• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Denafrips ARES II USB R2R DAC Review

Yep, DYI - it's nothing special, those Kits can be had on amazon or Ebay for maybe 120 bucks. I built/bought this one maybe 10 years ago, and it's one of the very few pieces I still use on a daily basis.


What's the tube amp on top? Is it a DIY?

This is not a cheap eBay Kit. The is a Garage1217 Ember 2.1 hybrid amp. It’s amazing for tube rolling and is the best tube amp I’ve ever had.
 
Have you ever used the RME ADI-2 DAC fs, by chance, I’m looking to my RME for the Ares II as I’m hoping it’s less clinical and sterile sounding. I want some coloration.
I have both: I suppose you meant to say that are looking into 'replacing' the RME with ARES 2 to get a less clinical sound. According to me you will find the ARES 2 "warmer" under the condition that you activate its 'oversampling mode' with the 'slow filter' activated. Very 'warm' and 'relaxed', with a tiny loss of detail. For comparison I played both DAC through my SMSL-SH9 (usually I do not do that as I listen to ADI2 directly form its headphone output.

Suggestion: we do not try to add a tube amp to ADI2 - that should colour the sound a little and is less costly than an ARES2
 
I had the Topping D90 for a few weeks, loved the detail but found the presentation of the sound too forward which bugged me so much that I sold it and ordered an Ares 2. I've had the Ares 2 for a week or so and like it a lot, it's detailed and the soundstage is nice and wide but it lacks the sparkle of the D90.

Someone should weld the dacs together to make a Toppafrips Dares 290.
 
I had the Topping D90 for a few weeks, loved the detail but found the presentation of the sound too forward which bugged me so much that I sold it and ordered an Ares 2. I've had the Ares 2 for a week or so and like it a lot, it's detailed and the soundstage is nice and wide but it lacks the sparkle of the D90.

Someone should weld the dacs together to make a Toppafrips Dares 290.
Just keep both if you still have enough inputs on your preamp.

If you use Roon you can stream to both zones and even have them grouped. This way, you can quickly A/B two DACs.
 
Going to A/B them properly with some friends soon.
The X16 has a couple of handy features over the D90 that suit me better (and is cheaper too!!!)
First impressions were that the X16 was even more detailed in the top end although they both measure extremely well.
Did you have a chance at the end to A/B? How would you compare them now? Very interested.
 
Even sighted A/B testing with the D90 and Ares II is a pain. The Ares' 4.5V output and high output impedance almost guarantees it will produce different voltages into different amplifiers while the D90 will always produce 4V out.
 
Last edited:
I just got the Schiit Modius, and for anyone wanting a Denafrips Ares II, but not being able to get one for whatever reason: Having replaced an Ares II with the Modius, I can't hear a difference between the two; they sound identical to me. While the Modius and the Ares II sound very different from some of my other DACs, these two sound the same, at least IMO. Yes, this is highly subjective, but I've been listening to the Ares II on my desktop system for the better part of a year, and I know the DAC well. YMMV - but if you want an Ares II but can't get one, I think you have a viable option with the Modius.
 
Last edited:
I just got the Schiit Modius, and for anyone wanting a Denafrips Ares II, but not being able to get one for whatever reason: Having replaced an Ares II with the Modius, I can't hear a difference between the two; they sound identical to me.
:)
 
I just got the Schiit Modius, and for anyone wanting a Denafrips Ares II, but not being able to get one for whatever reason: Having replaced an Ares II with the Modius, I can't hear a difference between the two; they sound identical to me. While the Modius and the Ares II sound very different from some of my other DACs, these two sound the same, at least IMO. Yes, this is highly subjective, but I've been listening to the Ares II on my desktop system for the better part of a year, and I know the DAC well. YMMV - but if you want an Ares II but can't get one, I think you have a viable option with the Modius.

Well, for those who want a Denafrips ARES II - I have one to sell. Mint condition. If you are interested please send message
 
For the magic of R2R of course, you are but a buffoon to compare this to the clinical horror of D-S DACs.

On this site the mantra is look at specs only and don’t listen to audio equipment.
It’s like being trapped in a Macdonald’s with folks who won’t leave the Macdonald trying to convince them there are better burgers out there. With the response almost always being “gee burgers have a bun and meat, how can there can’t be any difference! Show me the measurements!”.

the observation part of science is lacking in the majority population here.
 
