Integrated Amp / Stereo Receiver

[gmgraves]

On 10/17/2017 at 8:18 AM, uyire said:

I recently purchased a TEAC UD-301 DAC and I really like it (using it with TIDAL HiFi). I am in the process of upgrading my speakers (considering KEF LS50, BMR Philharmonitor and few other options). I am also looking at purchasing an integrated amp with/without DAC. 

 

Could someone help me with the selection process. My current list:

 

1) Cambridge Audio Azur 851A - $1699

2) Rotel RA-1572 ($1699) or RA-1570 (Used one)

3) Outlaw RR2160 Stereo Receiver - $799

 

I am open to other suggestions as well.

 

Thanks

 

This would have to be used because H-K doesn't make this any more, but the Harman-Kardon HK-900 is a magnificent integrated amp. It has both MC and MM phono stages, a built-in 24/192 DAC, and DSP equalization for matching main speakers with sub-woofers and dialing the system in for the room. It is true dual mono with separate toroidal transformers for each channel and puts out 150 Watts/channel into 8Ω and 300W/c into 4Ω. 

 

But, I just read a review in the British Mag Hi-Fi Choice for two pieces of equipment from Emotiva and they rave about the performance/sound quality of these really inexpensive pieces. They are the BasX PT-100 which is a full pre-amp with a built-in 24/192 DAC, MC and MM phono inputs and a very good FM tuner. It's $300* and it looks well made with a CNC front panel, vacuum fluorescent display and a remote. 

 

Next is the BasX A-300 power amp. 150 WPC @8Ω and 300 WPC @4Ω! Again the cost is just $300* HiFi Choice gave both units their highest accolades while puzzling why other comparable performing components cost so much more!

 

I reviewed an early Emotiva Preamp several years ago and found it to be beautifully made, with the highest quality components, and magnificent sound. If I hadn't already sprung for an HK-900, I would have bought the review unit!

 

* Yes, those prices are correct. Go to Emotiva,com and check them out for yourself. Look under the BasX components for the full dope on these bargain pieces and a look at the entire line. the price/performance ratio is simply amazing for this US based company. 

[GUTB]

I auditioned the BasX A-300, and it was THE worst linear amp I've ever heard. Only the Teac integrated was worse. I can't take a company that puts out such a bad product seriously.

 

Avoid.

 

Honestly...I really don't know if you CAN get a quality amp less than $1k new.

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, GUTB said:

I auditioned the BasX A-300, and it was THE worst linear amp I've ever heard. Only the Teac integrated was worse. I can't take a company that puts out such a bad product seriously.

 

Avoid.

 

Honestly...I really don't know if you CAN get a quality amp less than $1k new.

 

Like I said, I'm going by a glowing review for both the pre-amp and the amp in a British Hi-Fi publication known for their honesty and good advice and by the fact that I reviewed an Emotiva preamp (not this one) a number of years ago and found it excellent in every way. I have no experience with either component I wrote about, above. What did you find wrong with the sound of the  A-300?

[uyire]

On 10/19/2017 at 7:46 PM, GUTB said:

I auditioned the BasX A-300, and it was THE worst linear amp I've ever heard. Only the Teac integrated was worse. I can't take a company that puts out such a bad product seriously.

 

Avoid.

 

Honestly...I really don't know if you CAN get a quality amp less than $1k new.

 

How about Emotiva XPA Gen3?

 

https://emotiva.com/product/xpa-gen3/

[TubeLover]

On 10/19/2017 at 9:39 PM, gmgraves said:

 

This would have to be used because H-K doesn't make this any more, but the Harman-Kardon HK-900 is a magnificent integrated amp. It has both MC and MM phono stages, a built-in 24/192 DAC, and DSP equalization for matching main speakers with sub-woofers and dialing the system in for the room. It is true dual mono with separate toroidal transformers for each channel and puts out 150 Watts/channel into 8Ω and 300W/c into 4Ω. 

 

 

I would second the HK-900, one of the greatest values in audio history, and perfect for powering your LS50's. However, they are extremely difficult to find used. It would seem not many owners choose to give them up.

 

Beyond that, either the Job, or a McIntosh unit, as many have recommended, are fine choices.

 

JC

[beerandmusic]

^^^^  I have tried emotiva, one of their top of the line models, and it easily paled to any mcintosh.

