anyone else daisy chain "jitterboxes"?

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

Re-reading my previous post, forgive me but I'm going to clarify a couple of points. In the final analysis, I do not believe that the DIP actually leans out tonal colors in the least. The "yang-ish" character I mentioned above was only in relation to the sound without the DIP, not in absolute terms. I believe its only effect on timbral balance at all is the lack of attenuation - the preservation, if you will - of the extended high frequencies. Any apparent leaness I perceived at first was due, I believe, to the removal of a certain "murkiness" in the sound that I was used to, before introducing the DIP cleaned that up. I want to also point out that poorly mastered CD's will still sound bad, albeit more accurately so. Your tolerance for edgy CD sound will have something to do with the balance struck by the rest of your system - mine has all-tube pre- and power amps. In addition, the DIP will not render the differences between transports academic. Although it is effective with all three of the transports I've tried it with, it does not equalize them. The best transport among them is still clearly the best with the DIP in as well.

Thanks for the follow-up folks. I may give a Super Dip another spin sometime down the road. At the time i tried it, that specific system was in a state of transition ( aren't they always ??? ). Now that i have it dialed in a little better, it might be worth another try. Sean
>