Fantastic sounding digital source - modded Consonance SACD 2

KevinW · « **on:** 10 Mar 2004, 07:03 pm »

Folks,
I have been working on a line of source equipment that I found worthy... well I found it, and it is time to make some believers!

The player is the Consonance SACD 2.0. The mods are a collaboration between Solar Hi-Fi and Jena Labs (the original high priestess of modifications). The sound is out of this world. It needs to be heard to be believed.

Let me tell you that I have never heard sound so good. Sonic purity and realism, emotional involvement, detail, imaging, soundstage. Nothing I have ever heard compares to this, and that includes vinyl. There is a magical combination in the excellent build quality of this player, the tube output stage, and the mods. The player sounds great on both redbook CD's and SACD. The benchmark player for comparison is the Audio Aero Capitoloe MK2, which retails for $10,000 and is considered one of the absolute best you can buy for standard redbook CD's. The modded SACD 2.0 utterly destroys it for a fraction of the cost.

New price of the Consonance SACD 2.0 is $2500, mods are $995. Buying the player new w/ mods gets a $100 discount for a total of $2395 plus a 30-day return guarantee.

The results are absolutely stunning...

The Sound:
After mods, this player produces an incredibly lifelike representation of the music. Ease of listening is effortless, with zero harshness. Perfectly clean and smooth. The midrange is extremely spacious, with football field width and cathedral-like height and depth. Bass response is loaded with a solid foundation, and the highs are superbly clean. Indeed, there is so much that is right-on with this player, that Jennifer Whitewolf of Jena Labs says, "All the standard audiophile hyperboles apply, only this time it is for real."

The Mods:

...and of course the standard drop-in replacements, using only the highest quality parts:
- Cardas RCA and Neutrik XLR jacks (immersion cryo'd standard)
- Jena Labs Ultrawire in all signal pathways
- Auricaps in signal path for all coupling applications
- Black Gate capacitors in all decoupling applications
- High grade metal film resistors in all signal pathways (immersion cryo'd)
- Rectifier bypass capacitors to remove ringing (exactly same effect as hexfreds, but $150 cheaper)
Mods Price: $975
New Player with Mods: $3399

Options:
- Exclusive Jena Labs stereo separation circuitry dramatically increases soundstage and microdynamic detail ($299)
- True balanced XLR signal output using Jensen balancing transformers ($325)
- Bybee Quantum Purifiers ($150 - $1200)
- Jena Labs Ultrawire in all power supply pathways ($275)
[/list:u]

Solar Hi-Fi is an authorized dealer for Consonance.

earlmarc · « **Reply #1 on:** 10 Mar 2004, 07:37 pm »

Seems like a tempting player. I am curious about a comparison between your player and APL HiFi's Phillips SACD 1000 modified player with a tubed output stage. APL's player would cost approximately $1000 less. Maybe, if you are that confindent about your player, you could plan a shootout between these two players?

KevinW · « **Reply #2 on:** 10 Mar 2004, 08:18 pm »

The Consonance is designed from the ground-up to have a tube output stage. There is plenty of space inside the player, as there is no 'additional' circuitry for video or multichannel, and space means less intereference between circuits and reduces noise. Everything about this player is designed for optimum 2-channel sound, and the results are stunning.

Unlike the Phillips you can buy new SACD 2.0's right now, with full warranty.

Alex Peychev · « **Reply #3 on:** 12 Mar 2004, 01:39 am »

Hi Kevin,

First of all, let me wish you a great success with your new mod. I am sure that it sounds really good.

Please no hard feelings, but I would like to say a few things:

1. There is no such thing as a digital player that is built to be tubed "from ground up". All digital players come with a transport, DSP, DACs and Analog Stage. The choice of the designer is to have the analog stage Solid State or Tubed.

2. The pure 2 channel design, especially when it comes to SACD, is long gone years ago. The first and only Sony DSD processor was 2 channels. All Philips and all second generation Sony SACD decoders are ALL Multichannel. In general, the SACD decoder (although being Multichannel) gets instruction from the Main System Control to switch paths between MC and Stereo. Any MC machine, while playing Stereo is pure Stereo...

3. Although the Consonance is a current production machine with full warranty, it is clear that the warranty is voided after it's modified. This applies to all modded players and is a risk that that customers are well aware of. It is another story if the "modifier" is capable of standing 100% behind the customer in case of a problem - regardless of the problem.

