Hi,

I'm new to this board and would like some input on CD players in the $1000 or less range. I've looked into the following models after browsing both here and Audio Asylum. It is a long list so I don't know that anyone will be familiar with all models in the list, but any input would be greatly appreciated. I saw some of these discussed in the NAD vs. Arcam vs. Jolida etc post.

Arcam CD73
AH! SuperTjoeb 4000 w/ upsampler board (slightly over $1000)
Cambridge Audio 640C (version 2)
Jolida JD100A
Marantz DV7600
Music Hall CD 25.2
Rega Apollo

Thanks in advance for any input. I don't know anyone who owns any of these. A coworker, who firmly believes in tubes, thinks the SuperTjoeb 4000 would be the best choice. Unfortunately, I can only purchase it over the internet as no one in Wisconsin sells these. I would definitely like to listen to these units prior to purchasing one.

Thanks,

Randy

There is another Chinese unit from East Sound that is well under $1000, and has been getting rave reviews from the source nuts on HeadFi.com

I went another diection, but I nearly pulled the trigger on the East Sound. Check it out....

I have heard the Apollo and the CD25.2. The Apollo was the better of the 2 to my ears. Having said that, I listened to them at 2 separate shops with different equipment. I did enjoy the sound of the Apollo more. It's the closest thing to vinyl I've heard.

I'm also intrigued by the Jolida, but have not had the opportunity to hear one.

of the units listed, i choose the jolida 100a (with mod 1 level) that will kill all the others listed. i owned the jolida and a few of the others mentioned, and when you change tubes to an amperex bugle boy, that machine will outshine many of the big-boys. i now own an ARC cd3 player that cost 5x the amount and i will say that the jolida was very close. cheers!!!!

I have said it before, but it is worth saying again: Even the first CD players sounded very good, and they have had over 20 years of development since then. The conclusion is that any CD player you buy is going to sound excellent, especially if it is >$200. Granted, there are very subtle differences, but no CDP is going to "blow away" any other.

It's the closest thing to vinyl I've heard.

Really? Complete wth scratches, dust noise, static pops, and warps? :D

Thanks for the replies, I am heading out this weekend to listen to these players. Unfortunately, they are spread between three stores so I will not be hearing them on the same equipment. Oh well, terrible job but someone has to do it. :)

Randy

Really? Complete wth scratches, dust noise, static pops, and warps? :D

Funny you mention that. I was cleaning some vinyl yesterday, so I decided to play a few cd's so I wouldn't have to get up and flip some vinyl every 20 minutes. When I got done I spun the vinyl I had just cleaned and can say without a doubt, I prefer vinyl to cd. Of course this is just IMO.

As far as warps and scratches are concerned. I don't buy vinyl that is warped or scratched. With a decent turntable, cart and phono-pre, static pops and noise should be minimal.

Really? Complete wth scratches, dust noise, static pops, and warps? :D


You forgot poor FR, dynamic range, etc :D

You forgot poor FR, dynamic range, etc :D

If CD sounds so fantastic, why do people bother with SACD and DVD-A?

If CD sounds so fantastic, why do people bother with SACD and DVD-A?


Multi channel sound? A belief that higher sampling and more bits are better? Marketing?

If CD sounds so fantastic, why do people bother with SACD and DVD-A?
Apperantly they don't,[both formats are "dead"] vinyl still outsells them both combined by 2:1, and people would pay more for I tunes downloads then vinyl sales for the last 5 years total.

Apperantly they don't,[both formats are "dead"] vinyl still outsells them both combined by 2:1, and people would pay more for I tunes downloads then vinyl sales for the last 5 years total.
How is this possible? I have not even seen a major store that sells vinyl records in at least 5 years (longer, I think), just a tiny handful of speciality shops. You are right about itunes, though, which is sad considering the apalling quality.

How is this possible? I have not even seen a major store that sells vinyl records in at least 5 years (longer, I think), just a tiny handful of speciality shops. You are right about itunes, though, which is sad considering the apalling quality.

Mail order!
Music Direct and Accoustic sound sells 'ton's" of vinyl. Large cities also have some specialty shops, that mostly sells vinyl, not CDs. Having said that it's only a fraction of how many CDs being sold ,which makes DVD-A, SACD even less relevant.

