uh, oh I think I got a post removed, so time to do another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillhart View Post
 
 
It's hard explaining to people the difference.  It's something that's hard to grasp until you've heard it.  For me, I like to use the example of the crash cymbals.  On a something like the Sabre DAC, it sounds almost like someone crumpling up a plastic bag.  It is very digital sounding and sounds nothing like an actual cymbal. 
 
Like go here and listen to the "S" sound:  http://www.speaknspell.co.uk/speaknspell.html  You get the idea that it's supposed to be an S but nobody would confuse that with someone actually saying the letter S.
 
R2R is like a real voice and D-S is like a Speak-n-Spell.  You might have a filter that makes your Speak-n-Spell less harsh, but it will never sound like a real person talking.  We just don't ever notice because we're so used to that crappy D-S sound. 


EDIT:  WT heck..........Which recordings of crash cymbals are you using, what Sabre implementation, they all do not sound the same, regardless of chip.  And the R2R dacs I have owned in the past were not so good, by todays DS standards, even though some cost almost $3k. I disagree, and think your blanket characterization of dac topologies to be a bit short sided.  Yes,  you can have a great NEW r2r dac, and you can have some very good DS dacs.  Simply stating that one over the other because of topology is preposterous, IMHO.