Wyred DAC-2 vs. PS Audio PWave

Does anyone have experience comparing these two DAC's? I'm deciding between them, having heard neither in person. Even though their price points are a bit off both seem highly regarded. My primary sources would be CD and USB (from macMini).
2c3969af 854a 4b8b bed2 79c1bca582b4sg_gs
Do you plan on using it as a pre amp??
I have both of these DACs. I just bought W4S and it has about 100 hours on it. So it's not fully broken in. Compared to the PSA, I notice a deeper sound stage and maybe slightly better microdynamics and tighter base. My listening so far has been through my Sonos>coax>DACS>XLRs>BAT VK32SE>Bryston>14BSST2>Kimber 8TC>Selah Audio Visionarios.

I would use it solely as a DAC for now (with an Aaron preamp and Amp), but like the idea it could be it's own preamp in the future should I break it off to it's own system.
Would love to hear the progression on the comparison between the PS and the Wyred2 is. I am building another system thinking about what to do maybe use this dac. What Transports are people using?
I'm using a Cambridge 550C as a transport for my DAC-2.
I have been using a Sonos via coax into my Dac2. But I also tested the waters with a Mac via the asynchronous USB. What's really exiting, though, is to use the the memory player feature in Pure Music with USB out. I'm trying to build a system that will let me do that routinely.
How did the Sonos compare with the async USB output from your Mac? Also, were you using the DAC2's internal async USB input or some other solution (like a HiFace, etc.)?
I used the USB out of the Mac and directly into the DAC2. The sound of the USB was somewhat better than the Sonos, but the difference wasn't huge. Maybe it has to do with the way the ESS chip copes with jitter, which is the Sonos' weak point. In any event, the big advantage to using the Mac/USB is that it allows me to multiply the benefits of 1) asynchronous data, 2) high resolution files, and 3) Pure Music's memory player (with iTunes).
just gave a listen to the DAC-2 over the weekend. it's a nice sounding DAC and i liked it. couldn't A-B it with my PSA combo but got a good idea of what it can do. that being said, i much prefer the PWT/PWD combo using the HDMI connection. detail seemed similar (outstanding in both) but the PSA gear pulled it off smoother. also thought the DAC-2 had less extension both up high and down low.

but again....couldn't do an A-B so not sure how useful my comments/opinions are here. i think you'll find both are great DAC's. as always, it'll depend on how you put it all together.
I have a PWD and a W4S Dac 1. I'm using Sonos to feed them. I'd say that over all the PWD is just more refined. The W4S is very very good, the PS is just a bit better, refined is the best way to describe it. What I'm waiting on is the PS Bridge, I suspect that will take the PWD to another level.
The bridge won't do a thing for the PSD, sound wise, when compairing to the PWT. Its when you connect to other sources that aren't memory buffered, that the bridge makes the PWD shine
My point was that my music files streamed through the Bridge should sound much better than my Sonos as a source. In fact so far all reports are that the Bridge sounds pretty much exactly like a PWT.
The PWD uses apodising or minimum phase filters which, to my ear, make a significant difference in 16/44.1 playback. I don't see these filters discussed much but I think they are a major step forward in digital.
Those filters may be the reason I think the pwd sounds more refined than the W4S dac.
FWIW the PWD uses bipolar out put devices and the W4SII uses FET (so says Cullen)
I think a EJ/Cullen modded PWD would be killer..
:(thread jack)
What do you preceive the shortcomings that the PWD possesses. Also what type of modification would resolve these shortcomings?
: (thread un jack)
Right now I'm using a Cullen moded sonos as a source. When I get the Bridge I'll be able to fairly answer that. I don't think the sonos is a good enough source to fully judge the PWD.