Mcintosh is on a whole different level, and worlds apart.

 

NOT EVEN CLOSE...funny someone would even consider emotiva over Mcintosh.

 

You got your DACs right, but very wrong on AMPS.....surprised from you.

[beerandmusic]

9 hours ago, uyire said:

 

How about Emotiva XPA Gen3?

 

https://emotiva.com/product/xpa-gen3/

 

I read reviews and I bought one of these and disappointed and sold within a week.

 

The ONLY amp i have heard that compares to a Mcintosh is a PASS LABS, and i have done a/b comparisons of about 100 different amps over a 3 year period.  Once you try a MAC you will never go BACK.  I really tried to save on AMPS, because i felt i couldn't afford an expensive amp or that it wouldn't make a big difference.  Boy was I wrong....It's like light and DAY, and much bigger difference than the difference between a $100 DAC and a $2000 DAC.

 

Skimp on the DAC, but don't skimp on the amp!

[davide256]

   Sounds like you want to stay below $2k. Which means a trade off between solid state and tube amps in sound quality. Tube amps will be fat, rich in tonal color but slower in transients and lower powered for the same $.  Solid state amps will be faster, more "slam", but in the mid range its like living off diet bread. As you go up in price these differences will narrow but not completely disappear.

    My advice to anyone buying a system is always listen to speakers first and make that decision before you buy an amp.. Speakers introduce the greatest amount of sound artifacts of any component in your system and vary wildly in efficiency. Once you have found the speaker that "resonates" with your likes, dislikes, you  can start checking forums for what amp other users have found works well with your speaker/ has the necessary "guts" to drive your particular speaker.

   I'd also recommend the used audiophile market for your amp purchase, amps last decades and you can buy a better quality unit for your money. There are a lot of folks out there that sell off last years new amp for this years upgrade.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I read reviews and I bought one of these and disappointed and sold within a week.

 

The ONLY amp i have heard that compares to a Mcintosh is a PASS LABS, and i have done a/b comparisons of about 100 different amps over a 3 year period.  Once you try a MAC you will never go BACK.  I really tried to save on AMPS, because i felt i couldn't afford an expensive amp or that it wouldn't make a big difference.  Boy was I wrong....It's like light and DAY, and much bigger difference than the difference between a $100 DAC and a $2000 DAC.

 

Skimp on the DAC, but don't skimp on the amp!

 

Interesting that you are so picky about amplifiers. I review them all the time and when writing about one amp and comparing it to what I'm currently running in my "reference system" (yes, that term is ridiculously pretentious, but it's what everyone uses, so....). I have a hell of time describing what's different. I don't like reviewing amplifiers because they all sound so close to one another now days that finding things to differentiate them, sound-quality wise, is a real pain in the butt.  Yes, there are still differences, but they are much more subtle than they used to be. In fact,  I haven't heard a sonically  bad component amplifier since the Japanese stopped using those encapsulated Sanko power-amp modules in their cheap receivers! It's not like the old days when two different amps were easy to compare almost instantly because they sounded so different that those differences showed up almost instantly.  

[beerandmusic]

On 10/21/2017 at 12:27 PM, gmgraves said:

 

Interesting that you are so picky about amplifiers. I review them all the time and when writing about one amp and comparing it to what I'm currently running in my "reference system" (yes, that term is ridiculously pretentious, but it's what everyone uses, so....). I have a hell of time describing what's different. I don't like reviewing amplifiers because they all sound so close to one another now days that finding things to differentiate them, sound-quality wise, is a real pain in the butt.  Yes, there are still differences, but they are much more subtle than they used to be. In fact,  I haven't heard a sonically  bad component amplifier since the Japanese stopped using those encapsulated Sanko power-amp modules in their cheap receivers! It's not like the old days when two different amps were easy to compare almost instantly because they sounded so different that those differences showed up almost instantly.  

