Opinions for reaching the "next level"

inspiredsports

I'd like to start collecting opinions about where to spend my next upgrade dollar.

As many of you know, I've been steadily working to improve my 2-channel listening experience since I got back into audio in November 2008 after about a 30 year hiatus.

Because of Club Polk, I've learned the basics about (and obtained) power conditioning and power cabling, speaker wires and interconnects, vibration control devices for under components and around vacuum tubes, tube gear, NOS replacement tubes, turntables, tonearms, headshells and cartridges, replacing aging capacitors, etc. and naturally, speaker tweaking and placement.

I'm fairly comfortable with my gear based upon my budget, but think digital (and possibly analog) inputs are the next logical point of attack. I think my CD player is probably the weakest link, but am running it through a highly upgraded/re-tubed Musical Fidelity X10v3 tube buffer with custom power supply/cabling, so I'm not even sure it's a weak link. I love my Thorens gear and it is also highly tweaked, but this may also be a possible point for improvement too.


########################

Power Supply
- Dedicated Siemens 20A Breaker
- PS Audio Cryoed Power Port Premier
- APC H10 (Black) Power Conditioner

Power Cables
- MIT Z-Cable II (2)
- Shunyata Diamondback Platinum (2)
- Groenberg Quatro Reference (2)
- VH Aduio Flavor 1 Cryo with Furutech Fl-11(Cu) terminations (1)
- Signal Cable Magic Power (2)

Speaker Cables and Interconnects
- MIT Shotgun 2 Speaker Interface Cables (bananas in use, spade lugs available)
- MIT Shotgun 2 RCA Interconnects with Adjustable Impedance

Digital
- NAD 5425 CD Player (final output bypass caps snipped/removed from circuit, unit is placed upon Vibrapods)
-- 5425 CDP is buffered to preamp with:
--- Musical Fidelity X-10v3 Tube Buffer (Ultra Upgrade: caps/resistors/diodes/6112 tubes replaced by Rock Grotto and Herbie's UltraSonic Mini Audio Vacuum Tube Dampers installed - unit is placed upon Vibrapods)
--- Musical Fidelity X-10v3 Powered by Custom Rock Grotto Little Pinkie V3 Power Supply Unit
--- Revelation Audio Labs Passage Reference Cryo 1/2 meter 3-pin DIN connector connects Little Pinkie Power Supply to X10v3.

Analog
- Thorens TD-160 BC MkII
-- SME 3009 Tonearm with Cardas Litz Wire
-- Grado Reference Platinum Woodbody MM Cartridge (new 8/25/09)
-- Turntable Motor Power Caps upgraded
-- Speed tuned with belt to 33.33 rpm using Keystrobe
-- Herbies Way Excellent II 3mm open-cell silicone foam Turntable Mat
-- Legendary "The Clamp" by Polk's own Joe Armideo (hearingimpared)
-- Supreme Silver Wires RCA from SME to preamp
-- Unit is isolated with aluminum cones and Vibrapods

Preamplifier
- Conrad Johnson PV-5 Preamp (Complete Rebuild/Upgrade by Bill Thalmann at Music Technology Inc)
-- vacuum tubes
--- 2 NOS 12AX7 -Mullard Blackburn
--- 2 NOS 5965 - Sylvania Gold Brand
--- 4 NOS 5751 - GE Triple Mica Blackplate

Power Amp
- VTL ST-50
-- vacuum tubes
--- 4 NOS 6P3S-E/6n3cE - Paino Iauna - http://pages.prodigy.net/mcshane - Jim McShane - jimmcshane@prodigy.net
--- 4 NOS 7062 -Amperex Foil D-getter - Jon Catuccio - doctorcilantro - catuccio@gmail.como

Speakers (2B's are currently in use)
- 1987 Polk SDA-2B TL's (purchased new 12/30/1987) (Rebuilt with Sonicaps/Mills, Cardas CCGR Binding Posts, Polk RDO198-1 Tweeters, Custom SDA Interconnect from 12-Gauge 19-strand silver wire with Kapton/Teflon Insulated, Dynamat Extreme, Mortite)
- 1986 Polk SDA SRS 2.1 TL's (Rebuilt with Sonicaps/Mills/Aeon, Cardas CCGR Binding Posts, Polk RDO198-1 Tweeters, Custom SDA Interconnect from 12-Gauge 19-strand silver wire with Kapton/Teflon Insulated, Dynamat Extreme, Mortite)


