Oh, time flies. 9 months passed since I last posted in this thread.
I have completed the mods on the Marantz SA11 and I am very happy with it. I replaced as much as 40 parts probably. Basically all the caps from (including) the DAC onwards to the output have been replaced with OSCON, Zubycon ZA and ZL and sometimes bypassed with a 0.01uF Wima when appropriate and the output caps replaced with 2.2uF ICW SA Clarity caps (MKP) and increased the resistors shunt to ground to hundreds of ks after the output caps. No new clocks. No opamps because there are no opamps used for signals in the SA11. There is no way the modded NAD542 can approach the level of performance. I have not done any A/B comparisons, but believe it should exceed all other CD players I have listened to but possibly in the same level as the Meridian G08. I would love to compare it to the G08 now, which I thought previously as the best CD player.
I have completed the mods on the Marantz SA11 and I am very happy with it. I replaced as much as 40 parts probably. Basically all the caps from (including) the DAC onwards to the output have been replaced with OSCON, Zubycon ZA and ZL and sometimes bypassed with a 0.01uF Wima when appropriate and the output caps replaced with 2.2uF ICW SA Clarity caps (MKP) and increased the resistors shunt to ground to hundreds of ks after the output caps. No new clocks. No opamps because there are no opamps used for signals in the SA11. There is no way the modded NAD542 can approach the level of performance. I have not done any A/B comparisons, but believe it should exceed all other CD players I have listened to but possibly in the same level as the Meridian G08. I would love to compare it to the G08 now, which I thought previously as the best CD player.
I am new to all of this. I would like to remove the output DC blocking capacitors on my NAD C542 entirely. I am aware of the possible negative consequences of this. Can I just jump across capacitors C375 and C376, or must I do something else?
I do not understand the purpose of the resistor shunt to ground (R361, R357) or the purpose of the parallel capacitor (C377 & C378). I do not care as much about how the circuit operates as I do about how to bypass the circuit so I can experience first hand what the output capacitors do to the sound.
I do not understand the purpose of the resistor shunt to ground (R361, R357) or the purpose of the parallel capacitor (C377 & C378). I do not care as much about how the circuit operates as I do about how to bypass the circuit so I can experience first hand what the output capacitors do to the sound.
c542
Hi Kelly,
The small value caps c377 and 378 are there to reduce growing impedance of the electros at higher frequencies.
When it comes R357 and 361, my guess is, they are there mainly to reference non-inverting inputs of the op-amps to the ground. They also constitute immediate AC impedance for the PCM1732, paralelled by the op-amps internal impedance.
Before soldering any jumpers accross the caps at the analog input mesure DC at the PCM1732's output. If it is only a few mV (maximum) then you may experiment with one channel first.
I suspect, however, that the maximum value of DC may be much higher than just a few mV. I do not know if anyone has tried to do that on PCM1732. The safest path chosen by most is to replace the original caps with the best caps one can afford (see the previous posts).
Upgrading op-amps and some PS and other caps will also result in some improvement to the sound quality.
cheers,
Hi Kelly,
The small value caps c377 and 378 are there to reduce growing impedance of the electros at higher frequencies.
When it comes R357 and 361, my guess is, they are there mainly to reference non-inverting inputs of the op-amps to the ground. They also constitute immediate AC impedance for the PCM1732, paralelled by the op-amps internal impedance.
Before soldering any jumpers accross the caps at the analog input mesure DC at the PCM1732's output. If it is only a few mV (maximum) then you may experiment with one channel first.
I suspect, however, that the maximum value of DC may be much higher than just a few mV. I do not know if anyone has tried to do that on PCM1732. The safest path chosen by most is to replace the original caps with the best caps one can afford (see the previous posts).
