[DreamKing]

  Yep I compared extensively the Beresford Caïman mkII and the Metrum Octave MKI  and the Beresford offer really a surprinsingly close rendering. with more resolution and dynamic but it does not provide the wonderful mids of the Octave. 
 
Some R2R dacs are highly resolving though. The Octave not really.  
 
BTW ; IMO the BM offer even more resolving capabilities and a more expansive and holographic soundstage. but the Caïman sounds more natural. 
 
 
My 2 cents. 

 
Reading this again, so in your opinion the BM2 is just technically better but Caiman 2 is more natural, that's it? I know it's just an opinion but this is perplexing me.
 
And if anyone else can chime in if they've ever compared them, please do it would be appreciated. I'm unsure if I still wanna jump the shark any lol. Could spend money elsewhere if the CM2 is just a sidegrade, especially since the sound signature isn't a problem for me right now.

 

[Sorrodje]

   
Reading this again, so in your opinion the BM2 is just technically better but Caiman 2 is more natural, that's it? I know it's just an opinion but this is perplexing me.
 
And if anyone else can chime in if they've ever compared them, please do it would be appreciated. I'm unsure if I still wanna jump the shark any lol. Could spend money elsewhere if the CM2 is just a sidegrade, especially since the sound signature isn't a problem for me right now.

 
I think they are more sidegrades technically speaking. 

 

[DreamKing]

   
I think they are more sidegrades technically speaking. 

 
Bummer, well let me know how the firmware works out for you. 
 
Also this reminds me of a buddy of mine here who told me the Bushmaster MK2 to his ears was equal to the Gungnir's performance (sound signature aside), both compared after purchase.

 

[Lohb]

Then if its OK to keep the C Mk2 talk going...what are its limits/weaknesses ?

 

[DreamKing]

 
Nice, will look out for it as I use planars only and see you are a planars fan as well...I'm looking to combine the Beresford CM2 with Gustard H10 when I've finally saved up for both...by all accounts the H10 is a MONSTER combined with a wide variety of planars....

 
I'm about to pull the trigger on the H10 myself actually now that I changed my mind about the Caiman2 lol...I was undecided between it and a good deal on a beta22 3-channel but I think I'll settle for the great reviews with the HE-560 the H10 has. 
 
The sound of the HE-560 from the BM2 is stellar and I don't want to change the sound signature and soundstage in any way really, besides improving on the upper midrange body but not to sacrifice the BM2's strengths. Maybe I'll get the CM eventually, but a proper amp for the HE-560 takes priority at the moment.

 

[DreamKing]

   
I think they are more sidegrades technically speaking. 

 
 
What do you think of your TotalDac so far; how does it compare in performance?

 

[Chris J]

Then if its OK to keep the C Mk2 talk going...what are its limits/weaknesses ?

Personally, I find the C II to have a slightly more refined sound compared to the BM II: everyhting is a bit clearer, transients are slightly better defined.
I guess you probably read my comparison a few posts back?

 

[Lohb]

Personally, I find the C II to have a slightly more refined sound compared to the BM II: everyhting is a bit clearer, transients are slightly better defined.
I guess you probably read my comparison a few posts back?

Thanks Chris...going to read it now....info hidden in plain sight....
 
Have you ever heard Theta or TDA1541 based DAC's with that real analogue sound to them....does the Caiman 2 have that kind of tonality, yet it stills brings the real micro-detail like a well-implemented modern chip DAC ? That would be the holy grail I'd imagine...the mix of the 2 types.

 

[DreamKing]

Personally, I find the C II to have a slightly more refined sound compared to the BM II: everyhting is a bit clearer, transients are slightly better defined.
I guess you probably read my comparison a few posts back?

 
I think using the same amp/headphones, basically keeping everything the same but switching between the CMII and BMII would show more conclusive differences between the DACs.
 
Your comparison was with different amps. I still think it's very relevant information for those questioning the amp sections, but I've been looking for more dac-only comparisons.
 
I'm only after considerably more resolving sound though but I would still be interested in the results of this comparison, as I'm sure others here would be.

 

[Chris J]

I think using the same amp/headphones, basically keeping everything the same but switching between the CMII and BMII would show more conclusive differences between the DACs.

Your comparison was with different amps. I still think it's very relevant information for those questioning the amp sections, but I've been looking for more dac-only comparisons.

I'm only after considerably more resolving sound though but I would still be interested in the results of this comparison, as I'm sure others here would be.

Hmmmm........I may have to edit my earlier "review post" which is Post # 34.

Most of the impressions were with either DAC's Line Out driving a Stax SRS-2170.

 

[Lohb]

...and on AoS this DAC's impressions talk would make you think it's the best thing since delivered pizza...with even his own sub-forum...

 

[Chris J]

   
Some BM II vs C II comparisons
 
Obviously, the Caiman has more features, for example, the Caiman II has one USB input, the Caiman II has a fixed/variable line out selector.
My BM II is black, my CII is silver, I prefer the silver finish with black lettering on my Caiman II.
My Bushmaster II has a black finish with white lettering, and a black volume control with gold highlights.  
I'm not too crazy about the gold highlights on the BM II's volume knob.
 