Wildcard components not currently in use
- not currently in use - Conrad Johnson PV-7 Preamp (Power Output Rebuilt by Conrad Johnson, 2733 Merrilee Drive, Fairfax, Virgiunia 22031 703-698-8581 -- 2 Mullard CV4024/M8162 1960's "R" code tubes from the Mitcham Surrey England plant -- 3 Mullard Blackburn 12AX7 1960's --- 5 Herbies Ti-9 Ultrasonic Tube Dampers, Unit is isolated with Vibrapods)
- not currently in use - NAD 1700 Preamp/Tuner (Unit is isolated with Vibrapods)
- not currently in use - NAD 2600A Power Amplifier (Pro Cap/Resistor/Power Supply rebuild by by In House Service Company 12 Technology Drive, Ste. 13 East Setauket, NY 11733. Unit is isolated with Vibrapods)
- not currently in use - Ben's Silver IC's with RCA Neutriks (1 pair 6', 3 pairs 4')
- not currently in use - Moon Audio Blue Dragon 1M Silver Version 1 interconnects with Cardas GRMO RCA's
- not currently in use - 100' Round Green/Copper Braided Polk Cobra Speaker Cable
- not currently in use - Thorens TD-160 BC MkII - Infinity Black Widow Graphite/Carbon Fiber Tonearm - Shure V15 Type IV cartridge - Basis Reflex Clamp (Silver) - Discwasher Felt Turntable Mat
- not currently in use - Thorens TD-160 BC MkII - Grace G-707 Tonearm - Stanton 881 cartridge - Basis Reflex Clamp (Silver) - Discwasher Felt Turntable Mat
- not currently in use - Thorens MM001 RIAA MM phono preamp

mhardy6647

Get a nice DAC.
The tube buffer isn't doing much of anything but adding a little noise and euphonic distortion to mitigate the digital nastiness. Besides, you've got a decent vacuum tube preamp and a good power amp.

EDIT: You also might want to consider a nice, juicy LOMC cartridge and a good SUT in lieu of the Grado (although I will disclaim here and now that I've always liked the Grado sound).

bikerboy

I agree with mhardy that the cd player is the next to go. The source and the speakers are the most important in a system and you have the speakers down. The buffer isnt extracting more digital information, its adding a tube sound to it. You have tubes elsewhere. I found a dac and transport was a major upgrade for me. If you need to use the computer as a source the dac will be needed also. The rest of your setup looks solid.

inspiredsports

I should mention that I have an "HA Info NG27 DAC / Headphone Amplifier" that I am just beginning to experiment with. This is not "high end", per se, but has been nicely modded.

It was modified by Rock Grotto with the addition of better (and more) capacitance and better DAC chips. The unit was tweaked with an AD8620 (on Brown Dog), and one extra Buf634 per channel stacked on top of the original, plus an extra 2200uF of capacitance was added.

I will say that I did a lot of experimenting with the MF tube buffer (and also a Yaqin CD-1 that I failed to mention in my "not currently in use list") and I perceive the MF to improve rather than degrade the sound, although I know theoretically it must add some noise too.

I have 2 identical (within 500 serial numbers) 5425 CDP's and that is part of the attraction as I can easily A/B them, but I think you are right in that I am going to need to rethink keeping them as primary digital sources.

Phil Dawson

You've got a great bunch of gear already. My 2 cents is to get a good 5.1 pre-pro, a good universal player - the Lexicon RT-20 can be had for about $800 and you've almost got enough for a great 5.1 MUSIC system. You will just need a center channel speaker and a sub. 5.1 also gets you higher resolution audio which sounds much better than CD quality. My 2 cents, Phil

SRS-SDA Front
2 cs400i Center
SRS-SDA Rear
Shure 12in sub
B&K ref 10 pre-pro upgr to ref 50
Techniques 1200 TT
Mac MR71 Tuna
Lexicon rt-20 uni player
PSE Studio pre for TT
2 PSE Studio Mono Blocks
4 PSE Studio Stereo Amps
1 Mac 2100 Amp )bridged to mono) for sub

inspiredsports

I should add that my living room and den plasma's are my 5.1 realms, and my 2-channel rigs are in my office/man-cave where 2-channel is all I'm interested in improving.

However, a 5.1 digital source would be fine if it operates in a discrete 2-channel mode.

madmax

I'd get rid of that buffer and CD player and upgrade to something superior.

inspiredsports

madmax wrote: »

I'd get rid of that buffer and CD player and upgrade to something superior.

That was my preconceived notion, and it even though it is a small sample group, it's looking like the unanimous opinion is that I think a better CDP.

I don't know enough about SACD to know if they do a better job on standard CD's also, but I have few SACD's. A standard CD player is fine by me unless there is a huge benefit to seeking an SACD.

I always like to buy great previously owned gear rather than pay for brand new.

concealer404

Ditch the buffer and get a better CDP.

mhardy6647

From my perspective, the current CDP is OK for use as a transport; that's why I suggested a nice DAC (well, plus I am very cheap).

