My observation is that in years past, audiophiles craved warmth and a certain pleasant albeit artificial harmonic because it was necessary. Necessary to compensate for poor recordings, jitter, glare, harshness, shallowness or just general lifelessness. Because many of these problems couldn't be overcome, it became easier to cover them up. It would be like spraying on cologne to mask body odor when what was really needed was a good bath.
As transducers, amplifiers, and cables have improved, it is the digital front end that many continue to blame as the culprit. Ask any vinyl lover why they continue to cling to their turntables and many will tell you it's because they don't believe digital is as good because of the glare and harshness that many equate with digital. They call it "digititis." Many of these folks will also tell you that when they compare analog to digital, something seems "missing" with digital. Is it the digital file, the music server or the DAC that's the problem? It's probably a combination of all of these things but those of us who have spent quality time with the DAVE understand just how much more information is present in a Redbook file or even a 320k file than our previous DACs led us to believe. You don't appreciate these previously hidden details right away but as you get used to the information that the DAVE provides, you begin to very easily notice just how much is missing when you listen to other systems.
There are those of us who enjoy going to live events and given the choice, some of us would prefer to sit on the stage amidst the performers so that we're engulfed with the music. Then there are those of us who prefer to sit in the stalls where we can better glean the soundstage and the acoustics of the venue. Of course, there are those who are content sitting in the balcony to save a few dollars just so long as we get to experience the performance live. Regardless of one's preference, those of us who attend live events understand that there's nothing quite like "being there." While high-end audio will never be a true substitute for "being there", the only way to approach this ideal is to have access to as much of the details of the performance as possible. In my view, you can never have too much detail. This is what a good DAC is responsible for. The goal of an amplifier is to amplify these details that are presented to it and the goal of the transducer is to convincingly present this analog waveform to your ears. If the details aren't there, then what good is the best amplifier or transducer? Garbage in, garbage out. If the details aren't there, then what good is the DAC even if it does a nice job of covering up its inadequacies with softness and harmonics? This is where I believe people miss the boat with what a DAC is supposed to do. A good DAC isn't supposed to sound good, it is supposed to be a faithful translator. The onus of sounding good needs to belong to the performance and to the recording of that performance. If the performance is good and the translation has been done faithfully, then the rest of the chain merely has to get out of the way.
Of course, no component is perfect or truly transparent. We all know about the issues with ADCs. Short of a million TAPS, even the DAVE falls short. Transducers have their quirks and so speakers and headphones need to be properly paired with an amplifier that highlights their strengths and minimizes their weaknesses. Since nothing is truly transparent, the best systems, IMO, are about balance which is why system integration is such an artform and can take months or even years to perfect. I think life is soooo much easier, however, if you're starting from a neutral, resolving, clean and faithful source than one that keeps secrets or tells lies. Those of you who have photography backgrounds will understand this final analogy very well. Most photographers prefer to shoot in RAW format rather than JPEGs even though JPEGs can look better upon first presentation. Why? Because the RAW file has all of the information present whereas the JPEG has been manipulated where data has been truncated to achieve a certain pre-determined degree of sharpening and white balance. What if a certain portrait requires more or less sharpening than has been performed or the white balance has to be further adjusted? Well, too bad. You can make adjustments in post but it will result in even further degradation of the file. With a RAW file, if you were lucky enough to photograph a beautiful model that requires no retouching, then you'll be glad that automatic retouching wasn't performed. With photographs that definitely benefit from beautification, then do it in post and not at the compromise of resolution. DACs should be looked at the same way. Let it faithfully present to you all that a recording has to offer, warts and all, and figure out how to make adjustments downstream.
