[cmryan21]

Hi everyone, just wanted to make sure I understand the sacd format(which it seems like is almost dead). Excluding the use of hdmi equipped players, in order to get proper playback of the sacd, do you need to have the player perform the processing and send the out via 2.0 or 5.1 analog to a preamp, or can you send out a digital signal via spdif to an external dac and then preamp? I thought you needed the player to do the processing but reading through some posts in the other forums it seems like some guys are sending out the signals to external dacs for the d/a conversion. I'd appreciate any help you guys can give me.

[geowak]

cmryan21

I am not an expert, but I have a SACD player and this is what I know.

The players are digital. They have one DAC or many.

Most have one for each channel. So if the SACD (disc) is a 2.1, the DACs in the player for those channels will decode the signal, and send it out analog. If the SACD is 5.1, you will get all the DAC's working
and therefore send those analog signals to the preamp (stand-alone or in a receiver).

You can choose to bypass the players internal DAC's in many types of players, and send out a digital signal that can be decoded in another unit, such as an external dac or the dac's in a receiver. You may want to do this if you have a BETTER QUALITY external DAC or BETTER sounding DACs than the ones in the SACD player.

There is a popular Oppo player that gets alot of ink because it is used as a transport for the signal to a better quality DAC downstream.

My rig is an Rega Applo CD player- that I send a digital signal via an optical cable to a Benchmark DAC. Thus the Benchmark does the coversion. When I use my Marantz DV-6400 SACD/DVD AUDIO player, I send out the audio via another optical cable to the Benchmark. All my 2 channel sound for DVDs, SACDs, and CDs goes through the Benchmark DAC because it sounds smoother and cleaner than the other two player's DACs.

[cmryan21]

Geowak, thanks for the help.

I know that some players(like the oppo you mentioned) will pass either dsd or dsd converted to pcm over hdmi to a prepro/receiver and that is a way to get the d/a conversion done outside the player, but I don't know of any hdmi equipped external dacs that could be used with players in this same manner.

The main thing that I was confused on was that I thought that dsd could not be passed through spdif, but you say that you use an optical out of your sacd player to your benchmark so I was obviously wrong about that.

I probably just need to read other posts a little more carefully and not jump to conclusions.

Thanks again.

[Mike19]

Hi cmryan

I am no expert on SACD, so someone please correct me if I am wrong.

It is my understanding that an SACD needs special decoding; that's why a standard CD player will not play a 5.1 SACD. A standard CD player might play a 2.1 channel SACD (or a dual layer SACD with both 2.1 and 5.1), but it will come out as red book CD 2.0, not SACD 2.1. As the SACD player performs the D to A conversion, one needs 3 (for 2.1) or 6 (for 5.1) analog RCA cables to connect to the receiver or pre/pro.

Theoretically, a single digital signal could be sent from the SACD player to a receiver or pre/pro, but then the sink would need an SACD decoder/DAC. I have never heard of a receiver or pre/pro that performed SACD conversion.

Many (if not most) SACD players also do standard CDs and even DVDs (like my Sony NS900ES). When the SACD player is set to the CD mode, one could send a 2.0 digital signal to the receiver or pre/pro where the D to A conversion would be handled.

Recently, a few manufacturers have come out with SACD players with an HDMI output. I'm not sure how these work. Apparently, the multichannel digital signal is sent from the SACD player to a 5.1 or 7.1 avr and the avr's DACs do the conversion. What I do not understand is how a standard avr can decode the SACD signal as if it were a CD or a DVD signal. 

Mike

[chosenhandle]

SACD does not use PCM so normal DAC's will not work. Also, Sony restricts the transfer of SACD digital data ouside the player. In other words, they designed the technology to having all decoding done at the player (although that seems to be changing). Finally, there is not enough bandwidth in standard digital  connections (toslink, etc) to move that much data. Any transfer of SACD digital data has to be done with the HDMI protocol because it is the only method that can handle that much data. I think the last SACD protocol standard incorportated the HDMI function.

[Mike19]

Thank you chosenhandle.

If I understand you correctly, an HDMI cable can send a 5.1 analog SACD signal to an avr eliminating the need for 6 analog RCAs. The SACD player still performs the SACD decoding.

I know that a coax RCA cable will transmit analog as I have one of my subs hooked up with one.

Mike

[soundboy]

Lots of misinformation in the thread.