But how do they sound?
For this review: 
Source was a Little Dot CDP_II CD player via Toslink Optical SPDIF cable.
 
Via The Line Outs:
 
Line Out Comparisons were performed with both DACs driving my Stax SRS-2170 amp and headphone system.
 
Caiman Mk II seems to have superior transients, the drums just have more snap to them, guitars have a bit more snap and sparkle to them when the strings are plucked. Transients seem to start and stop with a bit more definition.
The Caiman Mk II also seems to sound a bit more open, and have a touch more midrange warmth. 
Bass is a bit tighter with the CII, bass can have a slight tubby sound to it with the BM II. 
The differences are not huge, they are indeed subtle, but I do find the C II to be a worthwhile sonic upgrade over the BM II.
 
Via The Bushmaster II's and Caiman II's Headphone Jacks:
 
The BM II and C II's headphone jacks both suffer the same affliction at low volume settings: the volume controls do not track very well around 7 o'clock, I can just barely get the volume control low enough for use with my Audio Technica ATH-ESW9 headphones. Admittedly, these are a very sensitive pair of headphones; they do not require a lot of voltage to get them moving. But what does come out of either headphone jack is very good indeed. Either headphone jack adds a touch more treble detail to my ATH-ESW-9. But is that a good thing? And how do these headphone jacks compare to a dedicated headphone amplifier?  To be continued.....  

 
Me quoting me......
I've decided to heavily edit and clarify my old post. 

 

[Chris J]

 
Thanks Chris...going to read it now....info hidden in plain sight....
 
Have you ever heard Theta or TDA1541 based DAC's with that real analogue sound to them....does the Caiman 2 have that kind of tonality, yet it stills brings the real micro-detail like a well-implemented modern chip DAC ? That would be the holy grail I'd imagine...the mix of the 2 types.

 
I've never heard the Theta.
I don't think I've ever owned a TDA1541 based DAC.
 
Personally, I do think the Caiman II does have that tonality you describe.  A nice clear, open sound, without grit, but a nice sense of micro-detail.
It certainly squashes my old FiiO E17 DAC which had a slightly foggy, closed in, muted, blanketed quality and was NOT good enough to be used with the Stax.

 

[Lohb]

Thanks...just wish someone would hurry up and pair it with Gustard H10 to see if the pairing is as good as X12 with a different tonality.

 

[Chris J]

   
And now for a change of pace...
Just in the middle of running thru some comparisons of the Caiman II's headphone jack vs. a separate desktop headphone amp.
Round One
The Caiman II headphone jack >>>>> a pair of AKG Q701 'phones 
vs:
Caiman II Line Out >>>>> Matrix Quattro headphone amp >>>>> AKG Q701 'phones.
The Matrix Quattro headphone sells for approx. $400.
It can be used to drive either single ended or balanced headphones.
 
Both sources were set to the same SPL using pink noise and an SPL meter.
The Q701 are an open style headphone of medium efficiency, average impedance is 62 Ohms.
They are not a difficult load for either the Caiman's headphone jack or the Matrix Quattro amp.
My Q701 are wired single ended, I used the stock headphone cable. My Q701 are completely stock, i.e. they do not have the bass mod.
 
And the winner of Round One?
The Matrix has a slightly airier, fuller sound than the Caiman's headphone jack. 
The Matrix has a warmer, more relaxed presentation.
Brushes on drums and cymbals have a more tactile feel to them, vocals sound warmer, more natural.
Transients have a touch more snap to them, saxophones sound fuller.
The Caiman's headphone jack by comparison has a slightly etched treble, a slightly deader soundscape and a touch more of a mechanical sound to it. Saxophones have slightly kazoo-ish sound to them.
 
Round Two:
I also tried the Caiman II headphone jack >>>> Audio Technica ATH-ESW9 headphones
vs.
The Caiman II Line Out >>>> Matrix Quattro headphone amp >>>> Audio Technica ATH-ESW9 headphones.
 
The ATH-ESW9 are a closed style, high efficiency headphone with wooden cups and a 42 Ohm impedance.
Relatively speaking, they are a warmer sound pair of headphones than the AKG.
The ATH-ESW9 are wired single ended, they are completely stock.
Again, both sources were set to the same SPL via pink noise and an SPL meter.
 
Took me a while to get a grip on this one, but eventually I found that I preferred the Quattro over the Caiman's own headphone jack for the same reasons I preferred the Quattro over the Caiman II's headphone jack when driving the Q701s.
The only downside the Quattro had was on bass heavy songs: the ATH-ESW9's bass can be a bit overwhelming when the Quattro is used. But ultimately I preferred the Quattro, as it's the superior treble and midrange gave a more balanced relaxed presentation.  
 
Conclusion:
Can't say there is a massive difference in sound between the two headphone jacks, but there it is; I'll take the Matrix Quattro over the Caiman's II headphone jack due to the greater musicality of the Quattro.

 
Me quoting me again:
this post also contains my impressions of the Line Out jacks, but it is really more of a comparison of various headphone amplifiers:
i.e. the BM II and CM Ii vs. Matrix Quattro head amp.
 
Someday I intend to polish this up, expand it quite a bit and post it as a "real review" in the "Reviews" section of Head Fi.