Mail order!
Music Direct and Accoustic sound sells 'ton's" of vinyl. Large cities also have some specialty shops, that mostly sells vinyl, not CDs. Having said that it's only a fraction of how many CDs being sold ,which makes DVD-A, SACD even less relevant.
So where did the statement "vinyl still outsells them both by 2:1" come from? :confused: Clearly CD and mp3 are the biggest sellers by a huge margin.

So where did the statement "vinyl still outsells them both by 2:1" come from? :confused: Clearly CD and mp3 are the biggest sellers by a huge margin.


I think he is saying that SACD and DVD-A are not selling as well as vinyl, combined. I have no info on the validity of his stats :)

I think he is saying that SACD and DVD-A are not selling as well as vinyl, combined. I have no info on the validity of his stats :)

Bingo, it was reported in Stereophile awhile ago, and things were better back then.Now it maybe 3:1.

Have you made a choice yet? If not, two CDPs I am looking at myself are the Consonance CD-120 (there are two versions; an upsampling player and a "linear" - non-upsampling) which I heard in numerous rigs at the Vacuum Tube Valley show last month - and I was impressed. Also the Eastern Electric Minimax CDP has a tube output stage (with tubes placed so that tube rolling does not require you to open the case) and HDCD decoding. Reviews from users and web-sites have been positive for both of these players, which are in the $900-$1100 price range. If you have a serviceable transport with a digital output, you could also consider an outboard DAC. Brands I'd look into are April Music, Pacific Valve (which mods Lite DACs) and a few other boutique manufacturers - all priced under a grand.

Bondmanp,

Thanks for the input. I ended up purchasing the Arcam CD73, got a great price on it. I liked the Rega Apollo slightly better but the local dealer that carries Rega was unwilling to deal, I ended up saving over $300. The Apollo was better but not that much better. I'll buy quite a few CDs with the money I saved. :)

Bondmanp,

Thanks for the input. I ended up purchasing the Arcam CD73, got a great price on it. I liked the Rega Apollo slightly better but the local dealer that carries Rega was unwilling to deal, I ended up saving over $300. The Apollo was better but not that much better. I'll buy quite a few CDs with the money I saved. :)

I compared the Planet 2000 to the Arcam when I bought a few years back.

Despite being very impressed with the Rega I too went with Arcam. Have been happy ever since. Upgraded it to an 82 a couple of years ago.

Just to reiterate: Today's mass-market CD players for around $200 (or even less) reproduce the signal on the CD with a degree of accuracy that is already beyond what the human ear can distinguish. Spending more than that is a waste of $ as any "benefits" are pure placebo effect. It would be much better to spend the extra $ on speakers, as they make a real audible difference.

Or room treatment. www.auralex.com.

Or room treatment. www.auralex.com.
I spent a grand total of $80 on room treatments. :D (2 small rugs for the walls. 1 large rug for the floor, 4 oversize pillows for the corners.)

Just to reiterate: Today's mass-market CD players for around $200 (or even less) reproduce the signal on the CD with a degree of accuracy that is already beyond what the human ear can distinguish. Spending more than that is a waste of $ as any "benefits" are pure placebo effect. It would be much better to spend the extra $ on speakers, as they make a real audible difference.
My two-channel setup uses stereo receiver which takes only analog inputs. Do you think the more expensive player with top-notch DAC does not help?

My two-channel setup uses stereo receiver which takes only analog inputs. Do you think the more expensive player with top-notch DAC does not help?
What I am saying is that the DAC in something like my $200 Onkyo changer is so good that any "improvement" over what it can do is beyond the ability of the human ear to detect. (Even the cheapest entry-level players today are better than the price-no-object models from a few years ago.)
People think they hear differences in sound quality when they are really hearing differences in expectation as a result of price and appearance. All you really get for lots of $ are looks and build quality. (Nothing wrong with that.)

Since a few months I own the Spark Cayin CDT-15A from China, it's quite cheap (from HK) and sounds fantastic- defeatable upsampling, choice between tubed and ss outputs, you name. Only difference with the more expensive CDT-23 is the latter has 24/192 oversampling instead of 24/96, but I prefer std sampling- mellower sound and better staging.

On the Esound:
Several buyers in Holland and Germany had transport issues, like drawer wouldn't open etc.
Sound was great though, par with the Cayin I'd say.

