour was reached or more importantly, really believe that someone else would arrive at the same golden hour conclusion as I?

If DAC's ran through Matt's pre-amp aren't getting the best out of one DAC or another, tough! Based on the myriad of posts regarding the pre-amp vs direct approach, at best, this topic is controversial and while most of us have our beliefs based on experience, they dramatically differ. However, as long as Matt tests all the DAC's using the same approach, that’s ok by me!

If the tube voiced and sold with a DAC doesn't bring the magic, oh well. I do roll tubes and absolutely believe that doing so has quite positive results! However, if a DAC's factory supplied tube(s) must be rolled to be competitive in tests such as this, then why doesn't the DAC designer sell his DAC with the tube of magic? I know: because NOS tubes are scarce, expensive, hard to source etc.

However, the DAC's design and its designers voicing, including tube complement, should stand on its own when comparing like-components. If DAC "C" can't compete with Matt's other DAC choices because DAC "C"'s design isn't good enough with its designer's tube(s) of choice, then perhaps the designer should change their design to make it competitive as it is shipped.

With the exception of the need for some burn-in, connection methods, tube types, IC's, PC's, footers, silver bowls hung in space, are all ancillary to what Matt is doing. I know we all have our chosen connection method, cable, tube, footer, stand, IC, PC etc., but how can Matt use what we think works best with specific DAC's etc.?

IMHO, let each DAC out-of-the-box stand on its own with every other DAC. As long as they are burned-in, connected, and affixed electronically and in space, the exact same way, it's all good!