Annie, Back in September, I’d promised you a brief synopsis of my experience with the ARES2. Although I’d hoped to have done so sooner, finally(!), after about 4mo use against my Mytek Brooklyn DAC+ using my OPPO 205 as a transport for (mostly popular, i.e., non-classical) CDs and PCM hi-res files, I offer the following remarks:
Put simply, the Brooklyn offers a ‘front row’ prospective – a somewhat flat ‘up-front’ but crystallin (some might say ‘brash’) image clearly comprising two channels and thus somewhat lacking in center fill. In comparison, the ARES offers, say, a ‘third-back’ in the hall perspective where the hall itself would become more of a contributor to what’s heard. A larger soundstage (particularly depth), less evidence of the two channels (except as called for by the recording), and consequently more palatable center fill characterize that perspective. There’s also a sense of liquidity/flow – things just seem to ‘fit together’ better. Many recordings benefit from this perspective; some don’t, particularly those leaning toward the ‘thick and dense’ where the up-front Brooklyn perspective serves to better ‘unravel’ things (something, according to his writings, Mr. Jurewicz. may well intend). Both are top-grade DACs, particularly given the ARES’s price, and I’m priviledged to have both available in my system!
For your interest, the ARES (used here in both OS modes only) is interfaced with the OPPO optically (1m Analysis Plus Toslink), and with my Cambridge Audio 851E preamp by 1m Pangea Premier balanced interconnects. The 851E drives PS Audio Stellar M700 monoblocks (balanced) which, in turn, drive Magnepan MG-1.7i’s on Magnariser Ascension stands (Audioquest cabling).
Robert F.
Dalton, MA USA
PRODUCT INFO:
WHERE TO BUY?