Upgrading op-amps and some PS and other caps will also result in some improvement to the sound quality.
cheers,
These capacitors are coupling caps in the signal path blocking dc. They have to stay. You can change them for better ones, BG C (47uF/50V) or BG NXHi-Q (47uF/6.3V) or so. You can try to bypass them with, for example, Vishay MKP1832 10n film cap or so.[/B][/QUOTE]kelly said:
You can read more on this on many sites. You can start with
http://sound.westhost.com/dwopa.htm#examples1
You can try with or without bypass capacitor (C377 & C378) to the coupling cap. I am using bypass cap, but better one.
When I modded my CDP (521i) I removed all output circuitry - the muting and the output caps, everything. My amp was not DC-coupled then like it is now, and since I was using input caps on the amp I decided to run the CDP without them at all.
Offset at the opamp outputs were about 2 mV or so, so even with a gain of 30 you'd still be within the 100mV 'safe' limit for most speakers if by any chance you were DC coupled. However I avoid anything over 20mV at the speaker outputs.
If you're running a commercial amp it'll have a cap at the input, for sure, but it never hurts to check. If you build the amp for yourself then you'll know whether you need those caps or not.
Offset at the opamp outputs were about 2 mV or so, so even with a gain of 30 you'd still be within the 100mV 'safe' limit for most speakers if by any chance you were DC coupled. However I avoid anything over 20mV at the speaker outputs.
If you're running a commercial amp it'll have a cap at the input, for sure, but it never hurts to check. If you build the amp for yourself then you'll know whether you need those caps or not.
Thanks for the replies.
I think I understand my mistake.
When people talk about removing the DC blocking capacitors, they are talking about removing the last capacitors in the signal chain. The Nichicon Muse's in the C542 are not the last capacitors in the chain. The C542 has blocking capacitors after the 1732 DAC and before the 2134 opamp, and no blocking capacitors after the opamp. So this is why these caps cannot be bypassed. That is, because the opamp will not work properly without them (I know because I did bypass them and it sounds is majorly terrible. Hopefully I did not ruin anything.)
I know my C352 integrated has input blocking caps, so this is why I wanted to try removing the output caps. I did notice a major difference when I removed the muting transistors, so I wanted to try the other no cost mod that is talked about. The problem is that the C542 does not have the blocking caps after the opamp which is what is talked about, and I did not understand this.
Is my explanation correct?
I think I understand my mistake.
When people talk about removing the DC blocking capacitors, they are talking about removing the last capacitors in the signal chain. The Nichicon Muse's in the C542 are not the last capacitors in the chain. The C542 has blocking capacitors after the 1732 DAC and before the 2134 opamp, and no blocking capacitors after the opamp. So this is why these caps cannot be bypassed. That is, because the opamp will not work properly without them (I know because I did bypass them and it sounds is majorly terrible. Hopefully I did not ruin anything.)
I know my C352 integrated has input blocking caps, so this is why I wanted to try removing the output caps. I did notice a major difference when I removed the muting transistors, so I wanted to try the other no cost mod that is talked about. The problem is that the C542 does not have the blocking caps after the opamp which is what is talked about, and I did not understand this.
Is my explanation correct?
Kelly,
The DC blocking cap in the NAD542 is necessary and I would not remove it. You can bypass it with a high quality low value MKP (e.g. 0.1uF, in parallel with the existing electrolytic cap), or better, like what I did, replace the electrolytic cap with a larger value MKP (I used 2.2uF) and then increase the resistor that is shunt to the ground after the cap to above 47k. Even if the NAD542 may give a 2mV or less DC offset, if no DC blocking caps in the next stages when it reaches to your speaker it could be over 100mV, and you would not want that.
If your next stage preamp has a input DC blocking cap, you would remove the input cap in the preamp instead of the output cap in the NAD542.
Regards,
Bill
The DC blocking cap in the NAD542 is necessary and I would not remove it. You can bypass it with a high quality low value MKP (e.g. 0.1uF, in parallel with the existing electrolytic cap), or better, like what I did, replace the electrolytic cap with a larger value MKP (I used 2.2uF) and then increase the resistor that is shunt to the ground after the cap to above 47k. Even if the NAD542 may give a 2mV or less DC offset, if no DC blocking caps in the next stages when it reaches to your speaker it could be over 100mV, and you would not want that.
