There it may not be very difficult to add a amplifier stage for the clock signal, directed to the DAC chip.
The point with this mod is also to keep it as simplistic as possible, with minimal stages involved in signal path, for a reasonable final cost.
High level clock signal mean lot of reflections, radiations into everything around it, high level harmonics, and all the bad... Keeping the clock signal at the lowest acceptable level, it improve its quality.
Hopefully the Sabre chip is very versatile and easy adaptable.
I can well see at least that what is missing from this approach is testing of the clock system with the multichannel stage, so that the whole player should be functional as it were intended to be. I will test it now with multichannel board, and I will come back with the results.
The point with this mod is also to keep it as simplistic as possible, with minimal stages involved in signal path, for a reasonable final cost.
High level clock signal mean lot of reflections, radiations into everything around it, high level harmonics, and all the bad... Keeping the clock signal at the lowest acceptable level, it improve its quality.
Hopefully the Sabre chip is very versatile and easy adaptable.
I can well see at least that what is missing from this approach is testing of the clock system with the multichannel stage, so that the whole player should be functional as it were intended to be. I will test it now with multichannel board, and I will come back with the results.
Well, the test were done.
I have found out that the clock signal level from my board do not match with the original set up for the differential clock transport system in the player. A little modification is necessary to get the differential transmitter to trigger at the new clock level. This is quite easy, by soldering some resistors and a cap. The detailed informations it will be provided to the ones who will implement this mod.
With the right trigger level for the differential chip, everything work just fine. The multichannel board get the clock signal, and is functional.
I have found out that the clock signal level from my board do not match with the original set up for the differential clock transport system in the player. A little modification is necessary to get the differential transmitter to trigger at the new clock level. This is quite easy, by soldering some resistors and a cap. The detailed informations it will be provided to the ones who will implement this mod.
With the right trigger level for the differential chip, everything work just fine. The multichannel board get the clock signal, and is functional.
By the way, those who will think it may be too complicated to adapt these trigger levels for DACs clock signals, when using this clock divider mod, may very well use only the battery powered clock board. One can install his own oscillator(s) on the board and use it the clock signals out of the battery powered board/oscillator(s).
Or another alternative: do not use at all this proposed here modification.
Or another alternative: do not use at all this proposed here modification.
It may be true as a first impression...
Discussions here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...r-discussions-upgrading-mods.html#post3752456
Hi. I'm not a modder, just a lover of really nice musical reproduction with a 105. If I wanted to take advantage of the fantastic improvements it sounds like you have managed to achieve, what should I do. I'm based in New Zealand, and I see you guys are collaborating almost on a worldwide basis. Do any of you implement these mods for others who are not at all comfortable doing this fpor themselves.
Thanks Coris ! One more question: are you aware if any WIMA film caps are in the audio path? If so are they MKP (Polypropylene)? Or MKT(S) Mylar.
A circuit schematic of the stereo output stages of the 105 would be very useful if one is available. anyone?
thanks again.
Frankly, the 105 is as good as it gets right out of the box. Please continue to enjoy really nice musical reproduction with your 105, without any second thoughts about missing out on something better.
Dear Coris,
I don't want to poop your party as long as it does not cause innocent victems, but Treeps' post indicated that you are on the verge of doing so. Therefore:
- In this entire thread, I have seen not one convincing measurement that any of the mods propagated will lead to any improvement whatsoever.
- at the same time, I have seen some (noise) measurements that showed an impressive worsening after mods.
- and in addition, pretty much every mod advocated here makes no sense from where I come from.
I wish you and your friends many happy hours soldering along, but for the benefit of people like Treeps I feel compelled to state in the most pertinent terms that:
1) the OPPO 105 is a very well engineered piece of kit as it is.
2) not one mod that leads to measured improvements has been suggested in this thread.
3) not one mod that leads to audible improvements verified by ABX testing has been suggested in this thread.
I don't want to poop your party as long as it does not cause innocent victems, but Treeps' post indicated that you are on the verge of doing so. Therefore:
- In this entire thread, I have seen not one convincing measurement that any of the mods propagated will lead to any improvement whatsoever.
- at the same time, I have seen some (noise) measurements that showed an impressive worsening after mods.
- and in addition, pretty much every mod advocated here makes no sense from where I come from.
I wish you and your friends many happy hours soldering along, but for the benefit of people like Treeps I feel compelled to state in the most pertinent terms that:
1) the OPPO 105 is a very well engineered piece of kit as it is.
