Best wire to replace stock wiring in preamp?

I own a Parasound P/LD-2000 preamp that I want to modify with better internal wiring.
The stock internal wiring is silver-plated copper. I believe this contributes to this preamps slight brightness and harshness.
I want to buy some aftermarket wiring and rewire the main wires inside the unit.
I still want to retain the tremendous detail, openness, resolution, and sense of space this preamp provides, but at the same time I want to reduce some of the annoying harshness that silver-plated copper is known for.
Do you all think that I should use all copper wiring, or use all silver wiring for the best results?
What brand or brands would you recommend for the very best results?
Any idea on the pricing?
Thanks for your help.
Teflon insulated solid core silver would be a good way to go.
I vote for solid silver. Buy it from Michael Percy Audio; . I'd use the 22g. uninsulated 4-nines stuff at 95 cents/foot plus 14- or 16g. teflon tubing at 40 or 50 cents/foot. The larger tube becomes mostly air around the conductor; air is the 2nd-best insulator, vacuum being best.
Where is the best and least expensive place to obtain high quality teflon insulated solid core silver wiring for this purpose and who makes it?
check out the DH Labs Revelation solid silver wire available in bulk at Partsconnexion, 18 or 23 awg
To continue this thread i want to ask an advice for an internal hook up wire for my phonostage input.I was installing new connectors and ruined the wire while trying to strip a fresh end.This wire is only on the input part of the phono stage and looks like 4 ultra thin silver threads wound together.This wire was so thin that i can compare it to a cats fur.Now i am searching for replacement but want somehow to preserve the integrity of the sound.
Overhang, I believe strongly in solid-conductor cable, not stranded. Yours is stranded. I'd use the same thing I recommended just above.
Solid core dead soft silver is what to use, minimum four nines purity. Don't be tempted to try jeweler's silver. A couple of sources are listed above, although I can't say what the differences are between them.
Leave the wire alone. The problem from brighteness is not
your pre-amp, its from your digital source. The frequency
measurments from your P/LD 2000 are so flat it will reveal
all flaws from your D/A converter chips. Companies like
Wolfson from England, and Cirrus Logic of Crystal Semiconductor in Texas, are producing the warmest, richest,
most analog sounding DAC's on the market. Marantz, Arcam,
Integra, Integra Research are using their DAC's. Stay away
from brands using Burr-Brown chips. Their DAC's are as bright as a screaming witch. The best bang for the buck is
a killer pro model from Marantz, the PMD 325. It uses the
Cirrus Logic D/A chips. This player has single ended and
XLR outs and also has pitch control. It is very warm and
smooth. Go to in Wisconsin and you can
pick one up at a good discount. If your on a budget, and want a warm player, this is it!!!
And just why do you think that B-B DACs "are as bright as a screaming witch"? Perhaps you would care to share this with us, as well as your design experience and insight.

Reason being........I don't buy what you are selling.
The transient speed from Burr-Brown dac's is so
fast, that it throws the music so far out from
the speaker, that its like being slapped in the
face, and this can be a real problem in small
living quarters. I still have my old 38 lb Denon
player, which has four Burr-Brown dacs, but it
is no match against my Marantz PMD 325 player
which uses a Cirrus Logic 4396 dac. I always
test players with my older recordings, Mozart
pieces on the Deutsch Grammophon label of the
Berlin Philharmonic Symphony from the late 60's
thru the early seventies. Mozart loved to compose
in a high pitch. An audiophile friend brought
over last winter a Denon pro model which has Burr-
Brown dacs, and put it up against the Marantz.
Thru the Denon the upper frequencies were bright,
shrill and on the cold side. Thru the Marantz,
the highs were much sweeter and smoother. Crystal
Semiconducter and Wolfson take a different approach,
they slow down the transient time focusing on
more body and weight to each instrument, producing
a fuller, smoother, more analog sound. This is wht I
used the term screaming witch, and that daltonlanny
should consider using a player with slower transient
time, which will solve the problem of a bright preamp.
I don't buy any of that. If they sound horrible, then it is because of a poor design. ANY DAC will sound horrible is used the wrong way.

There is not one designer that I know of that would prefer to use a delta-sigma DAC (of any model) over a R-2R ladder DAC.

I don't see how you can say just because you have one player that screeches, that ALL players with them will. I know for a fact that is not true. Besides, you have no more idea what his source is than I do. Silver-plated copper wire does have a reputation for sounding bright. One that I am sure many more designers will concur with than will your feelings on B-B DACs.
The bottom line is in the listening.
The Marantz, Arcam, and Integra pieces,
based on reviews over the past five years,
have drawn concluded opinions that they
produce the warmest, smoothest, most analog
sounding players available. Its not just the
Burr-Browns, its any converter device thats
out of control with transient speed will
produce the same result. The Cirrus Logic
dacs are more rolled off at the top end
and more relaxed in their presentation which
results in a much tamer, more relaxed
soundstage, which will be much more forgiving
to silver plated copper.
One more note Ar_t, I just checked
daltonlanny's digital source. He's
using the Sony SCD-XA777ES player.
Surprise! Surprise! The XA777ES uses
Burr-Brown PCM-1738 DAC's. Too fast.
Too cool. Have a nice day!!
How can you determine by reading some review that the output transients are too high? Delta-sigma and R-2R ladder DACs are nowhere near alike in their topology or implementation. One outputs a differential voltage, which needs to be summed and low-pass filtered. The other outputs a current, which must undergo a current-voltage conversion before being LPF'ed.

