DAC as an upgrade

As standard as RCA interconnects; the standard for digital signals (okay, one of them but always a safe bet) is the 75 ohm, spdif connector. (looks like an rca female, but there is only one, usually labeled "digital out"). Rule of thumb is that its a better sound than the optincal "toslink" (tolink looks like a small plastic box, sometimes has a plug in it and transmits light (looks red if you peak in the small box). You connect the dac with a 75 ohm digital cable, not a regular interconnect. The premise is than in your denon, the denon reads the CD (transport section) and than converts from digital to analogue (DAC section), which is outputted through the RCA outputs (left and right). The DAC bypasses the digital to analogue conversion in the Denon to an outboard (hopefully better) converter. It will all work. DACs go by costs and individual preference of sound, techology (upsampling) but most attributed to the quality/make of the chip used in the dac.

Mapman, what is your budget?

I would go with a Benchmark Dac 1 ($1,000 - $1,300 with or without usb input), of Bel Canto Dac3 if you can swing $2,500.

As for the digital processor issue, I'm a purist at heart. If CD is recorded with sibilance, etc., my system will reveal it and I haven't tried to make my system do anything than reveal the good (and, unfortunately, the bad). I'm a little out of my league here. I would listen to the problem recording on a high end cd player (and equivilent system) and see what you hear. I'm not one to try to color sound with an outboard processor. If the CD sounds good (or better) on the high end player, maybe a change in cables may help-not really sure. My point is that you need to ascertain if it's the disc, or your player/system. I have a CD with a bit of sibilence and on my Esoteric X03-SE, you hear it-it's there; on my squeezebox/benchmark, the sibilence is greatly reduced-you only hear it if you really try, and it is barely noticible. I don't think thats a plus for the benchmark--to me, it's just that the benchmark is not as revealing as the Esoteric. I'm sure there are others here with alot more experience than me about this.

I read that same article. I think it was Scholtz (has his own studio and that where the 1st Boston album was recorded-think it was in his house). (and I do agree with that).

A pyhsical defieciency in the disc is absolutely an issue, but I don't think the result would be sibilence; it can be (greassy finger, piece of candy (long story), but I think that would be a skip or stutter). You could always try a friends disc of the same recording to see if it is a physical issue. I was talking about the actual recording. To me, my pursuit of hi-fi goes along with Robert Harley's analogy. I want my system to be as transparent a "window pane" as possible into the original recording. RH said that with each component a window pane is added, with each, somewhat, taking one away from what was recorded. I want as clear a window pane as I can possibly achieve. I suggested trying the disc into as most a revealing system as possible, so you can hear as close as possible, what was recorded.

There was a recording studio in NYC where, on some recordings, you could (on a very revealing system) hear the train passing underground. It may be silly to some fellow audiophiles here but I want to assemble a system where I can hear that train-I wish to be able to hear everything picked up by the microphones (I said it may sound silly). On Jacintha's disc, Jacintha Goes To Hollywood, one of my references is to be able to hear the accordian keys hit their rests (on the upstrokes) on Que Sera Sera. To me, hearing that shows me that my system is revealing even the slightest sounds recorded. I can (and want to) hear a singers lips sticking; the (sorry to be crude) spit going through Gene Aammons sax. I know some may say it is distracting but, to me, it brings me closer to that holey grail of the absolute sound. Now, great recordings absolutely sound great, BUT, lesser ones don't get as much play as they used to when I had a less revealing system, as I now hear all of the defeciencies. But I also hear all the incredible details. CD's I have heard for years are now an indepth experience.

Mapman,

Absolutely, 1000% agreed. Personally, I think the digital medium is crap. I fought CD's for years. Back in the 80's, I was kind of insulted when I started seeing CD's for sale in my local record shop. I thought that they should be sold in a softwear store, not a record store.

I know that vinyl is far superior and my modest TNT turntable still blows away my CD rig. BUT, convenience and availabilty and my unfortunate neverending quest for trying to make sense of the silver disc has prevailed, and I felt I had no choice to accept the the CD. I am finally happy with my CD playback, though I know (1) vinyl is still better (warmer, more real, just a truer sense of actually experiencing the performancd) and, (2) somewhere out there (at probably $60,000+) is a CD player that will bring me closer. I do feel that if technology isn't there now, it wil be in a few years, where the gap between vinyl and CD will be greatly deminished (or, at least, I hope).

SACD has been a pretty good experience for me with the Esoteric. While still different from vinyl, I actually enjoy listening to music in that format and do have the little hairs stand on my neck during a great recording. I understand that it is still an unnatural medium, but, at times, I am tired of the 20 minute ritual of cleaning a record for 30 minutes of playing. But, there is something truly magical about vinyl.

I really do think, though, that an outboard, good dac, will make the CD experience better for you. If you're ever on Long Island, NY, please come by for a listen.

It really can be. If you haven't heard the new audio codecs on Blu Ray (or HD DVD), it's simply remarkable (True HD Master Audio, etc). I never realized dolby digital was compressed until we upgraded to Blu Ray. I hope for some nice Blu ray converts in the future.

Enjoy your music.