PLEASE REMEMBER THESE ARE ONLY MY OPINIONS AND HAVE LITTLE BASIS OF FACT.
I've been asked why would I chose to upgrade a first generation SACD player (made by Sony) with all the new "better" products on the horizon. The answer seems simple to me, first off the Sony SCD-1 was the prototype SACD player and was conceived as the flagship reference machine to which lesser mass market products would be introduced. The marketing strategy was to present the new format to those who would most benefit, the Audiophile high-end consumer. For Sony to pull off this lofty goal they had to produce a machine second to none, better than Sony had ever produced, including there highly thought of BETA machines of the ‘70s. They retained outside consultants to help them with the digital circuitry and the revolutionary digital filters along with the transport/drive mechanism and the elaborate isolation system. They then went about redesigning and custom building a large number of circuits and components that were to be used in the SCD-1. The build quality is unapproachable by any standard. I believe Sony created a unit with a quality that even suppressed there own expectations. As the project evolved my guess is the costs were well over the projected price point of $5000. The standard audio circuits were finished using "off the shelf" product that has long been paid for. The result is a machine with some parts, drive, laser pick-up, isolation, digital filters/circuitry, and build quality that have set new standards. The new "designer" machines are incorporating many of the components that were designed by Sony and there outside consultants. The capacitors, resistors, op-amps and power regulators incorporated in the SCD-1 were not of the quality standard set by this machine, and are the major differences between the Sony and the "designer" models. For me to spend $27,000 for an Acuphase in order to upgrade the quality by some percent (and still own a first generation design) seemed silly when I could in theory receive most or all of the higher quality for the cost of the upgrade. For my budget this was a better choice (actually the only choice). If I was right, I'd be way ahead, if I was wrong and the improvement was only minor, well I was still ahead in that I got marginal improvement for less cost than the "designer" units. It is my opinion that SACD is here to stay and over the next three to five years the evolution will be very exciting. I have enjoyed the quality improvement to both "redbook" cd and SACD for two years now, and my thought was this upgrade will keep me on the leading edge of what digital can offer for at least two more years. Thus the upgrade was on, and the second parts of my findings are as follows:
I've been taking notes as the days have passed and will begin with a review of those notes. I will follow that with my overall opinions so far. (NOTE: the below findings are all in reference to "redbook" cd playback).
120 hours No bass, edgy highs, improved depth and much more transparent.
170 hours- AMAZING pace and rhythm. Very exciting, great detail, less edgy. Sound stage is ok.
200 hours- Bass came back, very boomy, thick and congested. The entire presentation has become compressed, dark and slow. The edginess has left.
250 hours- Transparent, smooth, silky highs. Deep and open sound stage, well balanced tonally. Bass is tight and the pace is natural.
300 hours- DYNAMIC!!!! Atmosphere of the room is full and energetic, great pace and speed. There is a presence to every instrument. Highs are a bit forward for my taste.
IMPRESSIONS SO FAR:
When I sent the SCD-1 in for this modification, my hope was to bring the "redbook" performance closer to the SACD standard set by the machine. So far my expectations have been completely realized, but it doesn't stop there. I'm more than 200% satisfied with what I've gotten back, even if nothing further developed in the final one-third of the burn-in.
The Sony SCD-1's performance has been expensively reviewed in the magazines with roughly the same findings. The SACD playback has bettered all digital playback systems I've seen compared to the SACD. The "redbook" is good but most feel it was bettered by the Mark Levinson No. 30.6/31.5 combo. $17,000 and/or the dCS Elgar/dCS 972 D/D $ 19,000. The new Accuphase DP-100/ DC-101 SACD combo. $27,000 has now raised the bar still higher in SACD playback . . .
SO!!!!! So I don't have $17,000- $27,000 to spend just to "maybe" beat out my Sony.