If CD sounds so fantastic, why do people bother with SACD and DVD-A?

I have no doubt CD can sound fantastic, but a well-produced SACD/DVD-A can take it to a higher level. And I say this in context of 2 channel stereo playback.

Did you do some sort of test that an intensely rational person could agree with, or did you conclude that it sounds better because it "technically has better specs?"

Multichannel music is definitely a good reason to go with one of the new formats, but DSD isn't necessarily AUDIBLY better than CDs. The human ear/brain combination are not unlimited in resolution capability, so to decide that something actually sounds better you have to do three things:

1. Determine the threshold of audible distortion

2. Show that the distortion exceeds the audible threshold

3. Confirm it with a listening test with the minimum possible number of variables.

I.e. minimum number of senses in use (just your hearing, no sight), no level differences, same source recording, etc etc etc. This is not a conclusive list of the variables to eliminate, but they are some of the more important ones. This must be done so that cause and effect are properly attributed.

Once someone follows this procedure, I will trust the results whether they agree with what I've observed or whether they disagree.

This is more or less a direct application of the scientific method, I just kinda skipped the "make an observation/hypothesis" part because I know everyone here has already done that.

And I'll add that this methodology doesn't have to be rigorously used any time you make a purchase (as sound quality doesn't HAVE to be the only criteria you use to make a purchase decision). The important part is that step 2 of this would indicate that many "audible" differences are subconsciously fabricated based on non-audible cues like brand name and visual appearance.

I find that disagreements with "blind testing" seem to be a knee-jerk reaction caused by the conflict between people who "swear" they heard a difference and the people who suggested what they heard may have had nothing to do with their equipment at all. Testing without sight is simply an attempt to remove one variable from the process. To call this unscientific would be to lack an understanding of how science works at all.

Just to reiterate: Today's mass-market CD players for around $200 (or even less) reproduce the signal on the CD with a degree of accuracy that is already beyond what the human ear can distinguish. Spending more than that is a waste of $ as any "benefits" are pure placebo effect. It would be much better to spend the extra $ on speakers, as they make a real audible difference.

I respectfully disagree.

While it is true most modern cheap CD players do a very decent job if compared to models manufactured 10 years ago, there's still a big chance that a $200 CD player can not compete against a more expensive CD player.

I mean, sonic improvements can still be noticeable if you compare my H/K FL 8385 CD changer (250 dollars) against my modified Rotel RCD 1072 CD player (1,100 dollars). Both players use the same Burr Brown DAC, BTW.

Nevertheless, I have challenged some friends to identify my Rotel against the Wadia 861, the Rega Planet, The Berensen CD or the Arcam Diva CD 73.

None has been able to tell the differences :eek:

My conclusion (based only on my limited experience) is that for the time being, many people can still differentiate a 200 CD player against a 1,500 CD player. But a 9,000 CD player is extremely difficult to differentiate if compared to a 1,500 CD player.

I guess it all depends on what the differences are ;)

For me, the biggest differences are often in the mastering. When done well, remastered versions of familiar CDs can be a revelation.

JorgeLopez11,
Have you considered the idea that the more resolving a component is, the more resolving other components and accessories ought to be in the audio path chain in order to hear the difference. For example, what amp goes with a $1.5K CDP as opposed to a $9K CDP?

While I don't have an expensive system (my 2 channel system is still under $4K), my own experience has told me that the best improvement comes from tweaking/replacing the weakest link. For example, with really cheap RadioShack interconnects I find it harder to tell differences between my DVDP and CDP for redbook CD playback.

Cheers,
Machani

I respectfully disagree.

While it is true most modern cheap CD players do a very decent job if compared to models manufactured 10 years ago, there's still a big chance that a $200 CD player can not compete against a more expensive CD player.

I mean, sonic improvements can still be noticeable if you compare my H/K FL 8385 CD changer (250 dollars) against my modified Rotel RCD 1072 CD player (1,100 dollars). Both players use the same Burr Brown DAC, BTW.

Nevertheless, I have challenged some friends to identify my Rotel against the Wadia 861, the Rega Planet, The Berensen CD or the Arcam Diva CD 73.

