DAC Question: Delta-Sigma vs R2R

Sorry to waylay this thread but New Year Wish.

Bricasti releases a stand alone M21 ladder DAC at a reasonable price (M3 price?)

@mod_asored  Tons of good advice so far, my only add in is look at DAC connections and get something that has I2S and USB inputs if possible. It's always good to have options. I would love to get an R2R DAC for my second system.

Happy hunting! 

As an older guy with Meniere's ( tinnitus's big brother) I find my Denafrips Ares 2 a best solution at the price, many Dac's sound far too bright to me and some have a lot of sibilance, of the ones I have Marantz are the worst culprit,  I have a Cambridge Audio Dac in my SACD player and it sounds great on SACD's but is improved a little with CD's if I use the Ares 2. I would not buy the Ares to replace the Cambridge Audio however the CA does not process USB. I also have an iFi iDSD micro BL which is a Burr Brown Chip based Dac, but prefer the Ares 2. 

The Search button can be quite useful 😀  asked and answered. 

This question has been asked and answered many times on this forum. In my experience it depends on your amplification. If , as I do, you have a tubed pre and power amp you might prefer Delta Sigma. If you have SS amps then try tubed or R2R DACs. What it boils down to, as many have said, is to try as many DACs of different type as you can.

What your max budget ?

If I were to point you in a direction it would be towards a tubed DAC. Tubed equipment tend (also highly dependent on the implementation) to be more natural sounding, especially in the budget category. The Border Patrol is immediately appealing for that reason and not the R2R thing. If you can find a used Audio Research DAC… also tubed… it would have the character it sounds like you are looking for. What is your other equipment… this makes a huge difference in the ultimate output. 

It's only a matter of time before someone comes along and vehemently asserts, ad nauseum, that there's no difference in sound quality between "properly implemented" DACs. 

PLEASE do not listen to this. Instead, listen to as many DACs as you can and decide for yourself. 

There will be some instances where the differences between any two given DACs will be minimal. However, there will be other cases where differences may astound you. It's only through listening that you'll learn what YOU like. 

Listening in your room, in your system, is best.  There are various online sellers who offer trial periods with return/refund policies. 

Thanks for the feedback and some explanation, I do have the same challenge that many have in that I need to drive hundreds of miles and take a day off of work to find an audio store where I can listen to some quality DAC's and even then I am quite limited. An education really helps to not be steered the wrong way by an overzealous sales person.

One other thing I saw today, Border Patrol, good reviews and nice price point (at least my price point being of modest income). They say they use a R2R DAC chip. This seems to be somewhere in the middle, is it a hybrid design?

Being an older guy with Tinnitus, I tend to listen at lower levels and anything I buy cannot have a sharp top-end as it sets off the tinnitus pretty bad and then I am out of business for a day or 2. I know the overall design is what wins the day, but in general would this fact guide me more towards a R2R or a delta-sigma DAC?

Again, thanks for taking the time to educate me. 

+1 @fuzztone and others above. It’s not the architecture but rather the whole implementation and how it works for your system and tastes.

That said, IN GENERAL and just to give you a VERY basic guideline to go by, Delta-sigma DACs will tend to have a more detailed — some may say “digital” — sound whereas R2R DACs, especially those that don’t oversample (NOS) tend to have a possibly less detailed but more “analog” sound. Please do not take this in any way as doctrine as there are “analog” sounding DS DACs and clinical R2R DACs, but just to give you something to initially grab onto in your search. But, as the other wise people have said above, in the end the ONLY thing that matters is what sounds best to you — architecture be damned.

The above post from @fuzztone is an excellent point and is absolutely correct. I totally agree with what was said.

The over all design of the DAC (the cooking) is what makes the sound quality. And, regardless of the DAC technology used, delta sigma, R2R or FPGA, I recommend you audition these DAC’s and then decide what sounds best to you.

Delta sigma is processing in a chip. R2R is a discrete resistor ladder. Neither topology predicts the SQ infallibly. Neither does the other of the top 3, FPGA. It's the cook not the ingredients.

@mod_asored, The Bricasti M21 DAC’s “advanced architecture means you can select, evaluate and enjoy three independent digital to analog converter signal paths: 24-bit delta sigma, 20-bit ladder DAC and true 1-bit DSD for DSD content". 

On my Bricasti M21 DAC, I experimented back and forth between the delta-sigma DAC and the ladder R2R DAC.  Two weeks later, I set the Bricasti DAC to the ladder R2R setting and rarely moved it.  In the R2R setting, to my ears, everything sounds truly outstanding.  The music is clearer, less dark, better bass and sounds more like music.  I suggest you audition some delta-sigma DAC and ladder R2R DAC’s and select the DAC that sounds the best to you.  

As was posted above, the technology is important but how the DAC sounds is your audio system is the only way to make a decision. 

The critical thing is how the DAC sounds. Technology is important for the engineers designing the component, but implementation is everything. 
 

So, try and listen to as many DACs as you can, and read professional reviews of them. See if you can establish the kind of sound you like in standard audio terminology it will make finding a unit appropriate for you much easier. 
 

I got into high end audio fifty years ago and quickly changed my focus from technology to the sound of the unit. A good engineer uses a collection of technology to achieve a goal.