2) not one mod that leads to measured improvements has been suggested in this thread.
3) not one mod that leads to audible improvements verified by ABX testing has been suggested in this thread.
Are you elected to represent many, or you ask only for yourself? Else, I`m not very sure I will use my time to work for you...
As I understood you are happy with your device as it is. This is a thread for those who want more from this device, can do more, and actually get more from this player. You may be in wrong place here.
Just do not worry about this thread, and the innocent victims in this world, and be happy in your life. Is more healthy at least...
As I understood you are happy with your device as it is. This is a thread for those who want more from this device, can do more, and actually get more from this player. You may be in wrong place here.
Just do not worry about this thread, and the innocent victims in this world, and be happy in your life. Is more healthy at least...
Coris,
I really don't think my remarks were out of place.
The first rule that governs this site is: "diyAudio is a place for all members of the DIY audio community to learn, share knowledge, and enjoy interacting with others interested in the design and construction of audio components."
So, when Treeps, a fellow member of this site, asked a fair question about modding his OPPO, I remained in the spirit of this site when I gave him an answer to the best of my abilities. My response subsequently only befall obfuscation from your end, the best remedy to which is to provide maximum transparency, so let me amplify my earlier remarks as follows,
The suggestion that an OPPO 105 can be improved without sophisticated measuring equipment or advanced engineering knowledge is fallacious, as it would be for any modern, well engineered product. Nothing in this thread has convinced me that the main modders at work can avail themselves of either.
Off and on, I follow this thread for general amusement. This is how I came to read Treeps´s question. I still feel compelled to urge him to be happy with the OPPO as it came out of the box. Nothing I have read in this thread will be an improvement.
Because an element of doubt might linger in Treeps´ mind, this in spite of my well founded, but unexplained assertions, I asked you in #1037 to show measurements or results of controlled listening tests.
After more than a 1000 postings, I trust you will be in a position to show some evidence of the positive effects these mods allegedly have. If they are real, that is.
I really don't think my remarks were out of place.
The first rule that governs this site is: "diyAudio is a place for all members of the DIY audio community to learn, share knowledge, and enjoy interacting with others interested in the design and construction of audio components."
So, when Treeps, a fellow member of this site, asked a fair question about modding his OPPO, I remained in the spirit of this site when I gave him an answer to the best of my abilities. My response subsequently only befall obfuscation from your end, the best remedy to which is to provide maximum transparency, so let me amplify my earlier remarks as follows,
The suggestion that an OPPO 105 can be improved without sophisticated measuring equipment or advanced engineering knowledge is fallacious, as it would be for any modern, well engineered product. Nothing in this thread has convinced me that the main modders at work can avail themselves of either.
Off and on, I follow this thread for general amusement. This is how I came to read Treeps´s question. I still feel compelled to urge him to be happy with the OPPO as it came out of the box. Nothing I have read in this thread will be an improvement.
Because an element of doubt might linger in Treeps´ mind, this in spite of my well founded, but unexplained assertions, I asked you in #1037 to show measurements or results of controlled listening tests.
After more than a 1000 postings, I trust you will be in a position to show some evidence of the positive effects these mods allegedly have. If they are real, that is.
Frankly I must agree with vacuphile.
Anybody that claims that a mod made to a well engineered product like the 105 makes a difference comparable to the difference between night and day, must either be just a tiny bit blinded by subjective impressions - or about to launch a commercial product.
Most of the mods shown it this thread, especially at the beginning of this thread, may bring warmth to the sound, so needed in digital reproduction chain. Why do we have to be presented with a black-on-white measurements' statement to make us believe the mod we'd performed is "truly" better? Our ears tell us it sounds different, so why not just leave it at that and be happy?
Doing modifications with regard (reference) to an improvement in measurement is possible, but it is only a half of what is required to bring the resulting cold, sterile sound back to equilibrium with our perception, i.e. with what our ears are telling us. This is not an easy path; digital reproduction systems are tricky if modified only with an improvement in specifications' in mind.
Most of the people here are very satisfied with what is shown in this thread, and I must say, a lot is shown here without any hint of reservation.
Nick
Doing modifications with regard (reference) to an improvement in measurement is possible, but it is only a half of what is required to bring the resulting cold, sterile sound back to equilibrium with our perception, i.e. with what our ears are telling us. This is not an easy path; digital reproduction systems are tricky if modified only with an improvement in specifications' in mind.
Most of the people here are very satisfied with what is shown in this thread, and I must say, a lot is shown here without any hint of reservation.
Nick