If your next stage preamp has a input DC blocking cap, you would remove the input cap in the preamp instead of the output cap in the NAD542.
Regards,
Bill
Thanks Bill.
I am going to leave the NAD alone for now. I just wanted to see how much difference the blocking cap made since I have never done this and the muting transistor removal made so much difference.
I don't want to spend any money right now. I can bypass the output caps on the Denon, and since the Denon does not have the quality of cap that the NAD does and no bypass cap, the result should be more dramatic. I want to see how much difference concerning the caps there is before I start spending any more time or money.
I am going to leave the NAD alone for now. I just wanted to see how much difference the blocking cap made since I have never done this and the muting transistor removal made so much difference.
I don't want to spend any money right now. I can bypass the output caps on the Denon, and since the Denon does not have the quality of cap that the NAD does and no bypass cap, the result should be more dramatic. I want to see how much difference concerning the caps there is before I start spending any more time or money.
Dear All,
As advised by one seasoned audio veteran in my city (Jakarta - Indonesia), I replaced all the IN4001 diodes in my NAD C521 BEE with Vishay's Ultra Fast Avalanche Sinterglass Diode SF400X series. I assume that standard NAD C541i also uses the same IN4001 diodes...
I also replaced the stock DC caps with higher value-audio grade caps.
Result? Dramatic improvements...
As advised by one seasoned audio veteran in my city (Jakarta - Indonesia), I replaced all the IN4001 diodes in my NAD C521 BEE with Vishay's Ultra Fast Avalanche Sinterglass Diode SF400X series. I assume that standard NAD C541i also uses the same IN4001 diodes...
I also replaced the stock DC caps with higher value-audio grade caps.
Result? Dramatic improvements...
c541i mods
Yes Dino, you are right.
NAD c541i uses lousy 1n4001 diodes. I plan to replace these with byw100-200. These are 200V 1.5A 30ns fast recovery and cheap. I use these in my preamps and active crossovers and they perform very well.
When I find more free time, once my Stochino is operational, I'll modify c541i including cutting the tracks coming to both opa2604s to make this part of the circuit consistent with c542 so the output caps can be removed. I'll solder in sockets so I'll try various op-amps such as opa2132P, opa627au and lm4562.
Apart from upgrading and sometimes changing values of a number of caps I also intend to change a few parts in laser control section to remove ocassional reading problems. NAD carried out these modifications in version 2 of NAD c542.
Aparently caps after the DAC PCM1732 must stay what I suspected. So that is all one can do with NAD541i without going for some expensive clock. I might consider the latter mod when modyfying my pioneer pd d6-s.
This one has two DACs PCM1738 with low offset so there are no caps between DACs and analog section op-amps. This player got raving reviews in Europe (nad541i also got raving reviews in British press). Unfortunately these reviews were well overboard. Both players are ok but nothing to rave about althogh pioneer is notably better than unmodified nad c541i..
PD d6-s (or j) uses, imagina, three njm5532m op-amps (soic-8) in its analog section!!! I'll try lm4562s (PDIP-8) or lme49710 soics on BD adaptors or op627aus.
PD D6 can also play SADCs, MP3s, CD-Rs and CD-RWs so replacing the original standard clock with truly good one may make some sense. Especiall that I bought the player on EBay at $250 below the retail price.
cheers,
Yes Dino, you are right.
NAD c541i uses lousy 1n4001 diodes. I plan to replace these with byw100-200. These are 200V 1.5A 30ns fast recovery and cheap. I use these in my preamps and active crossovers and they perform very well.
When I find more free time, once my Stochino is operational, I'll modify c541i including cutting the tracks coming to both opa2604s to make this part of the circuit consistent with c542 so the output caps can be removed. I'll solder in sockets so I'll try various op-amps such as opa2132P, opa627au and lm4562.