HDMI v1.2 was implemented to transmit the native DSD bitstream almost 3 years ago.  However, at that time, no SACD player, pre/pro, or HT receiver can decode DSD.  Then, Oppo came out with its 970 and it was the first SACD capable player that can transmit SACD digitally over HDMI, but at reduced resolution (88.2 kHz).

Fast forward a couple of years and HDMI protocol has been updated to v1.3.  Oppo released the successor to the 970, the 980 universal player.  The 980 can transmit the native DSD bitstream, unaltered, to an external DAC that can decode DSD.  Generally, such a DSD DAC would be inside a HT receiver and whether that DAC converts DSD to PCM first before going to analog is dependent on the inplementation of each manufacturer.  There are many receivers and pre/pro's that can decode DSD, such as those from Onkyo/Integra Research, Yamaha, Sony ES, Marantz, etc.  In analog mode, the 980 will downconvert the DSD bitstream to 88.2 kHz PCM before converting to analog.

Btw, Oppo is readying its BDP-83 Blu-ray player (also capable of playing DVD-A and SACD) for release very soon.  It can send the native DSD bistream via HDMI v1.3a or directly convert DSD to analog.  Similar machines have also been announced by Marantz and Denon, but these cost thousands more than the Oppo.

New for 2009 is a trend in mainstream HT receivers that eliminate the analog 5.1 multi-channel inputs, which is often used for SACD.  HTMI v1.3 inputs have replaced these analog 5.1 multi-channel inputs.  This is mostly due to the HDMI 1.3 outputs on Blu-ray players.  However, many SACD players, including the top-of-the-line players from Marantz and Sony, now only have HDMI outputs for multi-channel SACD playback.



 

[Norman Tracy]

Some comments on SACD beginning with the format and software.

The statement cmryan21 repeats that SACD “seems like is almost dead” is a favored editorial position of the North American mainstream high end audio press. In a classic case of is the glass half empty or half full they chose half empty. I disagree pointing out that with well over 3,000 SACD titles in print it represents the most successful high end audio specific format ever. Someone will immediately counter that no, LPs are the #1 audiophile format. Fact is LPs were conceived as a mass market format the primary goal of which was longer playing time (LP = Long Play) compared to 78s and hi-fi a nice bonus. Only after the fact was the LP drug kicking and screaming into the high fidelity camp. Of course 3,000 to 4,000 SACD titles is a tiny niche compared to the millions of titles available on CD and LP so how useful SACD is to a given audiophile/music lover depends on how well the SACD catalog matches your musical tastes. Browsing the Acoustic Sounds web site or your preferred vendor is the best way to get a handle on that match.

On the technical side cmryan21 asked “Excluding the use of hdmi equipped players, in order to get proper playback of the sacd, do you need to have the player perform the processing and send the out via 2.0 or 5.1 analog to a preamp, or can you send out a digital signal via spdif to an external dac and then preamp?” Short answer is ‘yes’ to analog 2.0 or 5.1 and ‘no’ to SPDIF. The SACD format was specified during the height of the insistence digital transfers of video and music be wrapped in strongly encrypted DRM (digital rights management). SPDIF has weak DRM (data not encrypted and a simple recording allowed bit set Y/N) and it is PCM centric so no attempt was made to update SPDIF for use with SACD’s DSD (Direct Stream Digital, the digital storage format used by SACD) encoded signals. All SACD players will mute their SPDIF outputs when playing SACD disks or the SACD layer of a SACD/CD disk.

Next cmryan21 asked “I thought you needed the player to do the processing but reading through some posts in the other forums it seems like some guys are sending out the signals to external dacs for the d/a conversion.” The short answer is ‘maybe’ but it is not that simple. The scenarios under which “some guys” used external DACs (not including the more HT centric HDMI 1.2 & 1.3 path soundboy covers nicely) with SACD capable players are as follows:

1. Very high end gear like TEAC Esoteric, dCS, Meinter, and Playback Designs which using HDMI or other non-SPDIF interfaces implementing strongly encrypted DRM allowing DSD data from the SACD disk to be interfaced to an external DSD capable DAC. In my opinion this represents the State of The Art in digital playback. Alas it is priced accordingly, fairly so because it is a big engineering development project to get these interfaces working successfully. When HDMI is used there is also the large cost of joining the HDMI organization and getting the devices certified.