The last thing is that, the Tube Stage in my SACD1000 is direct coupled (DC) to the 4 DACs per channel and drives an output transformer.

Best Regards,

KevinW · « **Reply #4 on:** 12 Mar 2004, 02:50 am »

Alex,
I appreciate the dialog, thanks for posting. And while I wouldn't necessarily appreciate a competitor plugging their own product's advantages in my forum, it was mentioned initially by someone else

Quote from: Alex Peychev

1. There is no such thing as a digital player that is built to be tubed "from ground up". All digital players come with a transport, DSP, DACs and Analog Stage. The choice of the designer is to have the analog stage Solid State or Tubed.

Sure, there is a digital front-end in any digital source component. However the advantage of the Consonance is that it was designed to contain a tube stage, and has a lot of space around that stage. This does result in less interference between sections, and therefore a lower noise floor. This is the point I am trying to make, and it is not a trivial one. Just how significant is up for debate, but I believe from personal experience that it is a significant factor.

Quote

3. Although the Consonance is a current production machine with full warranty, it is clear that the warranty is voided after it's modified. This applies to all modded players and is a risk that that customers are well aware of. It is another story if the "modifier" is capable of standing 100% behind the customer in case of a problem - regardless of the problem.

I stand behind the quality of my work and I will honor the originial factory warranty on players that I personally modify. I always try to take care of my customers. In fact, that is my primary goal... to make my customers beyond happy with their purchase.

Quote

The last thing is that, the Tube Stage in my SACD1000 is direct coupled (DC) to the 4 DACs per channel and drives an output transformer.

Alex, since you're somewhat new the Audio Circle, it is considered gauche to plug the merits of your own competing product in another manufacturer's forum. Please avoid doing this in the future. But since you mentioned it, I will say that there are inherent problems with using a transformer coupled output. My personal experience is that a capacitor coupled output has superior sound. You are welcome to disagree, and I am not at all doubting the quality of your work, however I think such a debate would be more appropriate in a neutral forum.

Cheers,
Kevin

Phil · « **Reply #5 on:** 12 Mar 2004, 03:14 am »

Kevin,

OK, the picture and description has me drooling. What kind of DAC chip does the unit use? Does it upsample CDs?

Phil

Alex Peychev · « **Reply #6 on:** 12 Mar 2004, 05:35 am »

Quote from: KevinW

Alex, since you're somewhat new the Audio Circle, it is considered gauche to plug the merits of your own competing product in another manufacturer's forum. Please avoid doing this in the future. But since you mentioned it, I will say that there are inherent problems with using a transformer coupled output ...

Kevin,

I might be new to the AC, but that does not shorten my 25 years design experience...

Since someone had asked you a question about my products and you answered the way you did, I just had to clarify.

I am away from the thought to "plug in advantages" of my product, because it is clearly stated on my web site what it is. As you mentioned, according to your expertise, transformer coupling is much worse than capacitor coupling, so there is no advantage to plug in anyway.

"A lot of space" does not create "lower noise floor"...

I wish it did...

Lastly, I did not post on "another manufacturer’s forum”. I posted on "Market Square" in order to, again, clarify on a few points regarding posts concerning my products. That is all!

I am away from the thought to cause any trouble. Good luck!

Regards,

earlmarc · « **Reply #7 on:** 12 Mar 2004, 05:59 pm »

Sorry Kevin and Alex. It was not my intent to instigate a dual of words between you two. The fact is that both of you have introduced new products to this forum that seem very appealing. As a potential customer, I feel its important to determine between these products which is better. Bettter of course would depend on the audience. Both of you naturally will have biased opinions regarding your own product. No one would fault you for this. I admire you both for being gentlemen and for sharing your products and expertise to members of this forum. I am sure there will be customers who would prefer either one of your products. But since you both feel so strongly, why not compare the two players in a listening session. Audiocircle is a large audience. I trust the members of this forum can give an unbiased opinion regarding these two players. The choice is yours to make.

