@milpai @audphile1 @mclinnguy @benzman @mgrif104
I have not posted since Sunday, but the journey evaluating the T+A DAC200 continued. Since Sunday, the performance of the DAC200 has improved substantially. I have been using the DAC200 as both DAC and preamp. I previously mentioned better presentation of upper midrange frequencies with that arrangement. Since then, bass frequencies have also improved substantially. Overall, I am quite happy with the unit and decided to keep it.
I previously mentioned that I intended to move the Rowland preamp back into the digital signal path and try to cut back on the output relative to fixed output I had been using before. The engineers at T+A said that using its preamp capabilities to feed my Rowland preamp would put two preamps in the signal path and should be avoided. The fixed output does not go through the internal preamp. They said the fixed output on the T+A was actually 2.0V and not the 2.5V I believed. So, I have not yet reexamined putting the Rowland preamp back in the signal path for CD music but I will some day.
My current explanation for the varied experiences I had with the DAC200 gets back to the original question that started this thread. I believe that the DAC200 needed 300 hours of break-in time to evaluate it against the older DAC I owned.
Thanks again for all the comments and suggestions. If I have additional insights in the future, I’ll be sure to report back.

