I would imagine, based on experience with similar circuits, that the Jupiter would not be any improvement, and would quite possibly be a step in the wrong direction. If you want 'more open', then the entire circuit plays a major part and there is no guarantee changing the caps would give you what you are looking for.
About the only thing that could possibly change it in the right direction may be V-Cap CuTF or other teflons, but .47uF at the right voltage will damage your wallet to the tune of around £470, and there's no guarantee it would be any better. Get into that sort of territory, and you'd be far better off by moving up the Audio Note range. You'll also crucify the resale value of yours if you swap out Audio Note capacitors.
thanks for your thoughts , phil.Very good caps, you may prefer the change but I wouldn't bet on it. If they're on the output then possibly a larger value might help right at the bottom of the frequency range - say 1 or 2uF, if they're used as coupling caps then don't change the value (and obviously not the voltage rating).
Cheers for your thoughts , resale value has stopped me playing with the caps , adding a small cap like duelund to whats already there could be an option , also could be removed without any probs , cheers phil.I would imagine, based on experience with similar circuits, that the Jupiter would not be any improvement, and would quite possibly be a step in the wrong direction. If you want 'more open', then the entire circuit plays a major part and there is no guarantee changing the caps would give you what you are looking for.
About the only thing that could possibly change it in the right direction may be V-Cap CuTF or other teflons, but .47uF at the right voltage will damage your wallet to the tune of around £470, and there's no guarantee it would be any better. Get into that sort of territory, and you'd be far better off by moving up the Audio Note range. You'll also crucify the resale value of yours if you swap out Audio Note capacitors.
Thanks very much for your thoughts , mine actually uses 2x 12au7 and 1x6x5 rectifier , less gain than the 6922 but more choice of valves , tungsol or rca blackplates plus clear tops for best sound , ill probably live with it for now , still a great sounding musical dac , cheers again phil.I would avoid bothering with bypass caps here. The 0.47uF are coupling in the signal path (output). The jury is out regarding the use of bypass in power supplies, but a great many people would argue (and I tend to agree) that the downsides outweight the possible upsides in signal path positions (potential time and phase distortions).
Really depends on how deeply you want to go with it. The DAC2.1 I think uses the same circuit as the DAC2 for the output stage: a pair of 6922s in cathode follower. This is not a bad design by any stretch, but further up the range moves to an anode follower design with output transformers. Thoeretically, if you don't need the gain and can live with a (significantly) higher output impedance, you could change the existing circuit and use the earlier AN/Kondo version with paralleled 5687s, but that's really a bridge too far unless you could pick up a complete circuit board. Again, you'll masasacre the resale value. I would say that I'd do that if it was mine, but I built one that similar so I wouldn't do it anyway...