Post by stvnharr March 12, 2009 (11 of 21)
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
I understand the motivation to do this and, indeed, I have modified many of my own components over the years. The difference is that I was able to decide whether any particular change was for the better or not and was able, therefore, to reverse it if needed.
Note that I never said that mods are useless or unprofitable for the user but, rather, that most of them are bought on faith with little understanding of what is actually being done and with no way to confirm, personally, that the mod was, in fact, an improvement. I was recently involved in a discussion about one particular modifier who absolutely refused to say what he was doing for the $$$ asked. Also, the mod is basically un-doable even if one decides that it is not an improvement, so there is a lot of psychological pressure to like it. It also voids the warranty.
Here are the two scenarios that I see commonly posted :
1. The user sends his player (or whatever component) off to the modifier and some weeks later gets it returned. He plugs it in and, with great expectations, finds that it sounds much improved. Really? Has he compared it with the original?
2. The user buys a new player (or whatever) and immediately sends it off to the modifier. On return, he declares it wonderful. Really? Compared to what?
So, I think a lot of faith is involved in this unless one has a reference for comparison or does it DIY. How many fit that?
Kal,
Your 2 scenarios are very good, and one can read instances of them all the time on forums like AA.
Most reputable modifiers spell out what they do, and how much they charge. There are a couple who do not.
I have only worked on my own player. I found that the only things to make a substantial change were replacing the stock oscillator with a precision jitter clock WITH power supply, and substantive circuit changes, if not indeed complete replacement, of the output stage after the dac chip.
Simple parts replacing with more expensive parts results in very minor change.
The main obstacles in players are jitter and poorly designed output stages. Both have to be addressed for substantive improvement.
This kind of modifying/upgrading can be very expensive, when hired out. It's a big leap of faith to buy a new/used player and then invest a large amount again to have the player modified/upgraded, especially if one has a player under warranty, which is then voided.
It is also difficult to be able to do an A/B test of modified/unmodified player in one's home or system. Doing the work myself made this a little easier.
At RMAF 2006 RAM had a good demonstration of modified vs. stock players, and it was easy to hear the difference.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by soundboy March 12, 2009 (12 of 21)
|
|
rammiepie said:
what Paul said isn't too far from the truth. And besides, custom mods can run into thousands of dollars (as can room enhancing devices). As we speak, Music Direct is offering drastic reductions on brand new Marantz sacd/cd/dvd players. That might be the cheaper solution since you will also have a three year warranty and Marantz has implemented upgrades in their players which are part of the bargain!
Or go with the logical step....get the Sony C2000ES, the ES version of the 595. Better parts and remote, dedicated L/R analog stereo outputs, and 5 year factory warranty.
Have you tried turning off the digital inputs on the 595. It should be in the owner's manual.
|
|
|
Post by Johnno March 12, 2009 (13 of 21)
|
|
For what it's worth, I'm going to add my two cents worth to the discussion.
Whether a firm or an individual is competent to do an upgrade on an SACD player surely depends on, firstly, the amount of technical knowledge he has and then on the amount of research he has undertaken in attempting to understand how the specific product works and what its shortcomings are likely to be.
In that regard, I consider Allen Wright of Vacuum State Electronics to be well placed. When SACD players first appeared, Allen spent many months experimenting with a Sony SCD-XB940QS player he borrowed and found that over a period of time he could improve its sound quality dramatically. I have now had two cheapish Sony players (including an XB940) modified by Allen's Australian division and have -- to say the least -- been delighted with the results. When first purchased, the XB940 sounded coloured and relatively opaque but after modifications, ths sound from those same SACDs has gained in warmth, sweetness and transparency to an almost unbelievable degree and both players continue to impress over a considerabe length of time. (Admittedly I do have another, much more expensive SACD player than is somewhat better but that is surely to be expected).
I have just visited the VSE website but, unfortunately, the model 595 does not appear to be listed amongst the Sony players that can be modified by the company.
|
|
|
Post by Paul March 12, 2009 (14 of 21)
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
I always wonder why people think it is a better investment to mod something than to just get a better something. All too often these mods are bought with great expectations but rarely are they compared directly with the original.
Kal
Exactly. Human memory is notoriously faulty and expectations invariably color perception. I have held off on any mods for my SCD-1 because I have not yet had a chance to listen to a modded and stock one side-by-side. When you consider the cost of some of the mods run more than the original machine did new, not to even speak of a used one, the improvement would have to be something indeed to make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr March 13, 2009 (15 of 21)
|
|
Paul said:
Exactly. Human memory is notoriously faulty and expectations invariably color perception. I have held off on any mods for my SCD-1 because I have not yet had a chance to listen to a modded and stock one side-by-side. When you consider the cost of some of the mods run more than the original machine did new, not to even speak of a used one, the improvement would have to be something indeed to make any sense.
Hello,
Here we go again. The only modifier working on the Sony 595 is TRL. The board is too miniaturized and the carousel takes up all the room inside the player. The SCD2000ES has the SAME board and carousel, just a different case and a slightly different power supply. I once had a 2000 and emailed a number of modifiers about it, and nobody worked on them for the above reasons.
Paul's points are well stated. It takes a huge leap of faith to spend money on a player and then spend that much all over again for modifications. I've generally found that persons who spend a lot of money on modifications tend to rave about them. Nobody really wants to be the fool and write that they spent oodles of money on their player and it sounds about the same.
BUT, spending that same amount on a more expensive stock player does NOT necessarily get you any performance improvement. You may get a nicer looking player though. It all comes down to circuit design and implementation.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
stvnharr said:
Nic,
The Sony 595 is a difficult machine to modify in any meaningful way, as the circuit board is very miniaturized.
TRL, which is the only company that works on these players, does have a standard modification package for this player, mostly just some damping and a couple other things. This must be the one you have heard about. Everyone seems to be pleased to have spent their $500. But I think there are better ways to spend $500.
I've modified my Marantz player to near SOTA performance. That's not really possible with the Sony 595, though it is so with some of the other Sony models.
Steve
Steve, Paul at TRL says he uses a microscope. I'm not disputing, just a different take. Thanks, Nic
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr June 14, 2009 (17 of 21)
|
|
Shakespear777 said:
Steve, Paul at TRL says he uses a microscope. I'm not disputing, just a different take. Thanks, Nic
Having seen the board in the 595, a microscope is a must. The board is really small.
Paul doesn't give out much information for some reason known only to him. So it's nice that he gave you some.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best modifications of all are that of your disc collection; spend all you can on discs!
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox June 16, 2009 (19 of 21)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
The best modifications of all are that of your disc collection; spend all you can on discs!
Totally correct. Also a timely reminder to shakespear777 that this is a SACD music site predominantly, if you want to talk hi-fi mods there are plenty of other forum that cater for that so please do it over there not here... yawn!
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr June 16, 2009 (20 of 21)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
The best modifications of all are that of your disc collection; spend all you can on discs!
Nothing says you can't improve performance of your player and buy discs too!
|
|