I have the feeling that people rarely even do a proper AB test. Exact volume matching, with a switch, comparable settings. I did it back then between Ares II and RME ADI2. I couldn't hear a difference once I found a comparable filter setting. I did the same with the ADI2 and Holo Spring 2. In the end, I kept the ADI2 for the IEM output and features. So I definitely would recommend doing a proper test yourself, just to get a perspective on things going forward.
 
On this site the mantra is look at specs only and don’t listen to audio equipment.

People do, they just don't arrogate themselves to be above known research in auditory science because their anecdotal experience contradicts it. When evidence is that the distortion is (at least to an extremely high level of probability) below all known thresholds of hearing (spatial, temporal, and in magnitude) established by PhDs in acoustics, audiology, engineering etc. over decades of peer-reviewed research, it is the height of arrogance and anti-intellectualism to believe your anecdotal experience invalidates that body of evidence. Even more so in sighted conditions known to introduce non-auditory stimuli (backstory, aesthetics, etc. etc.) that corrupt auditory evaluations, such that claims of difference (let alone preference) are useless. Here's a peer-reviewed published systematic review on how sighted bias (among others) corrupt evaluations of audio quality.
 
It’s like being trapped in a Macdonald’s with folks who won’t leave the Macdonald trying to convince them there are better burgers out there. With the response almost always being “gee burgers have a bun and meat, how can there can’t be any difference! Show me the measurements!”.

Really? Is that what it's like?


the observation part of science is lacking in the majority population here.

Maybe it's the science part of observation that is being ignored by those who can't be bothered with pesky controls on subjective comparisons. Unfortunately, without them, it's all in the same 'uh huh' bucket.
 
On this site the mantra is look at specs only and don’t listen to audio equipment.
It’s like being trapped in a Macdonald’s with folks who won’t leave the Macdonald trying to convince them there are better burgers out there. With the response almost always being “gee burgers have a bun and meat, how can there can’t be any difference! Show me the measurements!”.

the observation part of science is lacking in the majority population here.
I think you mean we don't pollute the site with unverifiable uncontrolled subjective listening observations. Suspect we all very much do listen and have those thoughts. We just know they aren't worth much to another member.
 
People do, they just don't arrogate themselves to be above known research in auditory science because their anecdotal experience contradicts it. When evidence is that the distortion is (at least to an extremely high level of probability) below all known thresholds of hearing (spatial, temporal, and in magnitude) established by PhDs in acoustics, audiology, engineering etc. over decades of peer-reviewed research, it is the height of arrogance and anti-intellectualism to believe your anecdotal experience invalidates that body of evidence. Even more so in sighted conditions known to introduce non-auditory stimuli (backstory, aesthetics, etc. etc.) that corrupt auditory evaluations, such that claims of difference (let alone preference) are useless. Here's a peer-reviewed published systematic review on how sighted bias (among others) corrupt evaluations of audio quality.

So have you listened to any high-end audio setups over long periods of time?
let me guess...

like I said...
 
I think you mean we don't pollute the site with unverifiable uncontrolled subjective listening observations. Suspect we all very much do listen and have those thoughts. We just know they aren't worth much to another member.

If you folks were listening to high-end audio setups in controlled environments you’ld have a different perspective. Clearly that’s not happening with the majority here. You kid yourself.

I’m sure one of the moderators is about to come down on me for being a heretic.
No loss though... not missing anything here.
 
I used to retail horn loudspeakers ( horns) that retailed for around £250k would they count?

Keith
 
Really? Is that what it's like?




Maybe it's the science part of observation that is being ignored by those who can't be bothered with pesky controls on subjective comparisons. Unfortunately, without them, it's all in the same 'uh huh' bucket.

Yes... exactly what it’s like.

no problems with control et al being in place.
maybe you could listen to some high-end equipment with all your controls in place?
But you won’t bother as I have experienced each time I have a quick interlude on this vacuous site.

I get trapped here for a bit when this site comes back on some google search I did...

Its a relief when the moderators kick me out.
 
Back
Top Bottom