Originally Posted by Jon Martin
Its best to be heard yourself. There is nothing out there like it I'm sure you can mix and match stuff but its not the same I'm speaking from experience here. The ADH amplification concept has alot to do with it for one.
This isn't a satisfactory explanation. The performance of DACs and amplifiers can be evaluated by signals in versus signals out, and the "big three" are (and always will be) frequency response, noise and distortion. These attributes (above certain thresholds) are what we actually hear
. All DACs and all modern, solid-state amplifiers that I know of have long since conquered the challenges of the "big three." The means by which they do that, whether by "ADH" (a marketing label) or anything else, is irrelevant -- the objective is still signal in versus signal out.
The absolute best we could hope for from this kinda gear (and even here I'm reaching) would be some subtle improvement that might
be detectable to some listeners some of the time on certain passages of certain music. Maybe. Probably not, but maybe.
So this notion of a "jaw dropping" improvement (which is tantamount to having verified the existence of Bigfoot) begs a simple question: How?
Tell us how the digital-to-analog conversion and amplification are any better than anything else. This means show us the measurements. And even then, tell us how or why the human ear would even hear such nuances.
(And yes, in deference to what others have already pointed out, tell us how listening bias, however unintended, wouldn't be a far better explanation for what you experienced.)