I don't know, i used to think the same thing.  Then i got a hold of a mcintosh amplifier and it was worlds apart from anything else i have compared to.  Even after I bought and sold my first one, i figured i would find another amp i liked just as well, as i just had a hard time budgeting a $2000+ amp.  And so the hunt wen on, for nearly a year....granted, I have already tested and compared many amps before then.  And it took me nearly a year to find another amp (after about 20-30 attempts), and came across a threshold (nelson pass) amp, and it had a lot of the same characteristics that no other amp i have heard was close to...and it was a 20+ year old amp...and i lived with that threshold for about 6 months, but put it on market and took awhile to sell, but I knew once it sold, i would buy a mcintosh again, and never go back.  It has so much "space" between the instruments and depth, and made it sound like every instrument had a separate amp and in it's own space....don't really know how to describe it.  It also sounds warmer for vocals...i don't get some "shrills" on some recordings that make me want to cover my ears.  Those are the 3 most characteristics that make a MCintosh different than any other (although the pass labs was close).

 

best way i can describe

1.  Lots of clean space (like many different amps for each frequency)

2. Lots of depth and soundstage

3. warmth

 

I had a lot more difficult time telling dacs a part than amps...the difference paled in comparison to amps for me.  I have tried at least 100 different amps and 20 different dacs.  I agree, most amps are difficult to tell a part...but the few that do, are worlds a part.

 

[gmgraves]

36 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I don't know, i used to think the same thing.  Then i got a hold of a mcintosh amplifier and it was worlds apart from anything else i have compared to.  Even after I bought and sold my first one, i figured i would find another amp i liked just as well, as i just had a hard time budgeting a $2000+ amp.  And so the hunt wen on, for nearly a year....granted, I have already tested and compared many amps before then.  And it took me nearly a year to find another amp (after about 20-30 attempts), and came across a threshold (nelson pass) amp, and it had a lot of the same characteristics that no other amp i have heard was close to...and it was a 20+ year old amp...and i lived with that threshold for about 6 months, but put it on market and took awhile to sell, but I knew once it sold, i would buy a mcintosh again, and never go back.  It has so much "space" between the instruments and depth, and made it sound like every instrument had a separate amp and in it's own space....don't really know how to describe it.  It also sounds warmer for vocals...i don't get some "shrills" on some recordings that make me want to cover my ears.  Those are the 3 most characteristics that make a MCintosh different than any other (although the pass labs was close).

 

best way i can describe

1.  Lots of clean space (like many different amps for each frequency)

2. Lots of depth and soundstage

3. warmth

 

I had a lot more difficult time telling dacs a part than amps...the difference paled in comparison to amps for me.  I have tried at least 100 different amps and 20 different dacs.  I agree, most amps are difficult to tell a part...but the few that do, are worlds a part.

 

 

When you talk about a McIntosh amp, are talking tube of SS? IF SS, I can cite you an instance where the Mac doesn't sound very good. Mac SS amps and Martin Logan ESS's don't work together at all! I went to my local Magnolia HiFi shop to hear the then new Martin Logan CLX. I sat and endured the distortion as long as I could (I'd heard the CLXs before and I knew what they should sound like and what I was hearing wasn't it) So, scanning the rack of equipment in the room I noticed that the meters on a McIntosh amp were keeping time with the music, so I asked the sales guy if he could connect another amplifier. He hooked up a (physically large) Marantz power amp (don't know anything about the model. As far as I know it could have been a 7 channel AV surround amp) and continued listening via the same Marantz SACD/CD player as before. The audio instantly cleared right up. The distortion was gone, and even the salesman noticed it as did the other assembled listeners. Of course, it could have been that the McIntosh was defective, but the salesman rejected that idea because of McIntosh's "legendary" quality control. Could be though.

 

[beerandmusic]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

When you talk about a McIntosh amp, are talking tube of SS? IF SS, I can cite you an instance where the Mac doesn't sound very good. Mac SS amps and Martin Logan ESS's don't work together at all! I went to my local Magnolia HiFi shop to hear the then new Martin Logan CLX. I sat and endured the distortion as long as I could (I'd heard the CLXs before and I knew what they should sound like and what I was hearing wasn't it) So, scanning the rack of equipment in the room I noticed that the meters on a McIntosh amp were keeping time with the music, so I asked the sales guy if he could connect another amplifier. He hooked up a (physically large) Marantz power amp (don't know anything about the model. As far as I know it could have been a 7 channel AV surround amp) and continued listening via the same Marantz SACD/CD player as before. The audio instantly cleared right up. The distortion was gone, and even the salesman noticed it as did the other assembled listeners. Of course, it could have been that the McIntosh was defective, but the salesman rejected that idea because of McIntosh's "legendary" quality control. Could be though.