With the modifications made, the "redbook" playback in most cases has now surpassed that of the original SACD playback. I pulled out a very long time reference disk, Lyle Lovett "and the Large Band" 1989. This disk has great transparency along with complex passages. The cd played through with no effort, leaving the finest of detail (slight cymbal tapping) during extremely congested passages. I used to play this disk at all the audio shops to test their reference systems and hear what was possible. NEVER has this disk been so dynamic and full, it's just amazing! The transparency, sound stage and definition of "redbook" playback has far exceeded that of the original SACD player, but not to a fault. DYNAMICS! The pace, speed, impact is all above any I've heard. Much more like the electrostatic reference systems that I've heard in audio shops, but the feeling is not clinical or etched in the least. With 150 hours left before final burn-in the only thing lacking is the three-dimensional realism, the final timbre, color and tonal softening that was present in the original SACD playback. (I'm not saying the sound stage is not three-dimensional. No that's far from accurate, I'm talking about the inner detail that brings a face to a voice). As I recall, the original burn-in had much the same issue at 300 hours. The toning became more tame and natural as the days passed, with fingers crossed I push on.
With "redbook" playback alone I would highly recommend this modification. I can only interpolate how it would perform against the $ 20,000 "reference" systems, but I'm guessing it's at a minimum a draw.
Now what about SACD you ask. HOLLY COW! AMAZING! DYNAMIC! HOLOGRAPHIC! I'm completely blown away. How the heck could anything become so much better that it was? Every facet of my stereo's performance has been brought up to levels I only dreamed were possible, and never did I think I'd get this far with the relatively affordable components I use. I played a great deal with the new Tchaikovsky 1812 from Telarc directly recorded in the DSD format. When I first listened to the disk with the original SCD-1 in SACD mode, the presentation was big, dynamic and the sound stage adequately placed the elements of this recording. The presentation has matched the description of what was intended by the Engineer, completely and quite convincingly. The recording incorporates five separate elements into one single recording. The orchestra is expected to gently arc in front of the listener. The two choral events are to appear in an arc and in front of the orchestra. The Civil War cannons were recorded in a circle with a central microphone set on a 45' pole and seven other microphones set around the parameter. The final element was the church bells. Here the 150' high bell tower was recorded in multiple locations and at multiple heights to give the illusion of church bells ringing all around the city. In that it would be impossible to record all these elements together, the mixing became the challenge. How do you place five recordings into one space without the layers appearing as in multi-channel recordings? The solution was to take an old recording technique, "sound-on-sound" and blend each recording by using DSD mixing, layer by layer, but retaining one single track. The result was to have created a seamless fluid event that would appear to be a single event.
The modified SACD player was able to handle the multi complex, extremely dynamic recording with incredible inner detail. During the climax of the symphony, all of the components are playing at once. The orchestra, when playing alone appears natural and extremely refined in a well-defined space with a perspective is maybe 15-20 rows back. The choir has an immediacy and fine detail that you would find sitting in the tenth row. When the two are combined, the choir is easily placed in front of the orchestra, but a bit transparent and thin, like I'm able to look through them. Adding the church bells was incredible. The perceptive of the orchestra/ choir did not change, but an added dimension of the entire city appears behind and around them. It's now as if the event is in the canyons of the church steeples. Now let's add a few cannon fires for good measure, still in the streets, but with huge blasts happening around me. Twice the blast is so intense it's as if a hole was blown right through the picture panted in front of me. (This must be some experience on a multi channel system)
Never was I longing for more or better. I believe any playback medium will have difficulty bettering this demonstration. The realism of vinyl has been matched (for my taste) with this modification, but the clarity, dynamics, pace could not be met by any vinyl system I've heard. The musicality and timbre are equal in my opinion. This was simply the best sounding presentation of audio I have ever heard (There are a lot of systems I have not heard, so take it for what it is, my limited opinion). For the cost invested I can't imagine how this modification is not a great value.
During the next week I will continue the final 150 hours of burn-in using the XLO burn in track. I will continue to update the progress and write my final thoughts next weekend. The weekend following, I am going to take the player down to a friend and again compare the Audiomece up-sampling DAC I've referred to before. This will be conducted with his new Pipedream speakers. I will let you know those results too.
Thank-you for the support I've received writing this, and I thank all of you for taking the time to muddle through this rather long post.
J.D.
P.S. I should have noted this modification is for the SCD-1 and the 777ES
