Has anyone else ever reached an audio impasse?

The biggest difference I find in better digital components is resolution of low frequency information along with a lower noise floor. I do not find much difference in the mids and highs. So how good is the rest of your system as far as noise floor and bass performance? I do not mean amount of bass, I mean quality. That could be the bottle neck??? The differences became even more evident after I added a higher end REL audiophile subwoofer.

I would borrow a good pair of electrostats or two of those modern horn speakers and start experimenting again. After all, width and debth of soundstage isn't all. There is dynamics from pppp to ffff and the rendering of the right timbre of instruments. Try solo instruments, piano, violin, cello and voices- sopranos are especially good at full tilt boogie - and see if you don't notice more of a difference.
Happy listening!

the best preamp i've listened to over an extended period is the boulder 2010. my audio dealer and good friend has one that i've heard with numerous digital and analogue (lp) sources. the boulder makes everything run into it sound better but each source is still quite easily distinguishable from others. it is true that some lowerend dvd and cd players make adequate transports but i find it difficult to imagine that such players used with analogue out would outshine an upperend dac from, say, boulder, dcs, burmester or accuphase. as others have suggested, the impasse you are experiencing may be the speakers in the setup, tho i find that somewhat implausible given the sonic quality of the dynaudios. perhaps the problem lies in the listening environment itself. is the room a dedicated sound room with acoustic treatments or a multi-purpose area with some limiting characteristics? i'd be interested in learning.

this is a fascinating query. i wish i could offer some more advice. -cfb

Would it be too radical to suggest that you try a passive preamp? But if you do, try to make it a good one--a ladder stepped attenuator would be (and in fact has been) my choice. Better still, if you can estimate the attenuation needed for a certain high quality CD, you could try a fixed attenuation network: one series resistor, one parallel (to ground), like each step in a ladder attenuator but without the switch contact. If you try a good passive, you might just conceivably not want to go back to active when the test is done. I've never regretted not going back, after having an active preamp--the CAT SL1 III--that some "experts" used to rave about.

Just because your friend purchased a CDP that’s worth 15k doesn’t necessarily mean that it will sound superior to a less costly CDP (or DVD for that matter). …That said, one would think that a 15K CDP should sound dramatically better than a $100 DVD player. I’d suggest that your friend’s system resolution is either limited by his component synergy or possibly a lesser issue such as digital cable. If not properly terminated impedance mis-matches can cause significant jitter and this would certainly lessen sound quality/differences between source components. I’d stick to something that is truly impedance matched such as: Apogee Digital, Silver Audio, or Stealth’s ‘Varidig’ digital cables.

While my system is worth less than half of your friend’s I’d suggest that if he does not already have dedicated AC and outlets that he do so (separate circuits for digital/analog too). If he’s already done this he should test a few new cables and isolation products (speaker cables, IC's as well as AC/conditioning and isolation/mass loading). And a really cheap tweak is Ring Mat’s CD ‘Statmat’.

Each time I thought that I'd heard my system sound its best I managed to find a step up via the cable/IC/AC/AC conditioning or isolation routes. …No major component changes necessary. Careful auditioning of said accessories (really components in their own rights) have nonetheless brought remarkable results similar to upgrading a major component. I feel that I’ve now maxed-out a few of these routes and will eventually need to upgrade my speakers and possibly associated equipment (I wouldn’t assume that new speakers would necessarily match my current system).

Personally I've found Silversmith Audio to be THE speaker cable of choice – brutally honest and revealing, no euphoria whatsoever. FYI they now come cryogenically treated. I tried Valhalla’s too, but found my preference with the Silversmith's. If your friend hasn't tried or doesn’t already use either of these fine products he should try them (both speaker and IC). I will be auditioning Silversmith IC’s over the holidays, and expect these to offer greater resolution yet.

Regarding isolation I’d say check both rack and shelves. Using racks like Mana Acoustics with Neuance shelves, or an Arcici 'Suspense' rack with an S.A.P. RELAXA 1 (under the source) would provide much improved detail & resolution. Note that these two approaches I am suggesting are largely different in execution, but attempt to arrive at the same end. I have also found that taking measures to isolate speaker and AC cables are also important and can improve many aspects of the reproduction (or conversely – if ignored can significantly pollute, color and smear sonic images).

As a last suggestion I’d recommend Shunyata Research's Hydra and or AC cords. Those that use the ‘FeSi-1000’ compound. The Hydra and CKv2’s are especially good on digital source components. These improved an already quiet noise floor and added a greater sense of ease and air to my system. My attempt to paraphrase Shunyata Research would be to say that the basic function of SR components is to allow unfettered current flow while stopping ‘electronic pollution’ from being transferred between the various components within the system chain.

If these suggestions don’t bring about major improvements in resolution that allow you to hear greater distinctions between source components I’d be mightily surprised. That said, if I have gone over territory you’ve already covered then please excuse my ramblings.

Cheers,
Mike