[Ulas]

- - exactly what you guys are hearing. I've been following the DI/O hype since it started to appear in different audio forums. The stock DI/O was proclaimed to be "the best DAC under $6K." Then the mods started to appear.
Bigger wall wart - HUGE improvement.
Remove the tube - HUGE improvement.
Upgraded power supply - HUGE improvement.
Bigger power cord - HUGE improvement.
Upgraded connectors - HUGE improvement.
Remove output caps - HUGE improvement.
Change output resistors - HUGE improvement.
Upgrade rectifier - HUGE improvement.
Upgrade OpAmps - HUGE improvement.
Upgrade PS caps - HUGE improvement.
Bias class A - HUGE improvement.
Upgrade input caps - HUGE improvement.
Upgrade bypass caps - HUGE improvement.
Upgrade micro processor - HUGE improvement.
Add Bluetack - HUGE improvement.
Add C-37 varnish - HUGE improvement.
Remove ADC components - HUGE improvement.
Add Bybee to digital input - HUGE improvement.
Add second Bybee to digital input - HUGE improvement.
Add Bybee to audio out - HUGE improvement.
Add second Bybee to audio out - HUGE improvement.
Add Bybee to power cord - HUGE improvement.
Are there additional mods that make further HUGE improvements?

After more than a dozen HUGE improvements, I would expect a fully modded DI/O to be "the best DAC under $60K" and compete with the DCS Elgar/Purcell combo, Audio Note DAC 5 Signature or any of the other highly regarded DACs! Yet, the only recent comparisons I see are the DI/O, with hundreds of dollars worth of mods, vs. the $250 Scott Nixon DAC and many listeners prefer the latter. What happened to the giant killer?

[Wayne1]

All comparisons that you might read are that person's opinions in his system in his room.

All people have different tastes when it comes to audio gear. Most listen in different sized rooms with different gear than we have.

A group of 4 people in NC compared the Scott Nixon DAC to a modded DI/O and preferred the Scott Nixon.

A group of 4 prople in CO compared the Scott Nixon to a modded DI/O and preferred the modded ART DI/O.

It really doesn't matter one whit what anyone else thinks about the sound of any DAC. All that matters is what YOU think in YOUR system.

FWIW, I did hear the SN and MENSA DI/O in MY system and I did prefer the sound of the MENSA.

I have sent around a modded DI/O so people can listen for themselves and make up their own minds about what sounds better.

Just remember, what for one person would be a HUGE improvement for another would be very subtle.

A recent comparison of a modded DI/O to an Accuphase DP-65 might be interesting reading for you: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=3023

Please remember YMMV

[BikeWNC]

Wayne,

I participated in the NC dac comparison and I actually liked the Mensa over the Scott Nixon dac.  I thought the SN dac had a nice midrange bloom to the detriment of the overall balance.  I also thought it was rolled off at the extremes.  The Mensa Dio on the other hand was very well balanced but lost out in the ears of the other attendees, IMO, due to a system synergy thing that welcomed the midrange warmth of the SN dac.  I wonder, now that the host of the dac shootout has a tube pre and amp in his system, if the Mensa dac wouldn't be better received if the shootout were held today as the system is now configured.  Just a thought.

Andy

[brad b]

Tsunami:
first, I lost my post to you about Wayne's bybees.  Sorry bout that...I did let them cook overnight in the output and input, and still liked two in line at the inupt.  Second, the Diluceo's sound great, and VERY lifelike with Wayne's new RCA bybee toys.  Third, Mike G. and I actually preferred the Scott Nixon DAC on one song, a male vocal.  It did bloom and was very tuby, which sounded great.  We also listened to my CI VDA and thought it fell in the middle.  The Mensa is really detailed, and if you have the right system, you won't miss anything.  My CI may not be as detailed, but quite musical for me, and the Nixon DAC may be a great addition to an all SS system, but with tubes or Hybrids (which we were listening to), it was a little too midrangy.  But it all goes back to what many people tell you.  What's good in my system may suck in yours.  Trust your ears....
Brad

[Ulas]

Wayne, YMMV is evading the question. I've heard the DI/O in my system. I know what it sounds like. The question I asked was what YOU GUYS hear in it. The fact that Tyson found his highly modified DI/O almost indistinguishable from an Accuphase DP-65 is not surprising. All up/over-sampling DACs with digital filters sound the same to me. The DP-65 dates from '95 and uses 20-bit, 4-times over-sampling with a digital filter. Sony was using similar techniques at least 5 years earlier. The Accuphase is a 10 year-old DAC, using a 15 year-old topology and it is judged virtual identical to the DI/O using the latest delta/sigma topology in a highly tweaked circuit. As I asked before, where is the giant killer?

After a DI/O gets the full treatment, only a small number of the original components are left. Wouldn't it be better to start the same DAC chip, build a quality circuit around, and put it in a properly damped and shielded case? From Wayne's perspective, the answer is no, because such a DAC would be judged against all the current contenders and it would have nothing unique to offer. Nurturing the DI/O cult helped put Bolder Cables on the map. As long as the faithful want their precious DI/Os updated, there is no reason Wayne shouldn't cater to their desires.

Do you remember how the DI/O craze started? Wasn't it Todd Krieger who first proclaimed the stock DI/O to be "the best DAC under $6K?" And isn't Todd Krieger behind the current CD track-skip insanity? He must be having a good laugh.

[Wayne1]

I really don't know what you want or where you are going with this.

I modifiy the DI/O because it is cheaper to buy a stock one that to have one built to spec in small quantity.

I am a one man oreration with very limited resources.

There is demand for this DAC so I meet the demand.

As all I can get out of this is some form of an attack, I am going to lock this thread