What is the deal with the ART DIO

Here's my one post for the day : )

There are at least three different Integrated Circuit's ( IC's ) that various modifiers use. As such, the results from unit to unit might vary quite a bit depending on what chip was used. Obviously, some modifiers will do some things differently than others and use different parts doing them. This is strictly my take on the unit that i listened to. A friend of mine was kind enough to let me borrow his to audition so that we could compare notes on it. This specific unit had been modified by Bolder Cables and was being run off of a much larger than factory stock power supply. This was their latest version as they have changed which IC they are using when modifying the DIO's. As such, it is supposed to offer the best tonal balance of all of the various IC's according to what i've read. I know that one of the two other chips being used result in a slightly muddy / murky presentation while the other one is brighter and leans towards sibilance. This specific chip is supposed to be somewhere in the middle.

Having said all of that, i found the unit to sound just slightly forward in the upper mids / lower treble. This can tend to sound slightly "clearer" due to the ability to pick out vocals a little better. After all, this is the range that most of the harmonic overtones take place during normal speech or singing. However, it did this without sounding sibilant or completely in your face. As such, some may really find this "feature" quite appealing.

Other than that, tonal balance was pretty good. I did not find it to be drastically leaning towards brightness nor warmth. There were no rough edges and as such, sounded pretty smooth and even. For a "cheap" digital device, i think that it did pretty well in these regards. However, i was somewhat put off in a way that left me feeling that something just wasn't "right". Kind of like the music had been "sterilized" and was lacking "emotion". Some might call this having a lack of "PRAT" while others will simply refer to it as a lack of "musicality" or "drawing power".

My big problem with what this unit does to the signal is what it doesn't do. That is, i found that inserting the modified DIO into the signal path caused my soundstage and imaging to collapse. I was left with a presentation that lacked height, depth and width. Center fill was not nearly as strong and i had a very definite left / right speaker presentation taking place. In plain English, the DIO lacks "dimensionality". Whereas i was used to hearing a 3D presentation, i was now listening to a cardboard thin replica. This was something that i found annoying as i am very much "into" spacial characteristics and being "engulfed" in the music ( when the recording allows ). Once again, i was not drawn into the music although i did not think that it sounded bad.

Another thing that i noticed about the DIO was that, while transient response seemed good on the initial attack of the notes, it lacked the proper decay characteristics that one hears on better gear i.e. the striking of a bell rang and then quickly faded away. Going to another DAC ( SS or tube ) gave the bell a more gradual decay time which in turn sounded far more natural. Bells just don't "ring" and then fade off instantly. In this respect, i found the harmonic structure to be lacking i.e. "dry". Once again, it was not bad, it just wasn't what i knew a really good system was capable of achieving.

As such, i can see why some people think that the DIO is great. It does get rid of much of the digital glare that many lesser designed players / DAC's suffer from while presenting a smoother overall presentation. However, it is quite lacking the "sound field" and harmonic textures that many better players / DAC's offer when properly set-up. As such, one might not notice this unless they had previous exposure to a system / DAC that was capable of sustaining a 3D image with excellent harmonic structure and proper timbre.

For many, it may be a step in the right direction, but it is not a BIG step in my opinion. Obviously, others have had different experiences and will therefore have different opinions. When you total up the money spent on the unit, having it modified, going to a larger power supply, it ends up putting it into a slightly higher price category than if you were to use the unit as it comes factory stock. While it can still compete in that range, i can think of other USED DAC's that i personally find more suitable to my tastes. Since we are comparing a brand new product to a more expensive but USED item, i would still consider a modified DIO to be a relatively decent investment. However, it is surely not the "giant killer" that many have made it out to be ( in my opinion ). Sean
>

The conditions that i listened to the Dio in placed it in just as much of a "mess" as the other DAC's being auditioned. That is, they all used the same cables, lack of optimization of the system, no isolation, coupling or damping, etc... We ran them the way that they came each sitting on a shelf. Within the confines of the same system and a matter of moments to switch input / output cables and discs, the DAC's were all given the same opportunity to "strut their stuff".

As Jbweaver mentioned, my brother felt that the ART was slightly "loose" on low frequencies. Personally, i did not think it bloated by any means although this was one of the very first comments that my brother passed onto me. As such, he obviously found it very noticeable. My initial observations were regarding the soundstage and harmonic structure, so we might have been listening for different things. I know that once i take notice of something, that particular aspect tends to dominate my perspective like a sore thumb draws attention to itself. Sean
>

I agree that cost means little when buying an audio product. MOST of the time, much of what you are paying for is Research & Development ( R&D ) and marketing, not the actual parts quality of the unit itself. As such, that is why some cheaper products actually blow the doors of off more expensive components. Not only are the cheaper ones typically using fewer parts, they just might be using better quality parts.

This is the very reason why and how Stan Warren, John Hillig, Richard Kern, Ric Shultz, Dan Wright, etc... can make improvements to just about any product out there, regardless of cost. They simply improve the parts quality of the design that is already there and the results are typically audibly better and quite noticeable.

As most of you that have read a few of my posts have seen me say before, buy what you like and what you think sounds good in your system. Don't worry about what some reviewer or anybody else thinks. Even if that "jerk" is me : ) You have to live with and enjoy your system, so trust your own ears. Nobody can tell you better than yourself what you like or don't like. Sean
>

I would only add that i think that the physical layout of a circuit becomes FAR more critical with digital signals due to their "RF based" nature than it is with other standard line level analogue circuitry. With a chassis the size of the Dio and the limited amount of space that it offers, it would be next to impossible to keep RF from leaking back into the power supply and analogue circuitry. The fact that they were able to actually squeeze a tube in there AND have both a DAC and ADC in it simply amazes me. Sean
>