Apart from upgrading and sometimes changing values of a number of caps I also intend to change a few parts in laser control section to remove ocassional reading problems. NAD carried out these modifications in version 2 of NAD c542.
Aparently caps after the DAC PCM1732 must stay what I suspected. So that is all one can do with NAD541i without going for some expensive clock. I might consider the latter mod when modyfying my pioneer pd d6-s.
This one has two DACs PCM1738 with low offset so there are no caps between DACs and analog section op-amps. This player got raving reviews in Europe (nad541i also got raving reviews in British press). Unfortunately these reviews were well overboard. Both players are ok but nothing to rave about althogh pioneer is notably better than unmodified nad c541i..
PD d6-s (or j) uses, imagina, three njm5532m op-amps (soic-8) in its analog section!!! I'll try lm4562s (PDIP-8) or lme49710 soics on BD adaptors or op627aus.
PD D6 can also play SADCs, MP3s, CD-Rs and CD-RWs so replacing the original standard clock with truly good one may make some sense. Especiall that I bought the player on EBay at $250 below the retail price.
cheers,
I did that to my NAD541i too. I did not measure any difference in sound quality though (I changed a whole lot of components and did not listen to it much after the upgrade), and don't know if any. With the NAD542, some of the diodes are already shottky diodes (for the analogue circuit), some of them are not. If you are fuzzy, you may replace them as well. They may not have an effect on the stages they power, but the ripples the diodes create may be coupled to the other audio signal supply windings in the transformer.
Janusz,
Interesting. Could you please mail me (PM) your changes to the laser control section on the NAD541i and NAD542?
My NAD541i has had some reading problems and I don't mind fixing them. Although these days I don't listen to my two NADs any more (anyone in Sydney wants them? They will be very cheap for you, note that my modded NAD542 has compared well to 5 other CD players from $2,500 to $5,000). I listen to my modded Marantz SA11 - curious to know if any megabug CD players can be marginally better. If you have a Meridian G08, Gary306, Lynn12, Esoteric or dCs, I would be very interested in doing a A/B comparison with my modded SA11 to yours.
Regards,
Bill
Interesting. Could you please mail me (PM) your changes to the laser control section on the NAD541i and NAD542?
My NAD541i has had some reading problems and I don't mind fixing them. Although these days I don't listen to my two NADs any more (anyone in Sydney wants them? They will be very cheap for you, note that my modded NAD542 has compared well to 5 other CD players from $2,500 to $5,000). I listen to my modded Marantz SA11 - curious to know if any megabug CD players can be marginally better. If you have a Meridian G08, Gary306, Lynn12, Esoteric or dCs, I would be very interested in doing a A/B comparison with my modded SA11 to yours.
Regards,
Bill
older c542 and c541i - laser pick up rf level
Hi Bill,
Aparently the following has to be done in c542:
1. Change resistor R227 from 100R to a jumper wire.
2. Change resistor R103 and R104 from 20K to 15K.
3. Change resistor R218 from 15K to 47K.
4. Change capacitor C221 from 0.1uF to 3900 pF.
This is supposed to eliminate all reading problems in c542 and c541i. NAD recognised that fault and introduced the above correction in version 2 of NAD542, I haven't tried any mods on my NAD c541i yet. The info comes from one of NAD engineers.
Marantz SA11 is probably one of the best players when modified. I have never heard it but read a few things about it. I know better their flag model S7si I think. It certainly sounds better than factory nad542 or pioneer pd d6 but these latter players cost at least five times less. Its SACD section (it's really SACD player) is really good.
Unfortunately, SACDs do not sound so great or even much better than CDs on my pioneer pd d6. Modifications probably will make the difference more prominent. I'll probably wait some time before doing this as the player still has its valid warranty.
I do not have any esoteric players as they are beyond my budget but heard some Meridians and Wadias. They sound very good but most comparisons are based on my memory as I never had a chance to compare them side by side playing the same CD.
Besides, in my opinion the truly valid comparisons are between live performance of vocals and classical instruments with their recordings on CDs but such experiments are expensive to do and I do not know if these are done anyway.