 

I am sure it was a fluke..  Mcintosh's least expensive amp and current model MC162 has won many awards, and I owned one and it has all the same richness as other models I have and do have, and is noted especially for it's low distortion...anyway, you can stick with your HK or emotiva suggestions (of which I have tried and wouldn't consider in the top 10), and i will faithfully stick with Mcintosh.

[beerandmusic]

^^^typo, i meant MC152

 

http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/us/images/ReviewAwardDocuments/MC152 Review Hi-Fi World October 2015.pdf

[Ajax]

On 18/10/2017 at 2:18 AM, uyire said:

I recently purchased a TEAC UD-301 DAC and I really like it (using it with TIDAL HiFi). I am in the process of upgrading my speakers (considering KEF LS50, BMR Philharmonitor and few other options). I am also looking at purchasing an integrated amp with/without DAC. 

 

I am open to other suggestions as well.

 

Thanks

Hi Uyire,

 

Lots of ways to skin the cat.

 

If you really do like the TEAC, and are open to other suggestions, then why not use the 301 as a preamp and simply add a digital power amp such as those from Nord in the UK, of if you prefer A/B sound then look for an older power amp from Parasound, MacIntosh, Classe or Krell from sites such as Canuck Audio Mart or Ebay. Something in excess of 100 watts per channel into 8 ohms so you don't limit your speaker choice and will be able to drive the KEF LS50 as they need decent power to shine.

 

I own a Nord Hypex NC500 and a second hand Parasound A21 and either would work well depending on your own preference.

 

https://www.nordacoustics.co.uk/products

 

Depending on the size of your room active KEF LS50s for about $2200 connected directly to the TEAC would produce an excellent outcome (with a very small footprint) but will limit your future upgrade path.

 

Enjoy the confusion!

 

Ajax

 

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

I am sure it was a fluke..  Mcintosh's least expensive amp and current model MC162 has won many awards, and I owned one and it has all the same richness as other models I have and do have, and is noted especially for it's low distortion...anyway, you can stick with your HK or emotiva suggestions (of which I have tried and wouldn't consider in the top 10), and i will faithfully stick with Mcintosh.

 

Actually, that's not my point. I think that most McIntosh equipment is fine stuff. I just don't think that any one brand of amplifiers is THAT superior to any others. Today's amps are so clean and produce such effortless power, that other than a slight Yin from this one and a Yang from that one, I don't hear enough difference SQ wise to get all that excited about any of them. I have, in house, right now, a D'Agustino  Momentum Integrated amp. I've listened to it compared to my Krell KA300i, and my HK-990. While it sounds more like the Krell than does the HK (which makes sense, Dan D'Agustino designed them both)  I wouldn't kick any one of the three out of my audio system, but the Krell was $3K when new and the HK was $2.5K and the D'Agustino is >$40K! Is the Momentum Integrated 10 to 12X better than these other two amps? Hell no. They all three are clean, well designed amps and I suspect anyone would be happy with any of them (well, maybe not you).

[Speed Racer]

All hight quality solid state amps do not sound about the same. I was floored when I heard the Pioneer M-22 for the first time. Sure, it has only 30 watts, all Class A, and it was made in the late 70's and is rare to find these days. But, with efficient speakers, it would be very hard too beat.

 

After my experience with the Pioneer M-22, I would not be happy with just any high quality solid sate amp.

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

All hight quality solid state amps do not sound about the same. I was floored when I heard the Pioneer M-22 for the first time. Sure, it has only 30 watts, all Class A, and it was made in the late 70's and is rare to find these days. But, with efficient speakers, it would be very hard too beat.

 

After my experience with the Pioneer M-22, I would not be happy with just any high quality solid sate amp.

 

They certainly didn't all sound the same in the 1970's (when your Pioneer was made) but since the 90's they've been more alike than different. 

[beerandmusic]

On 10/23/2017 at 9:55 PM, gmgraves said:

 

They certainly didn't all sound the same in the 1970's (when your Pioneer was made) but since the 90's they've been more alike than different. 