2. Hybrid systems where a player like the Oppo mentioned in this thread are used with a SPDIF interfaced external DAC AND through the player’s analog outputs. I use this configuration featuring a modified Denon universal player connected both by SPDIF and analog outputs. This gets subtle and a bit tricky. When I listen to PCM encoded content off CD or DVD I use the digital SPDIF link. When I listen to DSD encoded SACD I switch to the analog path to enjoy the benefits of DSD encoding. One has to be educated and heads up as some combinations of disk and input render silence (SACD disk to SPDIF) or blasts of white noise (DVD DTS or dolby Digital to SPDIF). Not a problem for the hands on audio geek, not friendly for the rest of the family.

3. Ignore / abandon the DSD option and go 100% PCM with an external DAC. An example of this is described above by geowak when he writes “All my 2 channel sound for DVDs, SACDs, and CDs goes through the Benchmark DAC because it sounds smoother and cleaner than the other two player's DACs.” This statement implies that when geowak listens to a SACD he sets it to the CD layer which will send data out the SPDIF port to his Benchmark DAC. Also that the DVD player is setup to output only SPDIF and not dolby Digital or DTS. The Benchmark DAC is PCM only so if geowak plays a single layer DSD only SACD his Benchmark DAC will go silent, presumably for that rare circumstance he has an analog bypass. His use of the Benchmark DAC in preference to his Marantz is an example of how a high end DAC playing PCM can beat a mass market universal player playing DSD. Thanks to its excellent SPDIF interface and good DAC & analog stages the Benchmark sounds “smoother and cleaner” to geowak’s ears in his system compared to his Marantz and Rega players. These tables can be turned if the player is upgraded &/or the external DAC less capable.

I hope the above information helps. Some will look at this complexity and say forget it. It does reek of early adopter bleeding on the cutting edge. For me personally it is worth it as the sounds of the best SACDs are truly sublime. And I am over 50 so playing recorded music has always involved getting settings like 33 vs 45 RPMs and dolby off or B or C set correctly.

[Freo-1]

SACD is closer to analog music than CD, period. 

Take any master tape, master it at CD and SACD, and the SACD will always be closer to the source.

For people to suggest otherwise is just wrong (and perhaps shows limitations of their given setups).   I'll take SACD playback with the quality level of say a Denon 5910 against a CD based system any day of the week.  I've used the firewire out to a Sony DA9000ES with outstanding results.

Tubed based amplification with SACD really fleshes out the improvements brought by SACD over CD.   The real limitation of SACD is their is not enough music released on the format.  The Europeans thankfully are issuing new titles.

[cmryan21]

I'd really like to thank everyone for taking the time to chip in on this topic. It seems to be getting somewhat popular this afternoon.

Norman, I was not at all trying to disparage sacd with the "almost dead" statement. I just included it as sort of a self-deprecating way of saying that I'm asking this almost a decade late. I'm new to this hobby(shows with the ignorance) and I just heard an sacd for the first time last week and I was astounded. I truly hope that the format can last and the "almost dead" label is incorrect.

Also, you mention that a sacd player can become more capable if upgraded. What parts of the player would need to be upgraded to get much better performance while using the analog out to a prepro? You mention that you use a modified denon for this purpose, can you give some specifics?

Freo-1, firewire huh. And I thought that was just a way to move data on macs and pcs. Well, I guess that could add a whole new wrinkle to the buying process once I figure this whole thing out. I guess I should ask why you chose to use firewire. I'll assume(dangerous ground here) its because it can transfer the data at full resolution to an firewire dac. If I'm wrong, proceed with 

Thanks again to everyone for the help.

[Mag]

For people to suggest otherwise is just wrong (and perhaps shows limitations of their given setups).   I'll take SACD playback with the quality level of say a Denon 5910 against a CD based system any day of the week.  I've used the firewire out to a Sony DA9000ES with outstanding results.

>> My listening comparison in MC stereo versus MC SACD has led me to the conclusion that a SOTA cd player coupled with the Yamaha enhancer (which replaces lost harmonics inherent in cd recordings), trumps the harmonics of the same hybrid SACD.
 I haven't made the comparison against a top quality machine as the one you have. But I willing to bet you a case of beer, that SOTA cd player with Yamaha enhancer will still trump your SACD playback.<<

[Freo-1]

Mag, no offense, but that is utter nonsense. 


I don't care what you hook up to the 16 bit source (chopped off somewhere below 22 KHz), the SACD of the same given recording, with expanded bit rate and frequency extension, will perform closer to the original performance.  It's engineering 101.