None has been able to tell the differences :eek:

My conclusion (based only on my limited experience) is that for the time being, many people can still differentiate a 200 CD player against a 1,500 CD player. But a 9,000 CD player is extremely difficult to differentiate if compared to a 1,500 CD player.

A chain has a number of identical segments, and all of them have to handle the same tension. This is a fallacious analogy to audio because various parts of an audio system do not perform comprable or even terribly difficult tasks. The pseudoscience nonsense that attempts to "prove" one cable sounds better than another is partially outright BS and partially truth that only applies to signals >1mhz, i.e. nothing audible.

Replacing an audio bandwidth cable (or digital audio bandwidth, which is higher in frequency but lower to 0 in audible distortion) has an extremely limited potential to improve the sound. Imagine you had a 10,000 ohm resistor in series with a 75 ohm resistor. Even if you replace the 75 ohm resistor with a perfect short, you still have 10,000 ohms of resistance to deal with. That is to say, changing an irrelevant component can not produce a true audible difference when the magnitude of the change is less than the magnitude of the typical human "just noticable difference." It is pretty simple, actually:

1. Human hearing is imperfect
2. Human hearing is quantifiably consistent (there no freaks of nature out there who can hear RF signals going through the air)
3. The threshold of human hearing can be established with a listening test following the scientific method... i.e. minimizing the variables (which means it MUST be blind).
3. For distortion to be audible, it must exceed the threshold of human hearing. (Distortion in this context would mean "any change to the signal").
4. If it can be shown that distortion is only "heard" in a sighted test but not in an unsighted test, then the distortion is inaudible by the very definition of "audible."

Because cables (and many CD players but not ALL CD players ever made) and other various pieces of tomfoolery do not add distortion that exceeds the threshold of hearing, they should not be identifiable in a test that uses only your sense of hearing. And as such, if any device under examination has an inaudible amount of distortion, there is no way you can improve the apparent sound quality as you would just be "decreasing" the distortion from inaudible to... inaudible.

I had a Ah! Njoe Tjoeb 4000 with upsampler. I liked it, until I recently got a Cayin CDT 50. The Cayin is a bit cheaper, but not as bright as the Ah!, more musical and yet still very detailed. Cayin makes an exceptional product, I'd say it competes with CDPs costing twice as much.

Holy thread resurrection! :eek:

Coby vs Sony -- WHICH SOUNDS BETTER?

I think 'Coby' has a more friendly ring to it.

I respectfully disagree.

While it is true most modern cheap CD players do a very decent job if compared to models manufactured 10 years ago, there's still a big chance that a $200 CD player can not compete against a more expensive CD player.

I mean, sonic improvements can still be noticeable if you compare my H/K FL 8385 CD changer (250 dollars) against my modified Rotel RCD 1072 CD player (1,100 dollars). Both players use the same Burr Brown DAC, BTW.

Nevertheless, I have challenged some friends to identify my Rotel against the Wadia 861, the Rega Planet, The Berensen CD or the Arcam Diva CD 73.

None has been able to tell the differences :eek:

My conclusion (based only on my limited experience) is that for the time being, many people can still differentiate a 200 CD player against a 1,500 CD player. But a 9,000 CD player is extremely difficult to differentiate if compared to a 1,500 CD player.

In my opinion the best bang for your buck comes from budget, single CD only players. Eg Rotel 1072, NAD C542 and CA 640C V2.

Yes. I've auditioned the new Onkyo DX-7555 and the Onix C5 and both are great CD players for the price.

There is one performance criterion often overlooked that can be important (and while higher price is no guarantee, I have tested for this in several sub-300$ players and not one of them has passed). Error correction (which may not be the appropriate term)/coping with scratched discs. I have one player in my house that plays through discs (DVD and CD) that trip up all six other players in the house and the ones in each car in the driveway. How much more that criterion is worth is entirely up to the individual, of course, but I'm willing to spend at least 100$ more, all other things being equal, for that criterion.

There is one performance criterion often overlooked that can be important (and while higher price is no guarantee, I have tested for this in several sub-300$ players and not one of them has passed). Error correction (which may not be the appropriate term)/coping with scratched discs. I have one player in my house that plays through discs (DVD and CD) that trip up all six other players in the house and the ones in each car in the driveway. How much more that criterion is worth is entirely up to the individual, of course, but I'm willing to spend at least 100$ more, all other things being equal, for that criterion.