I took part in a few such experiments in pre CD times when everything was recorded on best open reel studio decks. Everything was discrete as well and in those days the true culprits were speakers.
CD is a lousy media in my opinion due to stupidity of Philips and Sony management. 44.1kHz sampling rate and 16 bit info must sound lousy when compared to live performance. At that time it was technologically possible to choose 56kHz (or even 64kHz) and 18 bit or even 20bit info at the expense of record/playback time. LPs were about 40-45 min long and who needed those 74 minutes in those times anyway?!
Alternatively the diameter of the disck could have been increased by 5 to 8mm to get comfortable 50 minutes with 64kHz and 20bits. There would be no need for SACDs or DVD Audio etc as most improvement is those extra 12 to 20kHzs and 2 more bits.
DECCA argued for 48kHz and 18 bits as the absolute minimum as they knew how lousy their classical recordings were likely to sound on the chosen format. Anyway, it's all history now but the industry now can make good profits on all the upsampling, filtering and other mods affecting the playback. It helps but it will never exceed limitations of the media - we cen only try to get most of what has been recorded and no more and what is there is not so good.
cheers,
Hi Bill,
Aparently the following has to be done in c542:
1. Change resistor R227 from 100R to a jumper wire.
2. Change resistor R103 and R104 from 20K to 15K.
3. Change resistor R218 from 15K to 47K.
4. Change capacitor C221 from 0.1uF to 3900 pF.
This is supposed to eliminate all reading problems in c542 and c541i. NAD recognised that fault and introduced the above correction in version 2 of NAD542, I haven't tried any mods on my NAD c541i yet. The info comes from one of NAD engineers.
Marantz SA11 is probably one of the best players when modified. I have never heard it but read a few things about it. I know better their flag model S7si I think. It certainly sounds better than factory nad542 or pioneer pd d6 but these latter players cost at least five times less. Its SACD section (it's really SACD player) is really good.
Unfortunately, SACDs do not sound so great or even much better than CDs on my pioneer pd d6. Modifications probably will make the difference more prominent. I'll probably wait some time before doing this as the player still has its valid warranty.
I do not have any esoteric players as they are beyond my budget but heard some Meridians and Wadias. They sound very good but most comparisons are based on my memory as I never had a chance to compare them side by side playing the same CD.
Besides, in my opinion the truly valid comparisons are between live performance of vocals and classical instruments with their recordings on CDs but such experiments are expensive to do and I do not know if these are done anyway.
I took part in a few such experiments in pre CD times when everything was recorded on best open reel studio decks. Everything was discrete as well and in those days the true culprits were speakers.
CD is a lousy media in my opinion due to stupidity of Philips and Sony management. 44.1kHz sampling rate and 16 bit info must sound lousy when compared to live performance. At that time it was technologically possible to choose 56kHz (or even 64kHz) and 18 bit or even 20bit info at the expense of record/playback time. LPs were about 40-45 min long and who needed those 74 minutes in those times anyway?!
Alternatively the diameter of the disck could have been increased by 5 to 8mm to get comfortable 50 minutes with 64kHz and 20bits. There would be no need for SACDs or DVD Audio etc as most improvement is those extra 12 to 20kHzs and 2 more bits.
DECCA argued for 48kHz and 18 bits as the absolute minimum as they knew how lousy their classical recordings were likely to sound on the chosen format. Anyway, it's all history now but the industry now can make good profits on all the upsampling, filtering and other mods affecting the playback. It helps but it will never exceed limitations of the media - we cen only try to get most of what has been recorded and no more and what is there is not so good.
cheers,
Janusz,
Thank you for your posting. I have printed out the above and in due time will change the parts in my NAD.
I concluded that there is no way the NAD can sound as good as the Marantz SA11, no matter what mods are put into it. While the NAD sounds nice, the SA11 sounds ACCURATE. I have not found that sorts of accuracy in other CD players except perhaps in the Meridian G08. Most other expensive players, while sounding nice, are in short of the accuracy the SA11 and the G08 provide.
