This review page is supported in part by the sponsors whose ad banners are displayed below

Since we are dealing here with a DAC, a preamplifier and a headphone amplifier, my normal hard categorizations will weave back and forth a bit. While the DAC was a feisty little contender, it was not in the same league as the much more ambitious and far pricier Acousticbuoy DAC2488 and therefore didn’t bear comparison. It did however prove competitive against other devices on hand in many parameters and so was referenced against them.


Not surprisingly given the non-upsampling approach, the U-2’s resolution benefited strongly from high-resolution material but I was caught off guard by how well the DA&T dealt will lower resolution files like MP3. The only area where the DAC faced a competitive challenge was with the more common 16/44 playback. In comparing it to the internal DAC of the Audiospace CDP8A and the custom zero-oversampling DAC of my old Luxman, the U-2 acquitted itself well, with the CDP8A exhibiting a little more upper midrange energy and air and the U-2 matching the bass definition of the Luxman. Dynamic range compared favorably with a minor loss of fine gradation but not far off. With Redbook, the upsampling Audiospace had the advantage by pulling more believable information off the discs but this is the CDP8A’s sole raison d’être and it lacks the DA&T's capacity to play any other files.


Moving out of the realm of CD, the DA&T showed its strengths, dealing admirably with compressed material and demonstrating superiority with higher resolution files. Such material had considerably more ambient information and fine detail, which contributed to enhancements in imaging, transparency and dynamics and vindicated the decision to concentrate on high-quality material at native resolution. Conversion was consistently smooth although with some small penalty in hard-edge definition as the resolution of the files decreased. The overall result was a non-fatiguing presentation with good transparency and detail without etching over a wide quality of source material.


Headphone listening from a computer source versus the DAC drew a quick conclusion. As much as the capabilities of basic PC sound cards have progressed, the DA&T U-2 from the start played in an entirely different league. The difference in that context amounted from adequate versus stellar. The U-2 is designed to accommodate a wide selection of headphones over a wide gain range. As a dedicated preamplifier this created some variability in character depending on the volume setting. While this affected headphone use to a very minor degree, it was more noticeable as a dedicated preamplifier. Paired with both the Apogee and Usher speakers, the DA&T needed to be played at slightly louder-than-life levels to achieve optimum transparency, frequency balance and dynamic proportion. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that the range of volume where these characteristics were convincingly portrayed was relatively narrow. The effect was to raise the dynamic floor and compress scale. The U-2 lost information at low levels and exhibited compression and tonal balance shifts as I went past its ideal level. This was most pronounced with material that had wide dynamic range such as Telarc recordings but not confined to it.


The addition of an upgraded Audio Art Power 1SE AC cable made improvements in transparency, air, detail and dynamic scale especially at lower playback levels, allowing the U-2 a slightly wider range of useable dynamics. While the performance as a dedicated preamplifier didn’t challenge higher-end fare like the powerhouse Audiospace Reference, it was respectable and easily bettered the computer outputs and by more informal comparison my Pioneer Elite SC-25 receiver especially as a headphone source.


Given optimum playback levels, the DAC and preamplifier achieved a wide smooth response with excellent definition and control in the bass range. The U-2’s bass control was especially notable and one area where it matched more expensive competition. Moving out of optimum range, the response turned slightly softer at the extremes at lower settings and slightly harder and more contrasty at louder settings to emphasize the frequency extremes.


Compared to the Audiospace Reference 2S, the U-2 was more reserved, losing a bit of life especially in the midrange where the 300B-based Reference preamp works its magic. The DA&T was overall reminiscent in character of the Acousticbouy Scorpio preamplifier, approaching that unit’s neutrality with somewhat less sophistication. The U-2’s slightly more forgiving presentation combined with a basically neutral response to prevent becoming dry or hard on difficult material.  


The U-2 excelled in headphone use where its H.D. output demonstrated flat neutral response coupled to massive bass power and control with 'phones which were up to the task like the Denon. This gave an excellent platform to evaluate different headphones as much as the DAC/Pre itself. Where the H.D. position had much broader response and dynamics, the L.D. was rolled off in the extremes, concentrating attention in the lower midrange through midrange with less definition and dynamics. The H.D. was definitely the more accurate and engaging of the two but the L.D. proved to be an interesting alternative with headphones which concentrated their own response at the frequency extremes, taking away some of their bite and edge.


The U-2 preamplifier at optimum produced a reasonably large soundstage but not quite as expansive or focused as the Audiospace Reference or the direct outputs from the Luxman. The DA&T U-2 favored transparency over dimensionality so instruments achieved a good sense of clarity but lacked a degree of solidity in comparison to the other two. Higher resolution files improved that situation, giving progressively better image and soundstage information as the quality of the material improved and allowing the DA&T to approach but not quite reach the other preamp stages for respectable performance nonetheless.