DAC as an upgrade

Be careful with used DACs. Old Benchmarks had worse op-amps and other problems. Many companies like Benchmark and I am sure Bel Canto offer free trial at home (30 days in case of Benchmark) - you like it you keep it - if not send it back. Difference will be dramatic in my opinion - there is even huge difference between different DACs. My main objective at the beginning was to be independent of the transport (mechanical component) and the same time DVD players have excellent tracking. Sonic benefits I realized later.

I notice my Denon has both digital out and digital in connections (both coax and optical for each).

Rather than changing DACs, I could try hooking up a digital processor of some sort with these connections and run the built in DAC for now as a first step.

I have some CDs that sound flawless to me and others that I have some issues with. Are there digital processors out there that can be introduced to help with common problems associated with lesser CD recordings, like sibilance, excessive brightness, etc.?

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.

Cerrot,

You're right, of course, but I find it hard to determine when a deficiency is in fact in the recording when the only way to tell is to listen on a player. Even very high end playback systems like DCS employ digital signal processing algorithms to some extent to produce those smooth results. If I don't hear it on a DCS, for example, I don't necessarily think that proves its not there.

I think its all in how smart any particular playback system is in handling the more common issues found in CD recordings to produce the sound they are shooting for.

With vinyl, in many cases, when something didn't sound right, I could visually inspect the grooves and detect damage like wear, scratches, dirt, etc. pretty accurately, actually.

No way to do that with digital. You hear whatever the system gives you after its done converting the bits to a waveform, and that's pretty much it.

I can't look at pits on the surface of a CD and tell whether they are right or not. Sounds like a useful talent, though, if someone out there can!

I read something very enlightening recently in a magazine. The guy who is the talent behind the rock group Boston was lamenting the shortcomings of digital technology in discussing recent remastering of his old material. HE pointed out that the world, sound and music is analog in nature, not digital, and that the whole concept of digital music is an artificial man-made approximation of reality and very hard to get right as a result. Interesting stuff.

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.