Any competent designer can take any of those DACs, regardless of topology, and make them sound as bright or as soft as you may wish. Simple as that. Just because some do not is no reason to trash talk any product made that uses them.

Because now you are making accusations about stuff that I build. Accusations that are without merit or foundation. may well be right that his digital source does sound bright. But I can think of many reasons why. None of which are because of the DAC chip that it has.
Siltech G6 is far and away the best connection wire I have heard. It made a monsterous improvement in the Exemplar 3910. It is expensive and hard to find.
I'm making accusations about stuff you
build? What do you build and how many High
End outlets around the country sell your
product. Do you work for Tom Burr and Paige
Brown? I have purchased many home systems
since 1975, and over the years I have listened
and evaulated the sonic characters of hundreds
of components on my own as well as with the
Washington Audio Society. Diehard vinylphiles
around the world for years have challenged the
digital world to equal the rich,lush,warm,smooth
and seductive character of vinyl. Analog is better.
And in recent years, a handful of companies have
achieved that goal. And Wolfson is currently
leading the pack. I am not trashing any company.
The point that I'm making is if a digital player
cannot capture the full richness of the very best
of vinyl, its not worth a hill of beans, anf I dare
you to name any player with Burr- Brown DAC's
that has achieved that goal. You can't. Because
it doesn't exist.
You said that all Burr-Brown DAC are as bright as a screaming witch, not me. That implies that most of our CD players screech.

Drive down to Texas, and I'll force you to listen to one.

I am not going to tell you where the (several hundred) other ones are. Yes, I keep track of them by serial number.

We have not made any in several years, but they exist. And they were sold in high-end outlets. No, none were ever sold in Washington state. The closest any came to there was a dealer in SF.

Originally, one design used AD1862s, but they are no longer available. Later versions had to be made with B-B, as they are the next best source of ladder DACs.

(The lower priced models used Philips DACS.)

This started out as guy wanting help on wire selection. You turned it into a diatribe on why B-B is crap, and Cirrus is better. Now you want to trash all digital audio, which is fine by me. If vinyl sounds better to you, then fine. Don't just shove a load of swill that it is because B-B DACs have transients that are too fast. Just because you have heard, or have read reviews, that were not to your liking is one thing. I have no problem with that. To jump to the conclusion it is about some technical nuance that you don't really seem to understand fully is beyond the focus of this thread. Period.

If you want to discuss why digital doesn't sound right, we can discuss that in a civil manner, but in a different thread. However, I will not participate if I have be told that "x is so because of y factor, because I read a review that said so." I see no point in trying to correct preconceived notions that are based soley of prejudicial opinions that have no basis in fact.

I can think of lots of reasons why digital doesn't sound right. None of them have diddly-squat to do with B-B, AD, Cirrus, Philips, AKG, or any other semiconductor company.
Sorry I got in the way of a street fight. I think King_tut should go back to his tomb.
Ar_t, its not my intention to get into
a street fight, and as you suggested, lets
keep it civil, which I respectfully will.
I assume from your last thread that you
were with Texas Instruments. Also, their
are questions I hope you would answer
regarding evaluations and test reports
from credible publications as to why
they make concluding statements like,
" this is the finest converter I have
heard in recent years " or similar
statements eluding to the perception
that different dacs have different sonic
characters too musical play back. Some of
these publications and their staff have
former backrounds as component designers,
degrees in electrical engineering, and
similar crudentials that are very credible
while others do not. What is their purpose
to convince audiophiles that different dacs
are better than others for musical quality.
Are they all liars? Just curious. Also,
when Matsushita years ago came out with their
1 bit mash dacs, the audio press stated that
the one bit dacs had a smoother, more laid back
quality. 1 bit dacs have a flat line sine wave
and the sine wave curve varies from one dac
design to another. Shouldn't these different
curves effect the sound quality?
The interesting question about 1 bit dacs is what happened to them. They were superior IMHO to the multi bit dacs of the time. I do think, however, that there are clear differences in dacs especially were you to compare present ones with those of old. But I must say this thread is substantially off the initial topic.
R_T, my preferred player of record--the Teac Esoteric X-01 -- employs 4 Burr Brown DACS per channel -- probably 1704. Do you have any experience with this player or its DACs and what are your opinions? KingTut, please do chime in as well--we seem to be listening to the same type of music.
My apologies to TBG and all. I realize I am further derailing this thread, but the sidebar is just too interesting!
I have never worked, or will, for TI. Matter of fact, I hate them. I make obscene gestures at their plant quite often. I know someone out in AZ who hates them as much as I do. One day, he told his new bosses that when he worked for H-P, that we went out of his way to design out TI parts.

