Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD

I don't think anyone is denying that equipment needs break in. It just does not need 1200 hours to do it.

Not having any dogs in this hunt, but definitely interested in the outcome, I agree with Matt's chosen audition methods. In fact, I applaud his efforts and am happy that he has established specific processes and has advised us of same.

If 500 to 700 hours of burn-in aren't enough, too bad. If one's in burn-in denial, an "absolute top tier" DAC thread probably isn't your cup of tea. So, now that we’re in agreement that burn-in has its importance, all we need to do is debate the length.

Somewhere between 300-700 hours of burn-in should be enough. Heck, my audio memory couldn't handle more than that. In fact, after a few hundred hours, I'm not sure that I could tell, or really care how hour 250 compared to 430, 670 etc…. How would I really know when the golden hour was reached or more importantly, really believe that someone else would arrive at the same golden hour conclusion as I?

If DAC's ran through Matt's pre-amp aren't getting the best out of one DAC or another, tough! Based on the myriad of posts regarding the pre-amp vs direct approach, at best, this topic is controversial and while most of us have our beliefs based on experience, they dramatically differ. However, as long as Matt tests all the DAC's using the same approach, that’s ok by me!

If the tube voiced and sold with a DAC doesn't bring the magic, oh well. I do roll tubes and absolutely believe that doing so has quite positive results! However, if a DAC's factory supplied tube(s) must be rolled to be competitive in tests such as this, then why doesn't the DAC designer sell his DAC with the tube of magic? I know: because NOS tubes are scarce, expensive, hard to source etc.

However, the DAC's design and its designers voicing, including tube complement, should stand on its own when comparing like-components. If DAC "C" can't compete with Matt's other DAC choices because DAC "C"'s design isn't good enough with its designer's tube(s) of choice, then perhaps the designer should change their design to make it competitive as it is shipped.

With the exception of the need for some burn-in, connection methods, tube types, IC's, PC's, footers, silver bowls hung in space, are all ancillary to what Matt is doing. I know we all have our chosen connection method, cable, tube, footer, stand, IC, PC etc., but how can Matt use what we think works best with specific DAC's etc.?

IMHO, let each DAC out-of-the-box stand on its own with every other DAC. As long as they are burned-in, connected, and affixed electronically and in space, the exact same way, it's all good!

@Jwm, My PSA PWD-MkII took a month to fully break-in. Now, I wasn't feeding it digital input 24/7, but it was powered on for the duration. After two weeks it was at its nadir. At the end of a month it had blossomed and pretty much reached it's performance plateau. So that's around 720 hours. Had it maxed out at the two week point, I would have sent it back. My ARC REF-3 also took a month to settle in.

I agree Mrmb, good point!

One of the best posts in this whole thread is Mrmb's. At this price point, most designs are or should be price no object in regards to tubes. If tubes aren't going to be available, then what will the owner do when their magic tube is done?

I can't wait for John to get the Aesthetix in and burned in (but not until after he delivers my new Vandy Treo's and Basis TT ;) ), lol.

It will be interesting to see how it stacks up in Matt's system/room vs the other DAC's. I've found that the Aesthetix gear is highly musical with one of the best midranges in the industry. They seem to understand live music and not just 'high end audio'.