Yes, indeed, that is a consideration for sure. Many don't even think about it though. Magazines used to check how many bands on their defect test disc it would read. Haven't seen them reported in a while now.

What I am saying is that the DAC in something like my $200 Onkyo changer is so good that any "improvement" over what it can do is beyond the ability of the human ear to detect. (Even the cheapest entry-level players today are better than the price-no-object models from a few years ago.)
People think they hear differences in sound quality when they are really hearing differences in expectation as a result of price and appearance. All you really get for lots of $ are looks and build quality. (Nothing wrong with that.)
i believed it was that simple when i bought my receiver, and hooked it up to my ps2, music was painful to listen too. i was quite bummed as i had just spent close to 7k on receiver + speakers and it sounded nothing like the store setup.

There is a night and day difference between the redbook performance from my ps2 and xbox 360 and my arcam cd73. its not just the dac because my arcam cd player and my receiver seems to have the same dacs. it seems the digital bits outputed by the ps2/xbox360 vs. the cd73 are not the same or if they are, their timing is off (i.e. they are not outputted at the correct rate).

... it seems the digital bits outputed by the ps2/xbox360 vs. the cd73 are not the same

Then, the music would be totally different, if it would be music at all.


or if they are, their timing is off (i.e. they are not outputted at the correct rate).

How can that be. The buffer collects and clocks it. Perhaps there are other issues that are causing this?

How can that be. The buffer collects and clocks it. Perhaps there are other issues that are causing this?
Excatly--one is crap at playing audio, and the other is much better. I don't claim to know the science behind it, but Arcam CD player definitely does sound better than a PS2 or an Xbox 360 with audio CD.

i believed it was that simple when i bought my receiver, and hooked it up to my ps2, music was painful to listen too. i was quite bummed as i had just spent close to 7k on receiver + speakers and it sounded nothing like the store setup.

There is a night and day difference between the redbook performance from my ps2 and xbox 360 and my arcam cd73. its not just the dac because my arcam cd player and my receiver seems to have the same dacs. it seems the digital bits outputed by the ps2/xbox360 vs. the cd73 are not the same or if they are, their timing is off (i.e. they are not outputted at the correct rate).
All of my comments apply to comparisons between CD players, and generally carry over to comparisons between DVD or universal players and CD players. Since CD playback is an extremely low priority in the design of a videogame player, I am not surprised to hear that they perform poorly in that role.

All of my comments apply to comparisons between CD players, and generally carry over to comparisons between DVD or universal players and CD players. Since CD playback is an extremely low priority in the design of a videogame player, I am not surprised to hear that they perform poorly in that role.
Sorry, but I'm calling you out on this one. What happened to the position that it's mathematically impossible for any two digital sources to sound different? Especially since the game player is just acting as a transport (I'm assuming that it's connected to a receiver/pro via digital connection)? Even if it isn't, a DAC is a DAC is a DAC, right? So how could it even be possible for CD playback from a game console to sound any different than a $10k or a $10 CDP?


Scott

Sorry, but I'm calling you out on this one. What happened to the position that it's mathematically impossible for any two digital sources to sound different? Especially since the game player is just acting as a transport (I'm assuming that it's connected to a receiver/pro via digital connection)? Even if it isn't, a DAC is a DAC is a DAC, right? So how could it even be possible for CD playback from a game console to sound any different than a $10k or a $10 CDP?


Scott

Yeah I hear ya, a PS2 is a fully functioning DVD/CD player.

You'd really need a fuller description how the hookups were made in each case (analog vs. coax, analog vs. toslink, coax vs. toslink). Then, at the very least, you ought to measure the output levels to see if there are differences. Any bass management issues going on...lots of things to look at before a reasonable opinion can be formed. After all, there are owners who have not had any qualms about using those devices for playback.

Yeah I hear ya, a PS2 is a fully functioning DVD/CD player.
If that is the case, then the differences Akhter "heard" were entirely imaginary. :)

However, if there were level changes, then that's a difference that's not imaginary. Of course, many, when faced with differences that are simply due to level but they don't know it, use other descriptors.

... and then there is the "giant-killer" special version original PlayStation ;)

But seriously, if I were in college today and had a game console that could playback music as well, I'm sure I'd be very happy with it.

