anyone else daisy chain "jitterboxes"?


After using a Monarchy Super DIP for the past 2 years, I ran across a good deal on another DIP. Hooked it in line after the Super DIP (so I could use the balanced out into my D/A), let it warm up and WOW! Everything the DIP did on its own was again improved with the addition of the second unit. After listening for an hour, I picked a disc and set out to remove and reinsert them into the chain to make sure I wasn't fooling myslef. Easily noticed as they were added and removed. The biggest change was in the amount of space around the instruments and vocalist. Everything opened up. I remember reading a "buzz" sheet that Monarchy packed with my first DIP. The reviewer experimented with daisy chaining and found 1 was good, 2 were great, 3 was a slight slight improvement and the addition of a fourth was not noticable. I held this in the back of my mind and am glad I gave it a try. For a total of $350 including cable, I got a significant improvement in my sound.

Interested in other success or failure stories along this line.

Assoc equip.: Theta Basic -> Super DIP -> DIP -> Monarchy 18B or MSB Link III into passive control -> Krell KSA80B -> Sonus Faber Concertos. Transparent Super cable throughout.

-twylie
twylie
What do you folks consider to be the main benefit of a jitter box ?

I tried a Monarchy Super Dip quite a while ago and did not really care for it. The most noticeable effects were that it made everything sound very "etched" and "hi-fi". Some might call that more "focused", but i found it un-natural. It also drastically leaned out the bass ( it was definitely quicker and tighter ) but it also took much of the PRAT of the system with it. Didn't mess with it too much or too long, so i'm kind of curious as to others' experiences. Sean
>
Sean, I found almost the exact opposite with my experiences. In my system, separation between instruments improved; I would describe it as only a slight increase in image depth and width, but that the instruments and vocals were better localized. It was almost as if the sounds filled out their respective locations with more authority, but increased air and distance from each other. I know that last comment reads as a physical impossibility, but that's the best way I can describe it. Again, in my system PRAT was improved, but only marginally. Bass was more tuneful, but not deeper. I did not notice any loss of bass fullness. I noticed the midbass definition was improved allowing me to hear notes beginning and end as well as the time in between. Everything I'm attempting to decribe here sounds more "hi-fi" less music, but it's not. My overall system musicality is improved.

I found the BNC out on the Super DIP to sound better than the SPDIF, but I had to find a BNC to RCA cable to make best use of it.

I guess that's what makes this pursuit enjoyable and maddening at the same time. Stuff I've heard sound amazing a friends is only marginal in my system and vice versa.
Actually in my system, I found both Sean's and Twylie's assessments to be true in a way. It took me about 3 hours of auditioning to decide that what I was hearing, while obviously a distinct change, was an unequivocal improvement. At first, I was put off by the seemingly "etched" quality Sean mentions, and wondered if the more yang-ish sound I heard was less musical. All the improvements in separation and delineation Twylie talks about were there, too, but I kept changing my mind on whether the bass was just cleaner, or really leaner.

But over extended listening and critical comparisions of revealing disks with and without the DIP, I was brought around decisively, no doubt in part through some gradual readjustment on the part of my ears. The DIP removes a certain "soft" and less distinct aspect to the reproduction that my digital separates (see above), though much improved over the relatively "hazey" sound of my previous CDP, still apparently possessed to a residual degree. The resulting sound is unapologetically "digital" in character, but only in the best way, and definitely more accurate, IMHO. With the DIP taken out now, I think the sound is clearly less faithful to what I perceive as the mastertape, mostly through subtraction. It sounds compromised in timing, frequency extension, spatial recreation, dynamic expression, and transient cleanliness. What I'm describing superficially sounds (both literally and figuratively) more "analog" than what you get with the DIP in, but this is not really true. Analog, while it suffers from its own brands of distortions, does not share in kind the underlying mechanism of jitter (the reduction of which presumably accounts for the DIP's benefits), and so the softer sound of the rig sans DIP is not really "more analog", just reduced in fidelity.

Now I wouldn't give up the clean'n'clear, impactful, extended, very present, and spacious sound I get with the inexpensive DIP 24/96 inserted (via Cardas Lightnings on RCA). I think also think its amazingly well-built outside and especially inside for the asking price. (I hasten to add that I can't vouch for any of the many older versions of the DIP in all these regards, including appearance, which was not the same as the new chassis.) The DIP, along with my new-to-me (thanks to the 'Gon) Theta digital components, has finally provided me with digital sound to stir my emotions and keep my attention without fatigue, as well as actually compete with my turtable for playing time and inspire me to buy more CD's. I'm with Sam Tellig on this one - the Monarchy DIP is spot-on if you ask me.
My expereince was also positve. There was greater smoothnes to the higher frequencies, a drop in 'edgyness' or 'glare', and in particualr vocals became clearer.

KP