For a problematic system, a nice sounding CD player (and preamp, power amp, etc), such as the Audionote DAC, may sound better than the SA11 and the G08, because it is likely the distortions instroduced mask the nastiness in the sound. Odd order harmonics may enhance the presence and dynamics while even order harmonics may add in tonality, warmth and other "goodies". But the distortions also supress the fine texture and subtly of the music, making the music sound HiFi, unlike the real thing. You are right, it makes a big difference with live vocal and classical music, less with others.
I sometimes relate tunning a system like editting a photo image. We can use photoshop to enhance the image by sharpening the image (3rd order harmonic?), blurring the background (2nd order Harmonics?). All of those introduced into the photo are distortions, despite being sort of "good" distortions.
In HiFi, instead of looking for good distortions to mask the nastiness of the music, my preference is to produce a system that is very low distortion to start with.
The modded SA11 and the stock G08 sound so "soft" and they don't have any additional added "edge" on the musical notes. On a low distortion, high accuracy system with well recorded classical music, the sound appears to be real, giving an illusion that one is listening to the live performance. I don't find such quality in many other CD players.
My experience with the SA11 was that some earlier batches might sound harsh before very lengthy run-in (I had no scientific evidence to support the concept of run-in and I had never been a believer). Mine was one of those. None of my audiophile friends liked my SA11 for its first 3 months. They slowly changed their minds. A friend of mine got another brand new SA11 in some later batch and it sounded very fine straight out of the box. We did the comparison and all concluded on the same finding. My modded SA11 sounds even better.
I have to say the SA11 is a very fine CD player. Even if it does not have the SACD playback, for its price and its CD performance, I would still choose it over others. Note that its CD playback and SACD playback have the same but separate circuits.
Here is a question for you. With thos newly remastered CDs (Decca and Phillips the Originals, for example), they are still 16bit resolution, right?
I agree with you that SACDs are only marginally better than CDs. The difference is rather small. However, with the original DSD masters, regardless of playing their SACD layer or CD layer, I got the sound that is very close to live!
Regards,
Bill
Thank you for your posting. I have printed out the above and in due time will change the parts in my NAD.
I concluded that there is no way the NAD can sound as good as the Marantz SA11, no matter what mods are put into it. While the NAD sounds nice, the SA11 sounds ACCURATE. I have not found that sorts of accuracy in other CD players except perhaps in the Meridian G08. Most other expensive players, while sounding nice, are in short of the accuracy the SA11 and the G08 provide.
For a problematic system, a nice sounding CD player (and preamp, power amp, etc), such as the Audionote DAC, may sound better than the SA11 and the G08, because it is likely the distortions instroduced mask the nastiness in the sound. Odd order harmonics may enhance the presence and dynamics while even order harmonics may add in tonality, warmth and other "goodies". But the distortions also supress the fine texture and subtly of the music, making the music sound HiFi, unlike the real thing. You are right, it makes a big difference with live vocal and classical music, less with others.
I sometimes relate tunning a system like editting a photo image. We can use photoshop to enhance the image by sharpening the image (3rd order harmonic?), blurring the background (2nd order Harmonics?). All of those introduced into the photo are distortions, despite being sort of "good" distortions.
In HiFi, instead of looking for good distortions to mask the nastiness of the music, my preference is to produce a system that is very low distortion to start with.
The modded SA11 and the stock G08 sound so "soft" and they don't have any additional added "edge" on the musical notes. On a low distortion, high accuracy system with well recorded classical music, the sound appears to be real, giving an illusion that one is listening to the live performance. I don't find such quality in many other CD players.
My experience with the SA11 was that some earlier batches might sound harsh before very lengthy run-in (I had no scientific evidence to support the concept of run-in and I had never been a believer). Mine was one of those. None of my audiophile friends liked my SA11 for its first 3 months. They slowly changed their minds. A friend of mine got another brand new SA11 in some later batch and it sounded very fine straight out of the box. We did the comparison and all concluded on the same finding. My modded SA11 sounds even better.
