I don't know if I would say that the Chrod is not in the same league as the Audio Aero. I only saw one thread like that, and the guy (who actually did a review on the Chord) commented on the improved bass. I can believe it, given the tube output of the Audio Aero, but the guy never did an A/B on the two because he sold one and bought the other. He had owned the Chord 5 months before writing the review, and mentioned the differences from his memory of what the Audio Aero sounded like. There is also a thread on Audio Review.com under the reviews of the MF X-Ray CD player where the guy claims it outperformed the Chord.
Who knows.
I'm sure the Chord is a great DAC, and I would have bought one to try out had it not been for the lack of an RCA input (which seems incredible to me). Over the last two years, I've been testing a lot of DACs, and the ones that use the Anagram Technologies resampler (Audio Aero, Audiomeca, and Camelot) all perform extremely well and are some of my favorites. What I have noticed is that, after a certain price point, the differences in DACs are extremely small, and one is never clearly better than the other, but may be more to your liking. For instance, I prefer the Camelot Uther Mk4 over the Audiomeca Enkianthus for it's enhanced bass response and dynamics. My buddy prefers the Audiomeca for it's smooth and analog like presentation. There is a law of diminishing returns in high-end audio, but I think it is even more prevelant in digital.
Now I'll throw another wrench in the machinary. I put a Tact 2.0 in the chain, and the differences between DACs became even more negliable. Why? The Tact corrects time and frequency problems with room and speaker interaction. It does this by analyzing a series of impluse tones generated by a computer program and played through the the speakers. The Tact records the tones through it's own individually calibrated microphone, and compares the results to an accurate sample recorded in it's memory. Then the Tact corrects the deficiencies through time and frequency response. The system suddenly and dramatically becomes quieter, more coherent, and much more accurate. I was blown away by how this piece virtually eliminates tuning a system to a certain sound through equipment substitution. The difference between a system without the Tact and with it are amazing, especially if you have an untuned room or problems in the system. I consider the Tact indispensible. I sold my 2.0 to a friend who loved what it did in his system, and ordered a 2.2X, which includes a digital crossover to better integrate my subwoofer.
Now to the point. The Tact now comes with a 24/192 upsampler DAC as a $490. option. Combine that with room correction, and it may yet be the best DAC yet. The 2.0 I had did not have a DAC in it, so I couldn't make any comparisons. The 24/192 DAC for the 2.0 was not available yet. I should have the 2.2X in about two weeks. If it works as well as i think it does, I can elimnate a pre-amp and outboard DAC in my system, along with the cables that tie them togerther. Stay tuned.
Who knows.
I'm sure the Chord is a great DAC, and I would have bought one to try out had it not been for the lack of an RCA input (which seems incredible to me). Over the last two years, I've been testing a lot of DACs, and the ones that use the Anagram Technologies resampler (Audio Aero, Audiomeca, and Camelot) all perform extremely well and are some of my favorites. What I have noticed is that, after a certain price point, the differences in DACs are extremely small, and one is never clearly better than the other, but may be more to your liking. For instance, I prefer the Camelot Uther Mk4 over the Audiomeca Enkianthus for it's enhanced bass response and dynamics. My buddy prefers the Audiomeca for it's smooth and analog like presentation. There is a law of diminishing returns in high-end audio, but I think it is even more prevelant in digital.
Now I'll throw another wrench in the machinary. I put a Tact 2.0 in the chain, and the differences between DACs became even more negliable. Why? The Tact corrects time and frequency problems with room and speaker interaction. It does this by analyzing a series of impluse tones generated by a computer program and played through the the speakers. The Tact records the tones through it's own individually calibrated microphone, and compares the results to an accurate sample recorded in it's memory. Then the Tact corrects the deficiencies through time and frequency response. The system suddenly and dramatically becomes quieter, more coherent, and much more accurate. I was blown away by how this piece virtually eliminates tuning a system to a certain sound through equipment substitution. The difference between a system without the Tact and with it are amazing, especially if you have an untuned room or problems in the system. I consider the Tact indispensible. I sold my 2.0 to a friend who loved what it did in his system, and ordered a 2.2X, which includes a digital crossover to better integrate my subwoofer.
Now to the point. The Tact now comes with a 24/192 upsampler DAC as a $490. option. Combine that with room correction, and it may yet be the best DAC yet. The 2.0 I had did not have a DAC in it, so I couldn't make any comparisons. The 24/192 DAC for the 2.0 was not available yet. I should have the 2.2X in about two weeks. If it works as well as i think it does, I can elimnate a pre-amp and outboard DAC in my system, along with the cables that tie them togerther. Stay tuned.