- Steve O.

You'd really need a fuller description how the hookups were made in each case (analog vs. coax, analog vs. toslink, coax vs. toslink). Then, at the very least, you ought to measure the output levels to see if there are differences. Any bass management issues going on...lots of things to look at before a reasonable opinion can be formed. After all, there are owners who have not had any qualms about using those devices for playback.

He didn't say he had any qualms, he stated that he thought the sound quality was inferior when playing through the PS2.

You'd really need a fuller description how the hookups were made in each case (analog vs. coax, analog vs. toslink, coax vs. toslink). Then, at the very least, you ought to measure the output levels to see if there are differences. Any bass management issues going on...lots of things to look at before a reasonable opinion can be formed. After all, there are owners who have not had any qualms about using those devices for playback.
PS2 and xbox 360 were connected via optical. there wasn't a difference in output levels (atleast not as far as i could tell). when I use analog connections with my arcam cd player (which produces the best sound imho) the output is lower than digital. at one time I had the ps2 (optical) a denon 2910 (via coax digital) and the arcam CD73 (analog rca) all playing the same CD (eagles-hell freezes over) such that i pressed play on all thee at about the same time and kept switching between them.

The arcam was noticable lower in volume, and the denon and ps2 had the same levels. The denon was better by leaps and bounds than the ps2, and the arcam produces a slightly smoother sound that I prefered. My friend brought his linn genki cd player another time with is about $2000 and i couldn't tell the difference between that and my arcam. also at the arcam dealship they had other far more expensive cd players, and i couldn't tell the difference between those my my $700 arcam.

What I am saying is i might not be able to tell a difference between the high end CD players (maybe there isn't any), but to be there is a clear difference between cd players at different prices up to about $1000. Notice i said difference, and not necessarily that it always gets better. does it get better? you have to audition to find out for urself...

Yeah I hear ya, a PS2 is a fully functioning DVD/CD player.
it sure is...it just sounds nowhere near as good as some other CD players...

PS2 and xbox 360 were connected via optical. there wasn't a difference in output levels (atleast not as far as i could tell). when I use analog connections with my arcam cd player (which produces the best sound imho) the output is lower than digital. at one time I had the ps2 (optical) a denon 2910 (via coax digital) and the arcam CD73 (analog rca) all playing the same CD (eagles-hell freezes over) such that i pressed play on all thee at about the same time and kept switching between them.

The arcam was noticable lower in volume, and the denon and ps2 had the same levels. The denon was better by leaps and bounds than the ps2, and the arcam produces a slightly smoother sound that I prefered. My friend brought his linn genki cd player another time with is about $2000 and i couldn't tell the difference between that and my arcam. also at the arcam dealship they had other far more expensive cd players, and i couldn't tell the difference between those my my $700 arcam.

What I am saying is i might not be able to tell a difference between the high end CD players (maybe there isn't any), but to be there is a clear difference between cd players at different prices up to about $1000. Notice i said difference, and not necessarily that it always gets better. does it get better? you have to audition to find out for urself...

Thanks for the explanation of the setup. But, as you may know, without better controls in the comparison, one will never know for sure, only that it is unreliable right now.

I happened to be looking for a great D/A converter ,and I came across the Monarchy dac-24 which is a very good vacuum tube preamplifier and also has a SS as well as Vacuum tube digital converter,keep in mind I already owned a Benchmark dac running it direct.The Monarchy -24 using the superb
pcm1704k dacs which are all hand laser trimmed that is why they are no longer used these ladder dacs are much more musical and natural sounding.
I spoke with a few people online and this model as well as the older dac-22
which use the Excellent pcm-63k dacs also hand laser trimmed can be bought New for under $750 if there are any left. I also found out that there a engineer who worked for Theta digital that is light years better than Most
Modifications outfits .I heard and seen a mod with this dac -24 that I left in disbelief it was so good ,I brought my dac as a comparison and to say 100% better was mild ,over 60 caps were upgraded many smoothing caps were the German Mundorf Supremes ,and the Top Nichicon K series with gold leads,
The best - Gold point attenuator
and some specific boxes for the digital that he would not disclose that he used while working for Grummen Avionics.This pre dac combo bettered anything I heard even at $6k the mod cost over $1500 I am told but to sound this good was stunning I used a Modright pre along with my dac-24 to compare .
I would be happy to share this revelation to anyone that might be looking for
state of the art Modifications.I found out as a fact that whatever gear you may have only 25% at most goes into the parts the rest is overhead and markup for the dealers.That is why modding a unit is = to a ferrari engine when you are finished .I am looking to follow suit after the holidays .

