But honestly… you audiophiles… I can’t help but laugh out loud when I see phrases like this:

“Music emerges from blackness and has an organic flow and integrity that the 970 just doesn’t have…” Or how about this: “Out of the box the player sounded bold and articulate but dark and closed-in, kind of like a well-recorded but highly compressed pop CD.”

Huh?

The good thing about using gibberish to describe the “performance” of audio gear is that nobody can argue with you. I suspect that this is the reason why the use of gibberish among audiophiles is so pervasive.

I would be interested to know what objective performance parameter is supposedly improved by this mod, and what measurements were made that confirmed the improvement.

I read the mod description, located and downloaded the data sheet for the DAC described, and even tinkered with Spice a bit. I can’t see a clear benefit to what was done.

In fact, the DAC is now at the mercy of the outside world. It is conceivable, depending upon the driven load and the length of the signal cables used to connect it, that the DAC’s limits for maximum capacitive loading would be exceeded. I can envision this affecting the tone of the audio sound. Now this might even result in a sound more pleasant to the author’s ear, but that’s not the same thing as having made a performance improvement.

I once had a Victrola-style wind-up phonograph. That thing was unpleasantly loud, and the walls of its tin horn vibrated, giving the music the overtones of an empty metal wastepaper can. I “modded” it by stuffing a sock into the horn. To me, it sounded a whole lot better. I would not argue, however, that I had somehow “improved” the phonograph.

It’s tough to voice these comments without coming off like some kind of kill-joy. I’m not. If the author is happy with what he’s done, so be it, and more power to him. But let’s be clear and concise about what we’re talking about.

Gio