Just wondering...

Seems the question is this: Given the inevitable improvement in technology, do I go "all-out" on the best possible DAC or get a more reasonably priced DAC and replace more often?
I'll offer some insight based on a conversation I had with a tech at Ayre. His view is their new CODEX ($1800) sounds better than their older QB9 ($2900).  The simple interpretation from that would say that the "reasonable and replace" strategy has merit. 
Having said that I have seen reviews that dispute that SQ statement and reviews that support it. And I fully expect the "Ayre just wants to sell more DACs" comments so have at it. 
As for me, computer based audio technology is moving fast. When I bought my QB9 there was no Roon and no Tidal, and DSD downloads were a gleam in the eye. So, I go with the "reasonable and replace" strategy.  Too bad my definition of "reasonable" isn't a $32k DAC :-) 
And I think mesch is correct in his post. Buying a good used one is the most bang for the buck unless you need the latest bells & whistles. 

Hi
The DAC is really important but I would not spend too much money as there are good examples second hand and also the technology keeps advancing. Ahem, it so happens i have an exaSound e20 DAC Mk3 with femto second clock in mint condition which I was thinking of advertising in the New Year. DACs can be highly influenced by the integrity of the input signal. USB is very common as I am sure you know but you need to pay careful attention to eliminating noise and interference and also make sure your PC or media server has not done some hidden processing on your files. There are also some tricks you can play with CD standard files when a DAC has a 24 bit input that seem to help. For SPDIF I have found the Carver digital lens to be helpful, a bit ancient tech but well worth it at a sensible price. I used one last year with my old Marantz CD12 DAC and it was great on CD material. Carver of course make a modern version built in to the player... but at a price.  

Hi All,

Fairly new here but thought I would share and interesting article from Jim Austin at Stereophile. A little different perspective concerning the more expensive gear.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/living-lamms#MfMTeQmoZrQDuw26.97

I hope this adds to the conversation.

$26k monoblocks sounds more reasonable than $32k DAC, but still too much.

My chagrin regarding your assertions, czarivery, is whether business analysis is the best approach to putting together a superior sounding audio system or is it more experience/understanding of what does and doesn’t make significant sonic improvement.

Personally, I would not purchase a $32k DAC or digital player, not even one much over $5k. Why? Not because of performing a numerical business rationalization of manufacturing cost vs retail price, but rather because, through the act of listening, I and others have determined that there are some excellent sounding players and DACs under $5k. Further, additional money spent on optimizing AC quality and vibration/resonance elimination at the source delivers superior results with these products, delivering sound quality improvement that belies the cost of the DAC/player.

Certainly, one would be insane to buy ultra-expensive equipment of any ilk without first addressing issues with AC quality and vibration/resonance elimination, which equally benefit the $5k gear and the $32k gear.

A Symposium Acoustics Svelte shelf and Rollerblocks will transform the sound quality of any source component beyond that of a significantly more expensive component without them. Addressing AC quality optimization will lower the noise floor and eliminate sonic nasties such that the music is heard without the detriment of what has come to be known as "digititus".

Then, and only then, has one heard what their current source is capable of and able to accurately evaluate the true impact of alternative, more expensive components.

Dave