I happened to be looking for a great D/A converter ,and I came across the Monarchy dac-24 which is a very good vacuum tube preamplifier and also has a SS as well as Vacuum tube digital converter,keep in mind I already owned a Benchmark dac running it direct.The Monarchy -24 using the superb
pcm1704k dacs which are all hand laser trimmed that is why they are no longer used these ladder dacs are much more musical and natural sounding.
I spoke with a few people online and this model as well as the older dac-22
which use the Excellent pcm-63k dacs also hand laser trimmed can be bought New for under $750 if there are any left. I also found out that there a engineer who worked for Theta digital that is light years better than Most
Modifications outfits .I heard and seen a mod with this dac -24 that I left in disbelief it was so good ,I brought my dac as a comparison and to say 100% better was mild ,over 60 caps were upgraded many smoothing caps were the German Mundorf Supremes ,and the Top Nichicon K series with gold leads,
The best - Gold point attenuator
and some specific boxes for the digital that he would not disclose that he used while working for Grummen Avionics.This pre dac combo bettered anything I heard even at $6k the mod cost over $1500 I am told but to sound this good was stunning I used a Modright pre along with my dac-24 to compare .
I would be happy to share this revelation to anyone that might be looking for
state of the art Modifications.I found out as a fact that whatever gear you may have only 25% at most goes into the parts the rest is overhead and markup for the dealers.That is why a quality modded unit is = to a Ferrari engine when you are finished .I am looking to follow suit after the holidays .

I found out as a fact that whatever gear you may have only 25% at most goes into the parts the rest is overhead and markup for the dealers.That is why a quality modded unit is = to a Ferrari engine when you are finished .I am looking to follow suit after the holidays .
Like the modder doesn't make out :D

I happened to be looking for a great D/A converter ,and I came across the Monarchy dac-24 which is a very good vacuum tube preamplifier and also has a SS as well as Vacuum tube digital converter.

There are essentially no vacuum tube digital converters, and there just barely ever were any.

SS and digital converters matured at about the same time in the 60s, and every credible digital converter ever made has been SS.

In all my searching I've found a reference to just one vacuum tube digital converter, which was a computer peripheral. It had something like 11 actual bits. :-(

Now, if you are talking about SS digital converters with vacuum tube EFX units awkwardly tacked on, then you might be talking about some real-world products. Otherwise, no.

I happened to be looking for a great D/A converter ,and I came across the Monarchy dac-24 which is a very good vacuum tube preamplifier and also has a SS as well as Vacuum tube digital converter,keep in mind I already owned a Benchmark dac running it direct.The Monarchy -24 using the superb
pcm1704k dacs which are all hand laser trimmed that is why they are no longer used these ladder dacs are much more musical and natural sounding.
I spoke with a few people online and this model as well as the older dac-22
which use the Excellent pcm-63k dacs also hand laser trimmed can be bought New for under $750 if there are any left. I also found out that there a engineer who worked for Theta digital that is light years better than Most
Modifications outfits .I heard and seen a mod with this dac -24 that I left in disbelief it was so good ,I brought my dac as a comparison and to say 100% better was mild ,over 60 caps were upgraded many smoothing caps were the German Mundorf Supremes ,and the Top Nichicon K series with gold leads,
The best - Gold point attenuator
and some specific boxes for the digital that he would not disclose that he used while working for Grummen Avionics.This pre dac combo bettered anything I heard even at $6k the mod cost over $1500 I am told but to sound this good was stunning I used a Modright pre along with my dac-24 to compare .
I would be happy to share this revelation to anyone that might be looking for
state of the art Modifications.I found out as a fact that whatever gear you may have only 25% at most goes into the parts the rest is overhead and markup for the dealers.That is why a quality modded unit is = to a Ferrari engine when you are finished .I am looking to follow suit after the holidays .
Frank van Alstine makes some interesting DACs (and other equipment) at his place in Minnesota. Might be worth a look.