Thanks for your response Teajay.
Just a comment on low end "extension". It has been my experience that among other things one of the easiest ways I can identify great analogue from great digital is not in the deep bass but in the low / midbass. this is where I have found almost all digital to just be "off" most of the time. Funny thing is that the best digital is usually quite a bit more extended but almost in an unnatural way. Throw an old cassette player into your system for an experiement. The first thing you will notice is a foundation and pace in the midbass that just sounds right and propels the music. To me it is the easiest thing to identify when hearing master tape for example. I do not think I have truly ever heard this from digital, ever. And I have heard a lot (not trying to bark up another tree, just commenting on the "extension" I may lose if I switch Dacs)
sometimes you learn the same lessons more than once about what you sonically prefer. It seems like an easy thing to pin down but that is not always true.
One of the interesting things for me in the past six months is that I have been searching for my first real full range speaker which by default bumps me into a three way. I have demoed some of the most highly regarded and have not wanted one of them. The take home message for me personally is that I love the coherence, particularly in the midband, of a great two way and am willing to live with the limitations that come with that design.
This applies indirectly to my intial post as in some ways the best "type 1" dacs are striving to include it all that digital can muster, at full scale, often at the slight expense of the best possible in the midband depending on someones taste. I know for certain the 3.1 will have tradeoffs and I'll bet I'm pretty accurate as to where they will be. What I am not sure of is whether I will care or not. I may just have to give it try.
Just a comment on low end "extension". It has been my experience that among other things one of the easiest ways I can identify great analogue from great digital is not in the deep bass but in the low / midbass. this is where I have found almost all digital to just be "off" most of the time. Funny thing is that the best digital is usually quite a bit more extended but almost in an unnatural way. Throw an old cassette player into your system for an experiement. The first thing you will notice is a foundation and pace in the midbass that just sounds right and propels the music. To me it is the easiest thing to identify when hearing master tape for example. I do not think I have truly ever heard this from digital, ever. And I have heard a lot (not trying to bark up another tree, just commenting on the "extension" I may lose if I switch Dacs)
sometimes you learn the same lessons more than once about what you sonically prefer. It seems like an easy thing to pin down but that is not always true.
One of the interesting things for me in the past six months is that I have been searching for my first real full range speaker which by default bumps me into a three way. I have demoed some of the most highly regarded and have not wanted one of them. The take home message for me personally is that I love the coherence, particularly in the midband, of a great two way and am willing to live with the limitations that come with that design.
This applies indirectly to my intial post as in some ways the best "type 1" dacs are striving to include it all that digital can muster, at full scale, often at the slight expense of the best possible in the midband depending on someones taste. I know for certain the 3.1 will have tradeoffs and I'll bet I'm pretty accurate as to where they will be. What I am not sure of is whether I will care or not. I may just have to give it try.