The better the amplifcation and speaker reproduction, the more the differences between CD and SACD will be readily apparent.

[hamblis]

>> My listening comparison in MC stereo versus MC SACD has led me to the conclusion that a SOTA cd player coupled with the Yamaha enhancer (which replaces lost harmonics inherent in cd recordings), trumps the harmonics of the same hybrid SACD.
 I haven't made the comparison against a top quality machine as the one you have. But I willing to bet you a case of beer, that SOTA cd player with Yamaha enhancer will still trump your SACD playback.<< 

Mag, I presume MC is multi channel in which case I'm not sure if your point is "stereo versus multi channel" or "CD versus SACD".  If it's the latter, I  think your case of beer is in danger....  The difficulty with being definitive about all this is the number of factors involved.  I have a dCS transport and DAC which upsamples CD to DSD and I can truly say it's the best CD player that I've heard.  And with SACD, it's even better.  However, it's reasonable to suggest that people producing SACD's will spend a lot of time on mastering so, is it more care in production that helps SACD win in my system?  Or is it the dCS DAC which, like the Meitner approach, is unique?  Or the quality of parts used in high end equipment?  Or a combination of all these and more, including that SACD is a better engineering platform for high definition sound?

From my perspective, CD playback has improved hugely over the last few years through better understanding of digital, through improvements in equipment parts, through better design, etc.  But higher definition than 16/44.1 is needed for great sound.  Whether that's SACD, 24/96 or something else, it's better than RBCD.

[opnly bafld]

SACD's must sound better because they go above 20k right?
What about all that ultrasonic noise intrinsic to DSD recordings?
Can you hear that too?

Lin 

[Mag]

>> My listening comparison in MC stereo versus MC SACD has led me to the conclusion that a SOTA cd player coupled with the Yamaha enhancer (which replaces lost harmonics inherent in cd recordings), trumps the harmonics of the same hybrid SACD.
 I haven't made the comparison against a top quality machine as the one you have. But I willing to bet you a case of beer, that SOTA cd player with Yamaha enhancer will still trump your SACD playback.<< 

Mag, I presume MC is multi channel in which case I'm not sure if your point is "stereo versus multi channel" or "CD versus SACD".  If it's the latter, I  think your case of beer is in danger....  The difficulty with being definitive about all this is the number of factors involved.  I have a dCS transport and DAC which upsamples CD to DSD and I can truly say it's the best CD player that I've heard.  And with SACD, it's even better.  However, it's reasonable to suggest that people producing SACD's will spend a lot of time on mastering so, is it more care in production that helps SACD win in my system?  Or is it the dCS DAC which, like the Meitner approach, is unique?  Or the quality of parts used in high end equipment?  Or a combination of all these and more, including that SACD is a better engineering platform for high definition sound?

From my perspective, CD playback has improved hugely over the last few years through better understanding of digital, through improvements in equipment parts, through better design, etc.  But higher definition than 16/44.1 is needed for great sound.  Whether that's SACD, 24/96 or something else, it's better than RBCD.

My comparison is multi-channel stereo to multi-channel sacd, this is what I am familiar with. With 2 channel stereo, the bass to my ears is homogenized and thus lacks the instrument separation in the lower bass frequencies that I can readily discern in multi-channel. Also I don't have the ideal stereo setup.

Now without the enhancer, it is quite obvious to me that multi-channel sacd has more weight, depth, body and harmonics than multi-channel stereo.  The presentation as well seems to be laid back and perhaps very realistic compared to a live presentation.

With the enhancer on, a cd DSP into multi-channel stereo now has the simulated depth, weight, body, and better harmonics than my sacd player. The sound however is very forward. It's the improvement to harmonics that makes multi-channel stereo cd my preferred choice in playback.

 To my understanding then assuming the same mastered recording. Only a well engineered sacd player with good IC might trump what I am hearing from my SOTA cd player with Yamaha enhancer. If you are arguing that I need better all round equipment to hear the benefit of sacd, then it should also benefit cd playback.

[stevenbell]

I also will take the sota and a good dac over a denon any day. a Good dac and transport will play just as well as a cheap sacd player. And a dual layer disc is regular cd and sacd not 2.1 and 5.1.dual layer is playable on any player.Please see sterophile,what hifi they can explain better than I.
                        Steve

[geowak]

I must clarify one of the comments I made concerning my OWN SYSTEM.