Thank You Both,

Bill Baker · « **Reply #8 on:** 12 Mar 2004, 09:30 pm »

Quote

Bettter of course would depend on the audience. Both of you naturally will have biased opinions regarding your own product. No one would fault you for this. I admire you both for being gentlemen and for sharing your products and expertise to members of this forum. I am sure there will be customers who would prefer either one of your products. But since you both feel so strongly, why not compare the two players in a listening session. Audiocircle is a large audience. I trust the members of this forum can give an unbiased opinion regarding these two players. The choice is yours to make.

earlmarc make a very good point here. I have introduced many new products and modifications here on the circle and also have come into a bit of friendly competetion with a few other dealers or modifiers. My goal was strickly for honest feedback without getting into debate. I have been with the circle for some time now and know how the members work. I look forward to their honest insight and find it useful.

Neither one of you two will be able to convince anybody your product is "better" as there is no such animal. Everyone out there has their own personal preferences and ideas of what a superior product is. Modifiers have a tough task of justifying their every move. Use the honesty of these members to move forward. I know I have.

Alex Peychev · « **Reply #9 on:** 12 Mar 2004, 10:02 pm »

Hi Bill,

Thank you! Absolutelly, you are right 100%! Actually, this has been my practice as well and I know that it works.

Regards,

KevinW · « **Reply #10 on:** 13 Mar 2004, 12:20 am »

Good Question Phil,
Funny thing is that I haven't found that information anywhere yet. I'll let you know as I soon as I find out. However, the results to do speak for themselves.

Kevin

Quote from: Phil

Kevin,

OK, the picture and description has me drooling. What kind of DAC chip does the unit use? Does it upsample CDs?

Phil

KevinW · « **Reply #11 on:** 13 Mar 2004, 12:40 am »

Quote from: earlmarc

Sorry Kevin and Alex. It was not my intent to instigate a dual of words between you two.

Earlmarc, thanks for the apologies, but it is not necessary. I am not bent out of shape, and I appreciate Alex's comments, and Bill's too. That's the real strength of AC, when manufacturers can open dialong between each other and their customers. However, this is a tenous balance as well. I think that given the abundance of opportunities for things to be read 'out of context', it is vital for certain etiquette to be followed, especially in Manufacturer's Circles. I always think long and hard before posting in those circles, whereas before I became a manufacturer I just did it. There is a more at stake here than some people realize, because it is not easy to maintain a vibrant, educated community. I made my point earlier a little stronger than was perhaps necessary just to get people thinking.

Back to work for me! I am going to post info on several new products very soon.

Thanks for the great discussion everyone!
kevn

Agrippa · « **Reply #12 on:** 13 Mar 2004, 11:05 pm »

The DAC is a Burr Brown DSD1702, as stated on the manufacturers website - http://www.operaudio.com/Html/Opera-Products-NEWPRODUCTS-CD.htm.

These components are made in China by the way, and are readily available from Hong Kong at just over $1000. Great sounding products, but way (WAY) overpriced once they've made a trip via the importer/dealer. Better by far to get it from this dealer in Hong Kong - http://cattylink.com/ - where you'll also find a lot of products which magically become different entities entirely once the motherland has been left behind (e.g. Aurum Cantus > Red Rose Music @ 5-10x prices).

Anyway - import it from Hong Kong, get it modded and save $1400. Can't be bad!

Agrippa

Alex Peychev · « **Reply #13 on:** 14 Mar 2004, 09:29 am »

Sorry to say, but DSD1702 is used for the Surround channels in the Pioneer DV-563A. It is inferior to the DSD1791 which is used for the Stereo/Front channels in the same machine. The above is clear at www.ti.com

Regards,

Agrippa · « **Reply #14 on:** 14 Mar 2004, 10:06 am »

To be fair though, the implementation (psu, analogue output, etc) is generally far more important than what DAC is used and the Consonance certainly sounds a hell of a lot better than the Pioneer.

Agrippa

Alex Peychev · « **Reply #15 on:** 14 Mar 2004, 10:17 pm »

Sure, it is correct, but it's really not clear to me why one should use the cheapest BB DAC in an expensive machine. Can you imagine the same player but with DSD1791?

The other thing is that, to me, it is not fair comparing a $150 player with $2500 machine.

Regards,

Agrippa · « **Reply #16 on:** 14 Mar 2004, 10:55 pm »

Sure I can imagine the Consonance with the DSD1791, but I see no reason why it would necessarily sound any better with it. Like I said, the implementation of the psu and analogue stage are far more imprtant.

Personally I use an old (1998) Musical Fidelity CD player, purely because I've yet to find anything I like better, including players costing 3-4 times as much as mine did originally.

