Questions & Answers

Only regarding your upgrade request (including assistance with purchasing Chinese base devices), or my active and past projects.

No. This is not a sale of goods — I provide custom modification services.

The website indicates prices solely for the upgrade of your device, including all the necessary components.

Any stationary DACs, CD players, network streamers, digital converters and modules, routers for streaming audio, external clocks and reclockers, automotive DSPs and combined DSP+amplifier systems (preferably HELIX), compact Class-D amplifiers, headphone amplifiers, phono stages, tube buffers, and linear power supplies.

Far from it. My channel features technical teardowns and upgrades for a multitude of American, Japanese, German, and other devices.

Mainly the sound quality; all original functionality remains intact with rare exceptions (agreed upon in advance). Upon the client's request and subject to technical feasibility, the features can even be expanded, such as adding a new digital input or reconfiguring outputs.

Any project I recommend sounds excellent, but the higher the tier of the device, the higher the listener's expectations it will satisfy.

My YouTube channel features videos and links to digital tracks of most devices recorded before and after the upgrade. This won't replace a live audition in your own setup and with your own music, but it will give you a solid general impression.

If your device is still under warranty, you will void it once its internal circuitry is modified. In return, you receive a separate warranty from me, even if the device originally had no coverage at all.

Simple upgrades take just a few days, but there is a waiting list. If the project is complex or requires ordering exclusive components, it will take more time.

A custom upgrade requires not only complete process control but also immense responsibility. Performing a modification remotely, even considering you have sufficient qualifications, would take tenfold more time for diagnostics, instructions, and verification. This is impossible. Not even for money.

Yes, but I won't do it. You can have the microchip replaced by a repairman of any qualification tier. However, if you want to substantially elevate the sound quality through a serious upgrade — welcome and I will be glad to help you.

The most critical part is aligning your expectations. If you expect $2,000 sound from a modified $100 box, even the finest upgrade will disappoint you. Before taking an order for modification, I always ask a series of questions to offer you the best possible solution. If we happened to overlook some detail after all, the device can be sent back for fine sound tuning.

Not all of them. But those on which I spent years and a lot of money on research — yes. I don't want anyone to get and copy this knowledge absolutely for free without putting in any effort.

No. It's just that corporate engineers are managed from above, whereas you and I can choose any successful platform and directly decide what and how to do inside it, maximizing our investment solely into high-quality sound.

It is better, but significantly more expensive and time-consuming. The huge advantage of mass production lies in the minimal cost per unit. It already covers the work of designers, engineers, layout specialists, testers, technicians, and programmers, as well as PCB fabrication, chassis manufacturing, assembly, and QA (they just forgot to put in the sound)… Handling all of this flawlessly as a single individual is impossible, and you would ultimately end up paying for dozens of subcontractors.

Every company has successful and unsuccessful devices; a specific model is always more important than the brand.

MSB Technology Sentinel DAC за $375,000. Yet even inside that one, I see the flaws.

Yes, if you are willing to settle for a compromise. Each of these devices, in top-tier implementations, is a substantial standalone unit. By agreeing to combine entirely different functionalities into a single, especially small device, you inevitably limit the quality of implementation. This is a perfectly fine idea for entry-level or slightly advanced setups, but you will never be able to achieve a truly high level of sonic performance with this approach.

Certainly not three times better, maybe twice. The gain in sound quality relative to price is never linear; it follows the law of diminishing returns — the higher the price, the smaller the incremental gain.

The implementation, but it will always be bottlenecked by the capabilities of the DAC chip itself. And the higher the class of the device, the more noticeable this limitation becomes.

If you have a flagship chip inside but its implementation is on par with a budget unit, it will perform better than the cheapest generic DAC, but far worse than if those same resources had been spent on a superior layout around a simpler IC.

The one that you personally prefer and that is, at the same time, implemented best!

I used to prefer American ESS, although I held AK in high regard as well — they offer very different sound signatures. However, in recent years, Japanese AKM released new DAC chip series that combine the best aspects of Sabre and the old-school Velvet Sound architecture.

Both. Each conversion architecture has its own pros and cons. If you value tactile texture, density, and an intimate soundstage — multibit is your choice. If resolution, spatial imaging, and the effortless flow of music matter more — it's strictly delta-sigma. Furthermore, the old-school era of monolithic multibit ICs stopped developing long ago, whereas delta-sigma continues to actively evolve.

An ultimate pocket DAC will easily outperform most mass-market desktop products. At the same time, limited physical space undoubtedly implies a reduction in capabilities when it comes to achieving the maximum possible result.

Both types are perfectly applicable and blend beautifully. ICs offer exceptional transistor matching, thermal stability, and low noise specs. The strengths of discrete modules lie in their massive output and dynamic current headroom, superior performance at high bias currents, and the ability to use higher-wattage resistors and large-capacity capacitors in the PCB layout.

I prefer those specialized for audio: MUSES, Sparkos, Sonic Imagery, and a few others — nearly 20 models depending on the tier, the specific circuit, and the client's musical preferences.

Because these electrolytic capacitors are so unique that, for decades, absolutely no one has been able to surpass them in sound quality within this design framework.

My proprietary design for ultra-low jitter, delivering a twofold increase in sound quality over USB compared to any standard factory-made Amanero or XMOS solution.

Yes, but only in top-tier implementations — that is when you can actually hear the dual configuration clearly. In any case, a single DAC with an exceptional design is better than two with a mediocre layout.

Both can sound magnificent, but with USB — it depends more on the receiver quality inside the DAC, whereas with SPDIF — the clock precision from the source has a stronger impact. USB retains the advantage of sheer versatility and high-resolution format support.

Digital track resolution is far from being primary, and scaling its numbers has a logarithmic dependency on sound quality. Any modern DAC can easily process high bit depths and sample rates, but the implementation level of the hardware always comes first, and ultimate playback fidelity fundamentally depends on it.

Standard RMAA measurements can show only a limited set of parameters describing the core operations of a DAC/ADC. I always perform dozens of different measurements both before and after modification — from a voltmeter to a spectrum analyzer. Yet even all of them combined cannot fully describe the acoustic difference between various devices. Auditioning always has the final word.

Not always. Otherwise, a $100 DAC with excellent measurements would sound just as good as a $5,000 DAC. But in reality, that simply doesn’t happen.

Good. Despite a massive pile of drawbacks, vacuum tubes lack p-n junctions and their associated semiconductor parasitic effects. Their operating parameters are also free from the thermal drift typical of silicon. Due to this, tubes possess smooth non-linearity and, when approaching limits, typically generate a soft distortion spectrum. Furthermore, they can handle large voltage swings and deliver a wide dynamic range. That is why tube sound holds its own unique, compelling charm.

No. I know that cables affect the sound. A cable isn't just a wire; it possesses its own characteristic impedance, inductance, capacitance, attenuation, phase shift, and non-zero insulation conductivity. Standard bench tests won't capture even half of these parameters, but combined, they exert a clearly audible impact on the sound. Don't trust, verify!