I have MOSTLY CDs. I have a FEW SACDs. When I play music on my Marantz CD/SACD/DVD/DVD AUDIO player I play CDs about 98% of the time. The signal is sent digitally out of the Marantz and into the Benchmark external DAC for conversion there back to analog. Thus, I am enjoying CD music.. not SACD music.

When I want to listen to SACDs,.. most are 5.1. In those cases I listen to the Marantz player, and I DO NOT output the signal to the Benchmark. I find that the DACs in the Marantz do a fine job with the music.

I do not compare the sound of the two,  because 5.1 (through 5 speakers and a sub) sounds worlds different from straight two channel (2 speakers) sound. Also SACD  does offer very good sound on it's own merit when compared to CD.

I have never bothered to ask which is best, since I can have both.

BTW for comparison-
I like Butter Pecan Ice cream sometimes and Oreo Cookie ice cream at other times.... and I can have both.

[soundboy]

I have MOSTLY CDs. I have a FEW SACDs. When I play music on my Marantz CD/SACD/DVD/DVD AUDIO player I play CDs about 98% of the time. The signal is sent digitally out of the Marantz and into the Benchmark external DAC for conversion there back to analog. Thus, I am enjoying CD music.. not SACD music.

When I want to listen to SACDs,.. most are 5.1. In those cases I listen to the Marantz player, and I DO NOT output the signal to the Benchmark. I find that the DACs in the Marantz do a fine job with the music.

I do not compare the sound of the two,  because 5.1 (through 5 speakers and a sub) sounds worlds different from straight two channel (2 speakers) sound. Also SACD  does offer very good sound on it's own merit when compared to CD.

I think it should be mentioned that many people assume SACD is for multi-channel surround sound only, when that is false.  SACD was originally developed as a 2 channel stereo format and that is still reflected in top-of-the-line players from the likes of Sony, Denon, Marantz, etc. being 2 channel stereo only models.  Multi-channel surround sound capability was added as a response to the surround sound capability of SACD's rival format, DVD-Audio.  In fact, Sony/Philips mandates that a 2 channel stereo (or mono) DSD mix of the recording on every SACD.  Out of the over 5,800 SACD titles released thus far, there're only a handful of titles that don't adhere to that mandate. 

[Freo-1]

I also will take the sota and a good dac over a denon any day. a Good dac and transport will play just as well as a cheap sacd player. And a dual layer disc is regular cd and sacd not 2.1 and 5.1.dual layer is playable on any player.Please see sterophile,what hifi they can explain better than I.
                        Steve

Suggest you read up on the Denon 5910, then read Ken Pohlman's "Principals of Digital Audio'.  Once you do, you will most likely realize that an SACD recording will sound better on the 5910 than ANY 16 bit DAC. Period.

Another way to look at this: Stating that a 16 bit setup sounds better than a comparable SACD setup is like stating a 480I picture on a tube TV can look better than 1080I picture on a HD TV.

[Norman Tracy]

cmryan21 replied:
“Norman, I was not at all trying to disparage sacd with the "almost dead" statement. I just included it as sort of a self-deprecating way of saying that I'm asking this almost a decade late. I'm new to this hobby (shows with the ignorance) and I just heard an sacd for the first time last week and I was astounded. I truly hope that the format can last and the "almost dead" label is incorrect.”

No problem-o, I should have prefaced that paragraph as an aside with me on my soap box shouting to the crowd and not cmryan21 specifically. That nevertheless does not change my point that the US high end audio print media remains biased against SACD. Case in point since this thread started the latest Stereophile arrived in my paper mailbox. Did the headline read “Great new Sony ES SACD player review”? No it reads “Sony’s last SACD player?”! Great support for the format designed by and for audiophiles.

cmryan21 asked:
“Also, you mention that a sacd player can become more capable if upgraded. What parts of the player would need to be upgraded to get much better performance while using the analog out to a prepro? You mention that you use a modified denon for this purpose, can you give some specifics?”

If you will allow me to mix cliché with metaphor that is a dangerously open ended topic perched upon a slippery slope. In his landmark articles on the subject Walt Jung coined the acronym POOGE for Progressive Optimization Of Generic Equipment (see http://www.waltjung.org/Classic_Articles.html). The ‘progressive’ part is where as audiophiles we can tend to get in trouble and soon lest we are careful our $129 DVD/SACD player has $2000 worth of labor and parts in it. As means to an end that could be OK as long as we understand that like wheeled hot rod projects at the end it will not be worth $2,129 on the open market.

