What is the deal with the ART DIO

I guess I should have specified; "Which op-amps are being used besides the Linear Technologies 1365 and 1362 chips? Kevin Morris uses a special Motorola chip which betters them both. Just wondering?

I own a stock DI/O. Definitely a great deal. Even in stock form it improves the sound of sub-$600 CDPs. I agree with Sean about soundstage. Also, the bass is rather boomy in my experience.

Having replaced the DI/O in my main system, I moved it to my second system (headphones). In that system, it has an effect similar to the Stax diffuser or Headroom processer--sounds less like headphones--may relate to soundstage issues noted above. That is a nice effect because it doesn't degrade the sound or change the frequencies as the those processor technologies can.

I haven't heard a modified DI/O, but relatively inexpensive used DACs at current prices here on Audiogon beat the stock DI/O in frequency balance, texture, and soundstage. I have retired mine again in favor of a Muse Model 2 for the headphone system. So, while I consider the DI/O a great deal and hope to use the A/D feature in recording at some point, there are a lot of other great DAC deals out there worth considering as well. Perhaps a trip to Plato's to hear the modified version would make me a convert. . . .

The conditions that i listened to the Dio in placed it in just as much of a "mess" as the other DAC's being auditioned. That is, they all used the same cables, lack of optimization of the system, no isolation, coupling or damping, etc... We ran them the way that they came each sitting on a shelf. Within the confines of the same system and a matter of moments to switch input / output cables and discs, the DAC's were all given the same opportunity to "strut their stuff".

As Jbweaver mentioned, my brother felt that the ART was slightly "loose" on low frequencies. Personally, i did not think it bloated by any means although this was one of the very first comments that my brother passed onto me. As such, he obviously found it very noticeable. My initial observations were regarding the soundstage and harmonic structure, so we might have been listening for different things. I know that once i take notice of something, that particular aspect tends to dominate my perspective like a sore thumb draws attention to itself. Sean
>

It's tough to say which mod will work in which system. Also, mods seem to be system dependant, as cables are. This said, personal experience reported here is irrevalent, unless system parameters, hearing ability, and room acoustis/treatments are consistant.

I've found the modified Di/O to better my DAC costing twenty times the cost of the DAC which it replaced. Muddy bottom end? Loss in spatial info and soundstage anomolies? Not in my system.

I agree that cost means little when buying an audio product. MOST of the time, much of what you are paying for is Research & Development ( R&D ) and marketing, not the actual parts quality of the unit itself. As such, that is why some cheaper products actually blow the doors of off more expensive components. Not only are the cheaper ones typically using fewer parts, they just might be using better quality parts.

This is the very reason why and how Stan Warren, John Hillig, Richard Kern, Ric Shultz, Dan Wright, etc... can make improvements to just about any product out there, regardless of cost. They simply improve the parts quality of the design that is already there and the results are typically audibly better and quite noticeable.

As most of you that have read a few of my posts have seen me say before, buy what you like and what you think sounds good in your system. Don't worry about what some reviewer or anybody else thinks. Even if that "jerk" is me : ) You have to live with and enjoy your system, so trust your own ears. Nobody can tell you better than yourself what you like or don't like. Sean
>