Mes- I have the Cap MK I, and tried a high-quality passive with it. At first, I liked the improvement in clarity, however realized after a while that I preferred direct to amp (no restriction in dynamics, seemed more 'natural').
Oh- almost forgot- took it to a friend's place, and used the Cap's digital in (dac only), with his tranport (an older Esoteric P2 by Teac). Much better timing, less smearing, tighter bass, etc.- it wasn't even close on the bass aspect... I was impressed!
My conclusion (this is obviously for the MK I) is that the transport can be improved for better performance. Re: the preamp thing, I don't doubt that a top quality pre will add something, but at what cost $$. One of the reasons I got this thing was to be able to have the most analog-sounding CDP that will drive an amp direct.
I would be curious to hear from others on the transport issue in the MK I. Has anyone else tried the test that I did? (using another transport to the digital in).
Oh- almost forgot- took it to a friend's place, and used the Cap's digital in (dac only), with his tranport (an older Esoteric P2 by Teac). Much better timing, less smearing, tighter bass, etc.- it wasn't even close on the bass aspect... I was impressed!
My conclusion (this is obviously for the MK I) is that the transport can be improved for better performance. Re: the preamp thing, I don't doubt that a top quality pre will add something, but at what cost $$. One of the reasons I got this thing was to be able to have the most analog-sounding CDP that will drive an amp direct.
I would be curious to hear from others on the transport issue in the MK I. Has anyone else tried the test that I did? (using another transport to the digital in).