Warming up for best performance.

[STC]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

What DACs do you own?

 

Can you share with us the modifications you've made to them?

The one brought the so called magic 35 years ago was a JBC box set with Sharp speakers. I have the same speakers. 
 

He showed no such evidence so far except one Nad picture of two tiny wires sticking from it. It could very well not connected to anything inside. 
 

I think I have to some weeding here too since Frank is not answering questions asked but hijack every thread with his ....

[STC]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

There's the original Yamaha CDP; another Yamaha, a CD-1050, which was just a second pickup, to use "in an emergency" - which I have not done much to; the Philips HT all-in-one which probably doesn't count 😄- but it used a half decent Crystal Semiconductor chip; and the current NAD CDP.

 

You claimed your magic happened with the Philips and Sharp.  Now you it is Nad but you are evasive if the speakers because you claimed you have ripped the speakers to improve the SQ. 

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I don't make mods to the area directly around the chips; what I concentrate on is ensuring that the power supplies within the units see as little noise as possible. So, I have done many, many experiments trying to completely shield the DAC proper from any possible interference which can find its way through the mains supply; this means improving the filtering of the supplies within the boxes, and adding filters to the mains coming in - I've tried all sorts of DIY methods that have been mentioned over the years, rather that trying commercial units - these all work to a fairly decent degree, but I've never been completely happy with anything so far as doing the job to 100% effectiveness. Which means part of the process of getting best sound includes switching off all electrical noise makers in the house - not the ideal solution, 😞.

 

A critical part, relevant to this thread, is that the DACs always have to be heavily conditioned - many people leave them on 24/7, and I totally agree; further to that, is that I exercise them vigorously, playing stuff like high energy rock, say, for a couple of hours - before listening seriously.

 

So, I don't do anything particularly unusual - but I have to do it thoroughly; if I compromise, then I won't get the SQ I'm after.

 

What is so important about units like the dCS is that they appear to taken the measures necessary to get the optimum conditions in place, without jumping through these hoops. Doing it the way I am is just annoying, because one can't just switch on, and get "the sound" just like that - but it shows what happens when you get it right.

DAC is supposed to reproduce the signal as original as they are are. Any reasonably built DAC Chip such as PCM63K is more than enough to be audibly transparent. You would not able to distinguish them. 
 

The major difference in SQ of a DAC is the output sensitivity. A 2V output will always appears to sound better than a DAC with 0.707V. Level match them and the difference disappear. 
 

All these are well known. Some may not agree but that’s the individual choice. However, if you want to claim they made a difference than shows us the difference. In every thread of mine, you will find ways to talk about soldering, integrity, Porsche with an iota if evidence that they ever existed. 
 

I initially paid attention to your post because on the surface they appeared to be valid but now it seemed all your writing were based on well established principles from others and reworded. You have avoided blindtests. You don’t post in them until someone else posted and you expend from there. 
 

Please don’t hijack my thread. Stick to your own. 

[STC]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

ST, it doesn't help when you get the story completely mucked up - JBC means nothing to me ... the rig 35 years ago was a Yamaha CDP, Perreaux power amp, B&W bookshelfs ... current rig is NAD CDP,  NAD integrated, Sharp speakers ... okay?

 

 

Yes. They were Philips box set. That would have made a HUGE difference. 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What?? A rig in between was a Philips HT set, and only the parts that came with it were used - tiny speakers, separate subwoofer, power opamps for all the channels, ...

Yes...yes...yes. The same Philips box set that was awarded the best sound for the last 35 years. The reference modal where all recording engineers and researchers used for sound evaluation. They only made one right?

[STC]

18 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I thought you were referring to the Rossini DAC, not the Rossini CDP.

 

I keep forgetting that you are a CD-only guy.

 

Rossini is not in the picture. His exposure is limited to the laptop and Philips minicompo. The Nad name appearing lately but no further information to that. The use of Rossini or Porsche or some other high end  is nothing more than a red herring.  

[STC]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, they made it for my stepson, who bought is as part of the package when he got the big TV 😜 ... the disk reader was playing up badly, reading DVDs - so he was going to chuck it in the bin. "I'll have a look at it - throw it my way ..." ... Turned out it was fine with CDs, once it warmed up - "OK, wonder if I can get this to sound better; some aspects of how it comes across are promising ... " ... and another journey started, 😉.

Smart stepson. He knew a junk straight away. 

[STC]

36 minutes ago, Teresa said:

He claims he can make a recording sound realistic no matter how poorly it is recorded. Yet he says that audiophile and other naturally made recordings are unlistenable.