 

All I can say, and without any hesistation or thought, is that a Mcintosh amp in my system made a whole lot more difference than the difference between a $100 and $2000 dac.  Maybe Mcintosh has house sound that I like, but for whatever reason, it's a whole different league which i can't say about any dac comparisons i have done.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

All I can say, and without any hesistation or thought, is that a Mcintosh amp in my system made a whole lot more difference than the difference between a $100 and $2000 dac.  Maybe Mcintosh has house sound that I like, but for whatever reason, it's a whole different league which i can't say about any dac comparisons i have done.

 

That may well be the case. I know, for instance, that for years, McIntosh used interstage transformers to couple the signal to the output transistors in their SS designs. I always thought that the transformer made the amps sound warm but slow. I always thought that one of the great things about SS over tubes was the ability to get rid of transformers in the audio path, but beautifully designed and executed bi-filar wound output transformers were what made McIntosh stand-out from the crowd during the tube era, and I suspect they thought by incorporating transformer in their SS designs would keep the magic going. If they still do that, it might account for an amp that sounds different to you than do other amps. I'm not making a judgement here, merely trying to pin down why one modern amp would sound so much different from another as to give people really strong opinions about amps. But you are right about one thing (IMHO), DAC sound is very subtle and only a little less subtle than the difference between most amplifiers. One has to listen closely for a long time to notice any difference at all. But if I swap one DAC for another, I can tell "something different" about the presentation immediately. I usually can't put my finger on what it is without long listening sessions, but I can tell instantly that the character of the presentation has changed.

[davide256]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

 

That may well be the case. I know, for instance, that for years, McIntosh used interstage transformers to couple the signal to the output transistors in their SS designs. I always thought that the transformer made the amps sound warm but slow. I always thought that one of the great things about SS over tubes was the ability to get rid of transformers in the audio path, but beautifully designed and executed bi-filar wound output transformers were what made McIntosh stand-out from the crowd during the tube era, and I suspect they thought by incorporating transformer in their SS designs would keep the magic going. If they still do that, it might account for an amp that sounds different to you than do other amps. I'm not making a judgement here, merely trying to pin down why one modern amp would sound so much different from another as to give people really strong opinions about amps. But you are right about one thing (IMHO), DAC sound is very subtle and only a little less subtle than the difference between most amplifiers. One has to listen closely for a long time to notice any difference at all. But if I swap one DAC for another, I can tell "something different" about the presentation immediately. I usually can't put my finger on what it is without long listening sessions, but I can tell instantly that the character of the presentation has changed.

Actually that not the reason tube amps are usually slow. I've modded  a CJ pre-amp power supply and bought the integrated Prima Luna I have based on that learning. The standard diodes used in tube amp power bridges are too slow. A faster diode like the avalanche diodes helps immensely. 

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

That may well be the case. I know, for instance, that for years, McIntosh used interstage transformers to couple the signal to the output transistors in their SS designs. I always thought that the transformer made the amps sound warm but slow. I always thought that one of the great things about SS over tubes was the ability to get rid of transformers in the audio path, but beautifully designed and executed bi-filar wound output transformers were what made McIntosh stand-out from the crowd during the tube era, and I suspect they thought by incorporating transformer in their SS designs would keep the magic going. If they still do that, it might account for an amp that sounds different to you than do other amps. I'm not making a judgement here, merely trying to pin down why one modern amp would sound so much different from another as to give people really strong opinions about amps. But you are right about one thing (IMHO), DAC sound is very subtle and only a little less subtle than the difference between most amplifiers. One has to listen closely for a long time to notice any difference at all. But if I swap one DAC for another, I can tell "something different" about the presentation immediately. I usually can't put my finger on what it is without long listening sessions, but I can tell instantly that the character of the presentation has changed.

I actually bought the gungnir and am returning it.  I thought the usbgen5 may be worth it to try yet another dac.  I had an older bifrost before and was happy with it, but still prefferred native dsd. 

 

I have a pretty large collection of DSD material I have "acquired", and this is my "thinking" anyway.