Again, it's (almost) all in the implementation and 98% of the constant hype regarding the never-ending line of new DAC's is pure drivel as far as two-channel music reproduction go - nothing really new has happened here for ages. In terms of Red Book CD reproduction, just about any 10 years old good-quality CD player can be made to perform within 5-10% of today's top players, by making the appropriate modifications to clock, filter and analogue output.

But if we all did that to our players, how would the manufacturers survive? Hence massive marketing designed to make us believe that new = better, while in fact most modern DAC's are massively overpowered in terms of reproduction of music in stereo. A bit like shooting sparrows with a howitzer...

And of course, comparing the Pioneer to the Consonance is not fair, but then you brought it up...

Agrippa

Alex Peychev · « **Reply #17 on:** 14 Mar 2004, 11:24 pm »

Well, you will have a very hard time convincing me that nothing happened for decades with Stereo and DACs..

There are just a few old CD players that can compete with the new ones, given both are modified. The DAC technology has boomed for the last 10 years with the introduction of far more advanced and far more superior DAC designs.

BTW, what DACs are used in your MF player? How much did it cost when was new?

My point about the DSD1791 compared to the DSD1702 was that UNDER THE SAME conditions, DSD1791 is superior to 1702.

Regards,

Agrippa · « **Reply #18 on:** 14 Mar 2004, 11:55 pm »

"Well, you will have a very hard time convincing me that nothing happened for decades with Stereo and DACs.."

Well, DVD-Audio and SACD has obviously happened, but then those are primarily targeted towards multi-channel playback. As far as stereo is concerned, it only takes so much to decode a stereo signal and anything over and above what's required is fairly pointless. What HAS improved, are clocks, psu's and analogue stages, but any improvements as far as DAC's are concerned have done zilch for sound quality. If the DAC can decode a stereo signal adequately, it can decode a stereo signal adequately - and that's that. After such a DAC (i.e. just about any DAC) is in place, it all depends on the remaining implementation.

If you find that notion disagreeable, please explain what additional functions you feel would benefit a DAC.

"The DAC technology has boomed for the last 10 years with the introduction of far more advanced and far more superior DAC designs."

Superior in what sense, when applied to music in two channels? In the case of multi-channel I have no argument with the above.

"BTW, what DACs are used in your MF player? How much did it cost when was new?"

Bugger, you've got me there... Frankly, I have no idea. I lost the paperwork long ago and MF's new website had no details on their older product lines. I could e-mail and ask them, but can't really be bothered.

"My point about the DSD1791 compared to the DSD1702 was that UNDER THE SAME conditions, DSD1791 is superior to 1702."

In multi-channel - possibly (not interested in multi-channel, so I don't know that much about it). In stereo - can't see how it could be.

Agrippa

Alex Peychev · « **Reply #19 on:** 15 Mar 2004, 02:23 am »

"Well, DVD-Audio and SACD has obviously happened, but then those are primarily targeted towards multi-channel playback. As far as stereo is concerned, it only takes so much to decode a stereo signal and anything over and above what's required is fairly pointless. What HAS improved, are clocks, psu's and analogue stages, but any improvements as far as DAC's are concerned have done zilch for sound quality. If the DAC can decode a stereo signal adequately, it can decode a stereo signal adequately - and that's that. After such a DAC (i.e. just about any DAC) is in place, it all depends on the remaining implementation."

To be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about! What do you mean by "As far is stereo concerned"? What is the difference between Stereo DAC and Multichannel DAC? DSD1791 is Stereo DAC and DSD1702 is also Stereo DAC. The DSD1702 is used for the Surround channels as these do not carry as much of information as the Main Stereo channels, so in MC environment you will not hear the inferiority of the DSD1702.

According to you, with a given transport/DSP/PSU/analog stage, ALL DACs will sound the same. I wish that was the truth...

The difference between the sound qualty of the DACs is HUGE! The winners are the latest Delta/Sigma DACs which are FAR superior to the older designs.

I am also not interested in Multi Channel, but the DAC has nothing to with that. There are just a few all in one (6-8 channel) DACs available, but these are used in the cheapest Receivers and are much worse than the Stereo DACs.

"In multi-channel - possibly (not interested in multi-channel, so I don't know that much about it). In stereo - can't see how it could be. "

The above does not make sense at all because almost every MC player uses Stereo DACs.

Regards,