Hi Mario
There is zero doubt in my mind the Killer and PDX is better - by under threat I mean a comparison will not be a whitewash which most other DAC's I have heard it is obvious it will be. In fact did a direct comparison myself with the PDX today - its better - more real sounding. As I have said on a number of occasions when people ask me which is better the Killer or PDX I always say the Killer even though the PDX was an early prototype at the comparison the Killer won. Really it needs to be done again but my gut tells me the Killer will still do it. The caveat here is the source which as you know IMHO is greatly in favor of a computer. I suspect you will not agree with that so lets just agree to disagree on it.
I will see what can be done about getting my Off-Ramp out perhaps with the Metrum. But need it right now for stuff up here.
Regarding DAC chips - maybe - but these are industrial chips - not your normal stuff. And to my ears that's what it sounds like - nothing in your way of hearing whats on the recording - but you still know its a recording which you tend to forget with the better DAC's.
Thanks
Bill
Interesting observations. This sort of implementation has been done before. MSB for one has some products, but the price point is much higher. I think that you may be on to something with the observation about the lack of an active output stage. The R2R approach is of course the same as the TDA1541A, as opposed to one bit and noise shaping, as in the delta sigma dacs. This probably contribute a lot to what you like.
As to the sound, is it lacking in dynamics or puch or liquidity? If so, I think you could try some kind of buffer, like a tube buffer, to see if it helps. It would be interesting if the addition of this might help. It may be something lke that eternal debate of active versus passive preamplification. I vastly prefer active, as to me it adds dynamics and musicality that I find missing with passive control.