I have to say the SA11 is a very fine CD player. Even if it does not have the SACD playback, for its price and its CD performance, I would still choose it over others. Note that its CD playback and SACD playback have the same but separate circuits.
Here is a question for you. With thos newly remastered CDs (Decca and Phillips the Originals, for example), they are still 16bit resolution, right?
I agree with you that SACDs are only marginally better than CDs. The difference is rather small. However, with the original DSD masters, regardless of playing their SACD layer or CD layer, I got the sound that is very close to live!
Regards,
Bill
Decca and Philips masters
Hi Bill,
Decca advocated that better standard for CDs in times when corporate decisions were to be made. Unfortunately 16 bit /44.1kHz standard was chosen.
The only alternative to that limiting standard came with the development of HDCD (High Definition CD). It allows for 20 bit encoding and decoding of audio signal using 16 bit statndard. Simply info about peaks and their shaping is smartly encoded within 15 bits so on playback HDCD decoder restores that info adding precision and dynamics.
The system uses the least significant bit in that 16 bit standard to pass info about that process. Consequently CDs recorded (encoded) as HDCDs sound better on HDCD players such as NAD c541i or c542 than normal CDs. On the other hand HDCDs played back on ordinary players suffer a touch higher noise level and of course HDCD peak extension will be heard somewhat differently and without that extension of course.
So HDCD is the only encoding alternative available in the process of mastering otherwise ordinary CDs. Decca has released a number of HDCDs made from its masters so check Decca's catalogues. Quite a number of companies use HDCD technique in recording CDs.
Inbuilt HDCD decoding is the main reasons I intend to keep and modify NAD c541i. Pioneer pd d6 has no HDCD decoder. I would prefer it to have this decoder rather than SACD decoder as I have another DVD pioneer with SACD decoder.
When it comes to SACDs the main problem is that most of these were mastered from recordings, which were well below the SACD capabilities. But I auditioned SACDs on some music expos, when on holidays in Europe, made from SACD quality masters and the sound was really well above CD capabilities.
If I wasn't married I'd probably buy sa11 or a similar quality player. One can get brand new SA11 for just over A$3000 from HongKong and that is probably the maximum I'd be prepaired to pay for a CD/SACD player.
Alternatively one may try to get a used one on EBay. I saw it there a couple of times so far but over the next couple of years SA11s will show up in larger numbers. I have never heard one yet (Perth is backwaters) but I read many good reviews written by happy owners including your opinion. The other one marantz worth consideration is sa7 but it is too expensive.
Anyway, when I have time I'll modify my NAD and Pioneer pd d6. I have all the parts so the costs have already been incurred. Only if I decide to buy new clocks my pocket will suffer.
Anyway, check HDCD catalogues. More and more new HDCDs are produced every month. HDCD may be a practical alternative to SACD.
cheers,
Hi Bill,
Decca advocated that better standard for CDs in times when corporate decisions were to be made. Unfortunately 16 bit /44.1kHz standard was chosen.
The only alternative to that limiting standard came with the development of HDCD (High Definition CD). It allows for 20 bit encoding and decoding of audio signal using 16 bit statndard. Simply info about peaks and their shaping is smartly encoded within 15 bits so on playback HDCD decoder restores that info adding precision and dynamics.
The system uses the least significant bit in that 16 bit standard to pass info about that process. Consequently CDs recorded (encoded) as HDCDs sound better on HDCD players such as NAD c541i or c542 than normal CDs. On the other hand HDCDs played back on ordinary players suffer a touch higher noise level and of course HDCD peak extension will be heard somewhat differently and without that extension of course.
So HDCD is the only encoding alternative available in the process of mastering otherwise ordinary CDs. Decca has released a number of HDCDs made from its masters so check Decca's catalogues. Quite a number of companies use HDCD technique in recording CDs.