A good SACD player is very good... but most of all very good for SACDs (good for "redbook" CDs, too). Some of 'em are picky about burned CD-Rs, as well.

cstmar01

Room treatments if not done and then either a new CDP or DAC and use the current one as a transport.

inspiredsports

mhardy6647 wrote: »

From my perspective, the current CDP is OK for use as a transport; that's why I suggested a nice DAC (well, plus I am very cheap).

A good SACD player is very good... but most of all very good for SACDs (good for "redbook" CDs, too). Some of 'em are picky about burned CD-Rs, as well.

I guess that's one part I don't understand so I'll ask some newbie questions.

Are there separate outputs (for attachment to a DAC) on newer CD players that skip the electronics within so it is a pure transport, or do the standard RCA outs connect to the DAC which simply ignores whatever the CDP's electronics have done?

inspiredsports

cstmar01 wrote: »

Room treatments if not done and then either a new CDP or DAC and use the current one as a transport.

Good point about room treatments. That's my last frontier.

I don't formally know much about this other than my room has a broad mix of materials and textures and so much stuff at so many odd angles that I don't think a standing wave could survive.

cstmar01

inspiredsports wrote: »

I guess that's one part I don't understand so I'll ask some newbie questions.

Are there separate outputs (for attachment to a DAC) on newer CD players that skip the electronics within so it is a pure transport, or do the standard RCA outs connect to the DAC which simply ignores whatever the CDP's electronics have done?

In order to have the DAC function like you would want you would have to use either the digital coaxial out or optical out from the CDP to the DAC. If you would use the analog then the D/A processing is still taking place in the CDP (which is what you don't want as the external DAC is the one you want to perform this function).



and ahh room treatments, I also have yet to perform this mod, but plan to do it soon as everytime I ask for system recommendations I always get that reply lol

it can be hard though to do if you have a lot of crap in the way, as I do in the room I have, so I'm slowly cleaning it out so I can put some up!

inspiredsports

OK, so it looks like my main goal in this thread is to learn about newer CDP's that either do well either as stand-alone players, or have the proper outputs to cleanly connect to an external DAC.

My secondary goal (probably 2011) will be to learn more about the "reverberation of my acoustic space" which is probably more on the "pretty good" side of the horrible/ideal spectrum.

cstmar01

Cambridge Audio Azur 840C is one player that I've heard some great things about. It does have optical and coaxial outputs so that you could use an external DAC if needed. Erik Tracy had a Cambridge CDP that he took to the polk meet in San Diego and people seemed to like that one a lot.

Also Face had a Marantz that got good reviews as well and that had a digital out and in if I remember correctly.

jm1

inspiredsports wrote: »

Good point about room treatments. That's my last frontier.

After spending a considerable amount of time optimizing the acoustics of my room, I would highly recommend NOT regarding this as the last frontier. The room has far more impact on what you hear than any component in your system.

If your room has a huge peak/dropout, you will be masking/missing musical details in this or related portions of the frequency spectrum. Changing a component will not fix this underlying issue.

I would suggest starting on room treatments so you will have a clearer understanding of the components you current have.

Face

jm1 is dead on.

After purchasing what I thought was my last source, I finally added the needed room treatments. Imaging, soundstage, coherence all improved, but the tonal balance of my rig changed and I decided to change sources again.

Do the treatments now, they're not very expensive to buy and are cheap if you make them yourself.

madmax

They are right, without the room in the right condition you can upgrade till the cows come home and never figure out what you have.

george daniel

jm1 really makes a good point,, I started my room treatments about 5 months ago,,glad that I did,,good luck.

markmarc

1. Room treatments

2. Sell the Tube Buffer

3. Buy a quality DAC, that means going beyond the good budget ones.

Cpyder

cstmar01 wrote: »

and ahh room treatments, I also have yet to perform this mod, but plan to do it soon as everytime I ask for system recommendations I always get that reply lol

it can be hard though to do if you have a lot of crap in the way, as I do in the room I have, so I'm slowly cleaning it out so I can put some up!

My vote is definitely for room treatment. I really cannot even begin to say how much of a difference room treatment made. Usually when I make a change to my 2 channel rig, my non-audio friends never have a clue and even when I flip back and forth, they can't hear a difference. One of my friends couldn't even tell a difference from having my speakers out of phase.

When I added room treatment, this same friend instantly noted a difference without me even telling him I made a change.

The difference was beyond night and day. No offense to anyone without room treatments, but I sometimes chuckle to myself when I see reference systems in a non-treated rooms.

Oh, and you may not realize it, but having a bunch of stuff in your listening room is a form of room treatment in itself. That "crap" that you refer to is most likely absorbing higher frequencies and reducing/breaking up the amount of reflection points in the room which helps kill resonant frequencies of the room and improve imaging. Don't believe me? Get rid of all of it. You will instantly observe your system get louder, but you will noticeably lose imaging and your highs will sound more shrill and overly bright.