This is the reason why I still read his posts. It is not wrong per se to make any recording to sound better. It is similar to a bad orchestra to sound delightful in a good concert hall. Such performance can only be bettered by a better orchestra in the same hall. This has been well researched area.
 

Most audiophile recordings are confined two few instruments. And if he is referring to those than I agree that although they are detailed and images well but somehow lack the energy factor. It is wrong to expect these types of recording to sound energetic and comparing them in the context he was referring to is misconceived. 
 

His description of sound heard and preferred is based on what Bose research confirmed. 
 

He is just confusing himself and chasing the wrong thing. The rare occasion could have happened in a different room but if one not familiar with direct and indirect sound than they may continue to search without knowing what they are chasing after. 
 

 

 

 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I doubt it ... the SQ that's produced always works, whether one is directly in front of the speakers, or listening from the next room ... or way down the hallway at the other end of the house.

 

A CD that packs a punch, on those most maligned Sharp speakers 😉, is this one - even though the quality of the rig is still not where it should be be,

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU209vIy0KI

 

The sense of everything in the mix is fabulous, the instruments are "there", with that intense, subjective impact that goes through your body ...

Ok Frank you have made your point.  I have nothing further to add. your irrelevant post hereafter will be removed as they are disruptive to the OP subject matter. 
 

@The Computer Audiophile , please grant me the magic wand. Thanks. 

[STC]

21 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Teresa, what happens is that the microphones pick up all the sounds that our brains use to identify what the nature is of what we're hearing; all the subtle clues that go with live music making. But in normal quality playback these are so damaged that our minds can't unravel what's going on - "It sounds a mess!". Higher quality replay shines the light on what's there strongly enough - and our brains can separate what it 'knows' belongs to the music, from everything else.

 

Audiophile recordings, IME, are sometimes too obviously manipulated, and are 'too simple' - the richness of sound textures is lacking, which makes them less satisfying, compared to other recordings.

 

 

"Old Yamaha CD players" ... ? I would put the original unit, which I still have, against most current replay chains - assuming it had been nicely warmed up, etc - and it would knock them off the perch with ease. You see, what it had in spades was 'musicality', smoothness - this is so "vinyl sounding", it's scary ... 😜.

 

 

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Bullshit, Frank! You have no idea what you are talking about! “Audiophile recordings are sometimes too obviously manipulated and are ‘too simple’” ????!!! Where do you get this stuff? What’s your definition of “too simple”? Many so-called “Audiophile recordings” are made with only TWO microphones. It can’t get any simpler than that without being mono. And yet, such recordings can be the most accurate and realistic sounding that can be made. These recordings are not manipulated AT ALL! If you prefer multi-miked, multi-channel recordings to simple, honest stereo recordings, then I have to say that you have obviously either never been to a live classical concert, or you had no idea what you were hearing when you were attending such a concert!

We must assume, Frank, that your idea of what constitutes good sound, and what many of the rest of us consider good sound are galaxies apart! I had a Yamaha CD player once, and it was, like it’s contemporaries, mediocre sounding. Of course, I didn’t solder it to my amplifier, so maybe that accounts for why my perception of the Yamaha’s sound and yours differs so. 🙄🤦🏼‍♂️

Interesting discussion but they are not so easy as it seems. Frank likes sound with a lots of reverbs and George believes only two microphones needed. I have another thread to discuss this. Please continue there. 
 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 If anybody said the same to you in the threads that you start you would quickly remove them .

 You are a Hypocrite .

It will take a few days to digest what Ralf is saying and much longer when images included. But why are you picking on Ralf reply only. He was merely quoting George. 

[STC]

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

ST

 This is the part that I take exception to.

 This kind of remark would not be permitted in his own threads and would be quickly removed as off topic (Unless he agreed with it.)

 It should also be removed in your threads too if you wish to keep the thread on topic as you claim.

 

 

 

I would have but then you also responded to it.  So I thought you guys were even...  Please click OT so that I can identify those needed to be removed if necessary. 

[STC]

Oops....deleted a wrong one. Is there a way to undo?

[STC]

No name calling, please!  

[STC]

39 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Assuming some people are treating this thread as a place to put forward their experiences with warming up, rather than continue with the joke of the OP ... I mention mine. And describe what are some of the complicating factors.

If you keep mentioning something which is not replicable ( even by you) then it serves no purpose and highly probably your observation was wrong. I have took the extra step to understand and repeat what you claimed. 
 

