In Reply to: RE: Cary Audio DAC 200 ts Opinions posted by Mr Peabody on April 8, 2016 at 14:46:15:
Thanks for chiming in
The less clear in terms of Cary 200 seems to be the common view as someone else mentioned the same vs an older Mark Levinson 36. He thought it was smoother though.
I have similar gear as you do - Pass amp, although I use a Cary tube pre and Mark Levinson digital. For me though, tonal density and body is more important and I don't mind slightly rolled off highs. Why do you need a DAC? I thought the ML 512 (from your system attributes) does most things.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Cary Audio DAC 200 ts Opinions - Mikey8811 00:34:36 04/09/16 (9)
- RE: Cary Audio DAC 200 ts Opinions - Mr Peabody 07:12:01 04/09/16 (6)
- RE: Cary Audio DAC 200 ts Opinions - Mikey8811 12:33:50 04/09/16 (5)
- RE: Cary Audio DAC 200 ts Opinions - Mr Peabody 14:48:21 04/09/16 (0)
- RE: Cary Audio DAC 200 ts Opinions - Mr Peabody 14:40:55 04/09/16 (3)
- RE: Cary Audio DAC 200 ts Opinions - Mikey8811 00:32:24 04/12/16 (2)
- RE: Cary Audio DAC 200 ts Opinions - Mr Peabody 14:44:35 04/12/16 (1)
- RE: Cary Audio DAC 200 ts Opinions - Mikey8811 20:34:01 04/12/16 (0)
- RE: Cary Audio DAC 200 ts Opinions - Mr Peabody 06:51:04 04/09/16 (1)
- RE: Cary Audio DAC 200 ts Opinions - Mikey8811 10:55:26 04/09/16 (0)