If i play a dsf file (256K dsd), to the gungnir, it has to be downsampled to 48K if i use standard ASIO drivers, and then the gungnir I believe will upsample it to 192k....so i go from 256K to 48K then to 192K....and it has been my past experience that whenever the hardware is upsampling (true even with TEAC), it doesn't sound as good as if playing native DSD or or if software is used to upsample.   If i set the player to play 192K then it sounds better letting the software upsample and then the gungnir will play as is without doing anything to it....bottom line for me, is that hardware upsampling doesn't sound as good as native or software upsampling.  The Schiits may be a good choice for someone that has only standard flac files and use hqplayer or some other software to upsample first and don't let the schiit do any upsampling....but i am going back to my $100 dac but keeping my mcintosh.  I may end up buying a usb toy afterall, but i will play predominantly dsd native.

 

I don't know why mcintoshes sound better and unique to me as compared to other amps, but i think i figured out why i like cheap dsd dacs better than more expensive non-dsd dacs....No knock on the schiits (very supportive and no hassle return, albeit a reasonable 5%)..it sounded great..i just prefer native dsd. 

 

I have even searched google why mcintoshes sound different and many ascribe it to the autoformers, but my 6500 doesn't even have that technology.  I liked the MC152 (which did have the autoformers), but it was a bit over my budget and I want the "integrated" features of the 6500.  Many people do suggest that ss mcintoshes are warmer and sound tube-like...the depth and soundstage also is very notable, that i don't hear on many newer amps...I had huge hopes on the emotiva but it didnt satisfy me....There must be something in those mcintoshes design and circuitry that is very unique....suckers are so HEAVY too (despite it's low height, the MC152 is a whopping 75lbs)...

 

 

 

[Speed Racer]

Lol!!

[NOMBEDES]

On 10/18/2017 at 9:08 AM, NOMBEDES said:

I think Job products are very fine products.  They get very good reviews.  Do some research, you will find quite a few good reviews.

 

If you are looking for a FM Receiver the AVM Company had a integrated amp with a built in CD player, a Phono stage and a FM receiver.

AVM C8 and C9.  I do not know if they still offer such a beast.  I have one and have had no complaints.

[beerandmusic]

4 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

Lol!!

Are you LOL'ing my comment about preferrng native resolution or software upsampled to hardware upsampled?

 

What do you find so amusing?  Lots of people prefer using HQplayer and upsampling to quad dsd than to use hardware upsampling...probably the majority.  To me, it sounds more dynamic and discrete to play native than to let hardware upsample....hardware seems to make it sound mushy in comparison....don't get me wrong..it still sounds great...just sounds better to play native or software vs hardware upsampling.  I experienced the same thing with TEAC dacs.  I actually prefer native 96k to hardware upsampled 192K...not sure why that is, but I am not alone in this boat.  The teac even allowed you to change the upsampling rate with dial so easy to compare...If i use software (either audiogateway or hqp to upsample, that is better too...but native dsd files sound best imo

 

[Speed Racer]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

Are you LOL'ing my comment about preferrng native resolution or software upsampled to hardware upsampled?

 

What do you find so amusing?  Lots of people prefer using HQplayer and upsampling to quad dsd than to use hardware upsampling...probably the majority.  To me, it sounds more dynamic and discrete to play native than to let hardware upsample....hardware seems to make it sound mushy in comparison....don't get me wrong..it still sounds great...just sounds better to play native or software vs hardware upsampling.  I experienced the same thing with TEAC dacs.  I actually prefer native 96k to hardware upsampled 192K...not sure why that is, but I am not alone in this boat.  The teac even allowed you to change the upsampling rate with dial so easy to compare...If i use software (either audiogateway or hqp to upsample, that is better too...but native dsd files sound best imo

 

 

I am laughing because you can't make up your mind. I suspect a great DAC could come up and kiss you and you wouldn't know it.

 

I don't think you know what the difference is between NOS, hardware upsampling, software upsampling, and converting from PCM to DSD. I can guarantee that the majority don't prefer using HQplayer converting to DSD. Most users are not that sophisticated.

 

Software upsampling is often better than letting the DAC do it (what you call hardware upsampling). But that is not always the case. With a quality DAC that upsamples, you will not get "mushy" sound quality. 

 

There are a lot of people that prefer NOS DACs with no upsampling. There are those that prefer a NOS DAC with software upsampling. There are those that prefer Sigma Delta DACs and there are those that prefer R2R DACs.

 

What you should do is get a quality NOS DAC that supports DSD natively. But, I suspect you will end up with some under $500 DAC that sounds great to you......but doesn't really sound all that great.