And room treatments do not have to be expensive. You can easily make some wooden frames to put thick fiberglass insulation in and then wrap it in very loose thread canvas. (The test for fabric is to hold your hand behind it and blow through it. If you can't feel the air flow, you need more open fabric) I would not recommend buying room treatments. Room treatments simply need to absorb acoustic energy in the room, and thus reduce reflections. Companies that sell room treatment at ridiculous prices do not have a monopoly on physics. Thick fiberglass insulation can absorb a large amount of acoustic energy just fine. Lowe's Home Improvement, a fabric store and a weekend to plan and build is all you need.

Phil Dawson

The only type of room treatment is not sound or acoustic energy absorbing material. If that were the case the best sounding room would be one that had carpet on every surface. You wouldn't have a problem with standing waves but the sound would be totally dead. You need to have the sound bounce around a bit just not in standing waves. A well designed room has no parallel walls, floor or ceilings. The whole issue of sound refraction is too complex to do justice here but the idea is that bouncing sound waves give the sound life - thus the lively room concept. Little things can be done in a room such as taking your CD or Album racks and pulling the discs out to different points - this will let the sound bounce but at different angles so you won't have a problem with standing waves but still maintain the life of the room. Room acoustics are worth studying a bit before you start throwing room treatments at the room. Often times furniture and its placement along with windows and drapes and pictures on the walls can do a great deal to change the sound of the room. Screens can also do a lot to change the sound and they can be moved around and can be quite wife friendly.
Good luck, PHil

dorokusai

Face wrote: »

jm1 is dead on.

After purchasing what I thought was my last source, I finally added the needed room treatments. Imaging, soundstage, coherence all improved, but the tonal balance of my rig changed and I decided to change sources again.

Do the treatments now, they're not very expensive to buy and are cheap if you make them yourself.

Agreed but he's completely overdone his room. Treating everything within the imagination is not a solution....unless you're trying to build a anechoic chamber and test loudspeakers, not listen to them.

Face

dorokusai wrote: »

Agreed but he's completely overdone his room. Treating everything within the imagination is not a solution....unless you're trying to build a anechoic chamber and test loudspeakers, not listen to them.

I agree that his room is pretty extreme. But you don't need to go to such an extreme to make a more than subtle difference.

Pycroft

How about some pictures of room treatments in use? I'm curious to see what people have done. Also, any web resources on how to get started on them? Nice thread

James

inspiredsports

OK, but when I said my room is "probably more on the "pretty good" side of the horrible/ideal spectrum:, I really believe that to be true.

I have conciously arranged the stuff in there to present odd angles to the speakers and it is truly an ecclectic mix of hard and soft surfaces. The ceiling is probably the most problematic, but I have done a couple of things there like removing the 2'X4' panels from the light fixtures to break up the continuity of the ceiling tile and there is a 4" offset 16' back where a structural suport beam is located.

That said, I have no problem learning more right now. What should I be reading?

Question: Can one ever get lucky and have a room that doesn't really benefit from room treatments?
Follow Up: If yes to the above, what would that room look like and how would it e furnished?

mhardy6647

There was a word missing in my earlier post... the word very in front of "decent" describing the preamp :-P

mea culpa... don't mind me. It's a very good power amp, too.

It's not like I didn't have time to proofread, or at least think about, what I was postin'...

Sorry!

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Get a nice DAC.
The tube buffer isn't doing much of anything but adding a little noise and euphonic distortion to mitigate the digital nastiness. Besides, you've got a decent vacuum tube preamp and a good power amp.

EDIT: You also might want to consider a nice, juicy LOMC cartridge and a good SUT in lieu of the Grado (although I will disclaim here and now that I've always liked the Grado sound).

dorokusai

Face wrote: »

I agree that his room is pretty extreme. But you don't need to go to such an extreme to make a more than subtle difference.

No kidding...and room treatments, even simple, have a big impact.

jm1

inspiredsports wrote:

Question: Can one ever get lucky and have a room that doesn't really benefit from room treatments?

No. Any enclosed space will require treatment of some type.

jm1

dorokusai wrote: »

Agreed but he's completely overdone his room. Treating everything within the imagination is not a solution....unless you're trying to build a anechoic chamber and test loudspeakers, not listen to them.

The room is not even close to being overdone. You have no idea how good it sounds at this point and I could never go back to an untreated room.

Ideally I would like to have a Rives level two design for an audio room. Would this be overdone? I think not.

I should have done this many years ago, but you finally made it to my ignore list.


Edit: Can't add a moderator to the ignore list.