Inbuilt HDCD decoding is the main reasons I intend to keep and modify NAD c541i. Pioneer pd d6 has no HDCD decoder. I would prefer it to have this decoder rather than SACD decoder as I have another DVD pioneer with SACD decoder.
When it comes to SACDs the main problem is that most of these were mastered from recordings, which were well below the SACD capabilities. But I auditioned SACDs on some music expos, when on holidays in Europe, made from SACD quality masters and the sound was really well above CD capabilities.
If I wasn't married I'd probably buy sa11 or a similar quality player. One can get brand new SA11 for just over A$3000 from HongKong and that is probably the maximum I'd be prepaired to pay for a CD/SACD player.
Alternatively one may try to get a used one on EBay. I saw it there a couple of times so far but over the next couple of years SA11s will show up in larger numbers. I have never heard one yet (Perth is backwaters) but I read many good reviews written by happy owners including your opinion. The other one marantz worth consideration is sa7 but it is too expensive.
Anyway, when I have time I'll modify my NAD and Pioneer pd d6. I have all the parts so the costs have already been incurred. Only if I decide to buy new clocks my pocket will suffer.
Anyway, check HDCD catalogues. More and more new HDCDs are produced every month. HDCD may be a practical alternative to SACD.
cheers,
Janusz,
Since your purpose is for HDCD, one option for you is to buy a second hand Arrogon DAC for the cost of no more than a few hundred dollars. You need patience to wait for it in the eBay, or you could probably get it from a second hand shop in HK easily (so I heard, as I have been to HK for only twice). Its CD playback is better than the stock NAD542, and is close to my modded NAD542, but its HDCD playback is absolutely outstanding and has blown the NAD542 HDCD into the water. They are in completely different class. I am sure the Arrgon's HDCD performance is much better than the majority of the hybrid SACDs out there, although can not match that of the SA11 playing SACD. But I must say the SA11 is very difficult to be equalled.
I have given up HDCD. The main reason is that only limited number of audiophile companies adopt the technology. Reference Recording, for example, has top notch recording quality. However, I don't like their music! Of one dozen I have listened to, and half a dozen I have owned, I never enjoyed listening to them, not even once. Opus 3 is the same. Music is a very personal thing, and it happens that I don't like their music.
SACD seems to be dead. But there are already over 3,000 classical albums being sold at the same price as CDs. So for classical music lovers, it is still a good investment. I confess I can't find as many good performances as in CDs though. Of all the SACDs I bought, the few ones from Phillips and Decca (DSD recordings, not remasters) are still the most outstanding ones.
Do remember if you buy in HK you need a stepdown transformer to bring the 240V to 220V.
Regards,
Bill
Since your purpose is for HDCD, one option for you is to buy a second hand Arrogon DAC for the cost of no more than a few hundred dollars. You need patience to wait for it in the eBay, or you could probably get it from a second hand shop in HK easily (so I heard, as I have been to HK for only twice). Its CD playback is better than the stock NAD542, and is close to my modded NAD542, but its HDCD playback is absolutely outstanding and has blown the NAD542 HDCD into the water. They are in completely different class. I am sure the Arrgon's HDCD performance is much better than the majority of the hybrid SACDs out there, although can not match that of the SA11 playing SACD. But I must say the SA11 is very difficult to be equalled.
I have given up HDCD. The main reason is that only limited number of audiophile companies adopt the technology. Reference Recording, for example, has top notch recording quality. However, I don't like their music! Of one dozen I have listened to, and half a dozen I have owned, I never enjoyed listening to them, not even once. Opus 3 is the same. Music is a very personal thing, and it happens that I don't like their music.
SACD seems to be dead. But there are already over 3,000 classical albums being sold at the same price as CDs. So for classical music lovers, it is still a good investment. I confess I can't find as many good performances as in CDs though. Of all the SACDs I bought, the few ones from Phillips and Decca (DSD recordings, not remasters) are still the most outstanding ones.
Do remember if you buy in HK you need a stepdown transformer to bring the 240V to 220V.
Regards,
Bill
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.