As a disclaimer I have in the past, and still will if pressed, offer first CD and then DVD/SACD player modification services. When one is deciding how far to take an upgrade project what I believe is reasonable is that the cost of the modification parts and labor should not exceed the retail cost of the player forming the foundation of the project. This is based on a desire to offer value for money invested and a belief that less expensive platforms will have a shorter service life and are therefore the investment in upgrading has less time to payback in listening enjoyment. Of course there are exceptions to this like any general rule.

Enough background let us see how that works in the specific case of my Denon DVD-1940CI you asked about. The DVD-1940CI is a circa $350 DVD/DVD-A/SACD player I purchased after a more heavy duty and heavily modified Sony DVP-900 decided to stop powering up. I discovered the Denon DVD-1940CI is a good platform for a high value mod when I opened the case and the entire 5.1 analog section resides on its own separate printed circuit board which plugs into the main transport control + video + decoding board via a couple of ribbon cables. This makes for quick disassembly and ready access to the nodes of interest. That is the good news; the bad news is the DAC chip (a Burr-Brown/TI DSD1608) resides on the harder to access main board so for round one I resisted the temptation to monkey with it. That demarcation fit well into the time and cash budget for the modification.

Back on the 5.1 channel analog board we find 3 dual channel op-amps from the JRC NJM4580 family. Not a bad part featuring 15MHz gain bandwidth product, 0.8uVrms input noise, and 5v/uS slew rate for something like $0.75 each. As a replacement I used the Analog Devices AD8034 featuring 11 nanoVrms input noise, and 80v/uS slew rate costing $4.25 each. To give the upgraded op-amps a better place to work in I identified the power supply capacitors feeding their power pins and replaced them with mostly Vishay’s version of the OSCON organic polymer capacitors and a couple of Panasonic FC and Nichicon electrolytic capacitors. A total of 15 capacitors were changed out. I managed to surround the op-amps with the organic polymer capacitors, a good thing as their very low impedances at high frequencies are very effective at shunting noise to ground.

Installation involved getting the board out of the DVD-1940CI (WITH THE AC CORD DISCONNECTED, LET’S NOT GET ANYONE ELECTROCUTED) and de-soldering the parts to be swapped. Here some experience and care is called for as the PCB is a lower quality single layer type as seem in generic consumer electronics. This actually makes taking the capacitors off easier as there are no plated through holes to deal with or clean out before the new parts can be installed. One must be careful as this type of PCB is easy to damage lifting pads (the copper trace looses adhesion to the circuit board material) with too much heat from your soldering iron. Speaking of soldering irons for work like this one should be using a temperature controlled iron with an appropriately sized tip. A hint on the op-amps is to not try and save the old parts. Carefully cut the 8 leads using a sharp Xacto knife then de-solder the cut off lead from the PCB individually. In the case of the Denon DVD-1940CI the SO-8 (small outline 8 pin, a standard surface mount package) case was glued to the PCB. After the leads are cut and de-soldered the body of the IC is removed by gently twisting or prying up to break the glue joint. I got the three parts off the board without damage to the PCB except for a little lost solder mask coating under the op-amps. FYI the reason the op-amps are glued onto the PCB is to hold them in place and aligned until the solder joints are made. This tells me the factory in China still uses hand soldering as more automated pick and place then solder reflow processes do not require glued down parts. With the old parts out the upgrade parts are installed being careful to observe capacitor polarity and pin 1 orientation on the op-amps.

With all the soldering done its reassembly then bench test and onto the listening. To recap this is what I would classify as a modest modification putting something like $150 of parts into a $350 player. Thanks to DIY labor was a no charge, or very large charge if one counts all the hours spent learning to do this. I was very pleased with the result. When placed back into my system the player is much more open and transparent sounding. The lower noise op-amps and bypass caps are apparent by a ‘blacker black’ allowing low level details to be more clearly reproduced. The textures and acoustic signatures of instruments are more apparent and the music flows with a newfound ease. All changes in the correct direction.

The magnitude of the change was greater than I expected. This type of modification often includes more elaborate circuit changes like lower jitter clocks, power supply regulator upgrades, and changing mute FETs for relays. These are all good things precluded in this case by time and dollar budget. These constraints inadvertently setup an experiment which reminded me of the high value of the basic caps + op-amp swap.