No.

• I don’t care for the Mac universe. Vendor lock-in is a thing.

• I don’t see the point in spending stupid money for an Intel system.

I see the updated DACs in Macs as step up from what they had before, but not really something that would replace a piece of dedicated hardware. If you’re a recording engineer doing a rough mix on the go, maybe it’s good enough to leave your interface at home until you can get to a proper listening environment.

I’ve used a Mac as my main streamer / playback device since… 2008. Currently is an m2 Mac mini. But I’m not using the analog out. I’ve used external dacs. Currently a benchmark dac3. I prefer it to the Mac native.

A computer is not a fair comparison to a standalone audio device like a DAC.

It may be an endpoint source for digital, and you may be satisfied with the internal DAC, but it’s highly unlikely to compete with standalone DACs in either quality or market.

I’d even challenge you that you should not consider it that way, and keep your Cambridge Audio DAC, which is likely to be superior.

The issue here is that even with Apple’s “high res” solution you’re still using a device that’s subject to internal interference. There’s always going to be EMI inside of a computer. Even USB-3 ports and devices put out low-level RF interference that can impact your home Wi-Fi. Apple is trying to convince you that an internal sound card is better than an external one and it’s just not true.

If you’re getting a Mac for the look, design, and to be a media server (maybe with a NAS or DAS solution to supplement and store more/higher-quality media), then great. If you want their OS because it’s pretty and functional for many uses, even better. If you’re getting it to use as your DAC and, potentially, your amp, it’s a bad choice. It’s the same reason I use external sound cards for my PCs, internal introduces problems that can’t easily be solved.

Apple is great at marketing and a lot of people are going to fall for this. Some may even have an improved experience over their current setup. No matter what, you would be better served investing in audio-only equipment if all you want/need it a better conversion device that looks pretty.

I added my Mac years ago through USB, enjoying 24/96 ever since.

If you think the DAC in a Mac Mini is going to outclass a dedicated DAC engineered to a much higher budget by a well respected Hi-Fi audio manufacturer, you’re a fully paid up member of the Apple hype train.

I hope Apple is not applying their usual marketing strategy “we invented the DAC.”

My Schitt modi Multibit 2 sounds way better than the dac in my MacBook Pro and the burr brown in my AirPort Express. I use usb out to the Schitt.

Personally, I prefer having dedicated audio components in my audio system.

Ive used a Mac or Hackintosh for many years in my setup.

That would be a strange reason to buy a Mac. Most audiophiles will use the USB out to an external DAC.

I think people entirely forget that aside from the DAC itself, what you’re really listening to is an analog output device. So even if my new Mac Studio had the same cheap chipset as a stand alone Dac, the analog section would not be the same.

If by DAC you’re talking about ultimately using the analogue out on it, I wouldn’t do that with any computer.

I use Airplay for anything 16-bit. If I wanna go fancy 24-bit 96 KHz, I use a media server to my amp.

I don’t run my audio through laptops…

Why would you do that when you can buy a cheap PC and a better DAC and still have money left to improve something else in your setup?