Originally Posted by KLJTech
By "many" do you mean primarily independent web site reviews or audiophile websites and audio magazines
I don't trust audio magazines, they'll tell you whatever their sponsor wants. I mostly talk about real world reviews: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/Cambridge-Audio-DacMagic-Review
"my 2 cents is still that the NE5532 op-amp is an inferior component which always sound inferior and harsh.
If you can not hear it, that is not my problem - I would immediately replace it with a Burr-Brown, National or Analog Devices chip made for audio and I have done so on a number of devices and even my wife immediately notices the difference though she has no clue as to what have been done!
The 5532 is a component which sounds inferior to almost anything made with audio quality in mind. The output section of the Squeezebox Classic is even worse. That is made with an opamp made for telephones and comms systems.
the DacMagic does not sound too bad, but why spend that kind of money on a dac, when the same (analogue) circuit can be found in a receiver which is so much more versatile - and eventhough the DAC-section is less sophisticated still sounds way better than the DacMagic when properly modified...
So you're right in recommending people to use their ears, I've done so, and my conclusion was clear: The unit was sent back, full refund received."
There are only bad components(NE5532/192kHz ASRC/CMI108/OP275/SMPS wallwart) in the DM...miracles do not occur in the audio world IME. I've got no problem believing that a uDAC will match it.