As for Burr-Brown, they are second to AD. But as you may have read, they are now the only choice in current-out DACs. And they are not longer a true R-2R architecture. Another story for another thread. Never worked for either of them. Do not intend to. Of course, B-B is now TI, so no way in hell...........

One bit is now called delta-sigma. Actually, it always was, just that some marketing weenies thought that it sounded better. It is much easier process to make, and in pratice needs no tweaking to get the MSB trim right. The big boys love 'em, as they could build a player that needed no adjustments before it was shipped. And would sound just as good (or as bad) for as long as it lasted. But has for how it sounds........another thread is needed.

(Reminds me of a story about Sony 707ES players.......the ones with 4 MSB adjustments per channel. We need another thread just for that alone.)

I have used 1704s when I needed to replace AD1862s. I do not like the low-level linearity. Mind you, that will result in other problems, and not "as bright as screaming witch". Uses tons of current on the negative rail, as they use several ladders, fired in a carefully selected stagger, to prevent nasty current glitches on the supply.

The later series..........1738..........still have my samples on my desk.........' reality, they have a mix of '1704-style ladder DACs and some delta-sigma stuff somehow combined to give a current output. More of a DSP chip than a DAC in the sense that we think of one. Obviously, an attempt to make a less expensive chip, but retain current out capabilities so that die-hards like me will use them. They know that we are not in the market for delta-sigma.
One bit is now called Delta-Sigma? Not true. Delta-Sigma
is a modulating technique, which is actually called a
Delta-Sigma modulator. For example, Texas Instruments
makes a DAC called the PCM-1803 24 bit 96 khz Delta-Sigma
converter. So your statement " that some marketing weenies
thought that it sounded better " is false. Delta-Sigma
modulation applies to any bit DAC, whether its a 1,16,20 or
24 bit converter. Get your facts straight Ar_t!! You better
start bailing the water out of the boat.
Well, excuse me........

I got the delta and the sigma reversed. I suppose that I am the first (old twit) to do that.

Sigma-delta. There, are you happy now?

One bit is a "sigma-delta" sum (sigma) up a bunch of little steps (delta) to make one.
Wi r e discussing DAC's in this thread?
Unsound...If you read the previous posts in this thread
dated from 9-5 thru 9-7 your question is answered.
Anyone interested in reading some rather technical details on the inner workings of modern DACs, I have some info that I can share.

A buddy in the chip testing business was able to answer some questions that the TI marketing weenie would not, or could not, answer. I have compiled some of it that I can e-mail to anyone interested.

Mind you, he had to sign a NDA with TI, so some things he can not share. But the crux of the communication can be summed up for the rest of you as:

1.) He prefers AD DACs over TI/BB or Cirrus.

2.) His feeling is that the Cirrus DACs are bright, and weak in the bass.

3.) He uses the term "delta-sigma" when he really means "sigma-delta". Gee, I wonder how many times someone has done that in the last 20 years. Us poor stupid mortals.........
I invite the readers of this thread to go to the Texas
Instruments website, to the home page, upper right corner
and type in delta sigma. Other parts of their website
give technical data that they are currently using Delta
Sigma modulators, not Sigma Delta , in their multiple
bit DAC's. It is true that in the early nineties that Delta
Sigma modulation applied to one bit only. But that was
fifteen years ago. The bottom line is that Ar_t
gave the impression to the readers, several post's back,
that the term Delta Sigma had no scientific basis,
that it was a term made up by marketing weenies only.
When in fact, it was a term that originated from DAC
designers many years ago. I will be discussing this
issue with the DAC lab at Texas Instruments on monday
and will post the results thereafter. One last thing Ar_t,
I asked you in a previous post if you would provide your
crudentials, since you claim you build products relating
to this field. Your crudentials that would justify your
hatred of Texas Instruments. Where's the beef? Inquiring
mines would like to know, since this is an open forum for
King_tut, actually I did, and I think what went from a thoughtfull suggestion went on to a high-jack of Daltonlanny's originally posted thread.
KingTut, what is a 'crudential'? Did you mean credentials?
Guys, please see my response to the "King" in the Parasound P/LD-2000 thread.
Thanks for the thoroughness of research, Angela. Forewarned is forearmed.
Doesn't surprise me a bit that King_Tut derailed my thread.
He has tryed his best to make me look bad, and he even sent me a hateful email about a week ago, that basically called me a liar and said claimed that I did not know what I was talking about.
Where did this guy suddenly come from anyway?
I agree that he needs to consider returning to his tomb.
The Dynasty days have been over for centuries!
Hee Hee!

Ladies and gentlemen, may I suggest for all and sundry to take a big breath? This thread is still young, and yet it managed to become quickly more contentious than it needs be. Come on boys and girls. . . cheer up!