Having said that, you on the other hand refuses to consider any views that you could clearly show you have been wrong. And it gets tired. 
 

Understand this, as we progress with this hobby, the sound should get better. It should be repeatable. It shouldn’t  be guess work and open up your system to others. 
 

I have mentioned to you before that you remind me of a late audiophile with budget equipment. He did weird stuff liking stacking the speakers and adding about 8 cheap subwoofer. His secret was one clock which was designed by his Japanese friend. At least that’s what he believed and refused to share to anyone. He died about 8 years ago bringing his secret with him. 
 

He was although very active in the forum, no big time audiophiles ever visited him. Even when he invited me, I only went out of respect as I am not expecting a hi Fidelity sound from the JVC player.  But to my surprise, it sounded reasonable well at moderate level. Definitely better than another expensive system who was one the high end audiophile ever visited him and who actually discouraged me from visiting him. 
 

I never got a chance to look at the clock but his room was well treated and the use of the 8 sub worked well to keep them below audible distortion. 
 

The conclusion is - shared your experience but not the same thing in every thread which is not useful to anyone ( including you). 
 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

but IME this doesn't work. Unless you understand the basics.

Try adjusting the output offset bias in a large monstrous amplifier. 
 

You can use the same sentence with slight modifications in any field saying what looks like very important but totally useless. 

[STC]

2 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

 

Did someone hit you in the head with a rock and you are now seeing stars. You say the most moronic and stupid things which are meaningless to the discussion. Your stars are out of alignment. Good grief.

He is enjoying it and one the reason for keeping this thread alive. Usually, I would be luck to see my thread to go beyond a couple of replies. 

[STC]

54 minutes ago, sandyk said:

ST

Please take note of which side the initial name calling and insults ALWAYS come from.

I  actually paid him a compliment in my reply to Kumakuma, but this is yet another typical response from a sarcastic Academic of another  discipline than Electronics.

We only pay attention to things that affect us directly. Look at some of the threads where I have been called worst but I left those posts there. I don’t see you speaking for me as you are for your friend down under. What’s offensive to you may not be to everyone who share the same sentiment. 
 

It can be useful for future reference. Maybe one day when they are lecturing their grandson about manners they could use those posts as an example.  For some this forum is just an ego trip. 
 

Sometimes it is so satisfying to show how wrong and silly they were. Just ignore and move on like what you did a couple of post ago. Furthermore, you can always report to @The Computer Audiophile to have them removed. I am just a moderator to the thread I started to keep the thread on track for MY PURPOSE. I am not here to moderate difference among you guys unless I think it was absolutely wrong where in my opinion I felt someone was unnecessarily offended but not when they knew what’s coming. 

[STC]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

ST, it's always been repeatable

Repeatable means repeatable. Not a flash or two in 35 years. You do not have it now because it cannot be repeated. 
 

The rest of the replies are irrelevant and speculative without even knowing what and how my friend used the sub and clock. This is what irritates us do to your nature to comment on things you have not a slightest idea. 

[STC]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course it can be repeated ... it's merely allowing what is on the recording to be presented accurately enough, so that a convincing illusion is formed. The recordings will retain their data 'forever' - and it just requires someone to go to the necessary effort.

 

You see, if your great dream is to, say, drive a car at 160 mph - once you've got there, the itch to make it happen subsides - you don't have to go out and do it every week ... "just to prove it can be done ... for the 1,000th time ..." 😊.

 

 

My interest is understanding why someone has achieved a better standard of SQ - when you've done this awhile, you start recognising the steps, as done by others, 😉.

But you couldn’t. If you have heard a good sound system you would not be still harping with the old laptop and the speakers. If you are going to tell that your laptop speakers sound more realistically than my system, I would want to say BS but your friend will angry. You don’t have anything to show. You are still working on it. WE GET IT. You have repeated the same. Now put some evidence or stop. 

[STC]

38 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

IMHO, your approach to this hobby doesn't seem like a lot of fun.

 

I'd rather spend my time listening to music than endless hours of futzing around with my equipment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He is yet to reach quite good. Not with laptop speakers. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

What, you too, harping on about the laptop ??! ... try and get this straight, OK - the small Toshiba I'm typing on right now has "miserable" SQ ... okay? ... ... Happy now ??

 

Ask yourself from where for got that from. You cannot talk about competent system when you are without a reasonably competent system to compare. If your reference been a minicompo than it is impossible to talk about a proper high fidelity sound. That is making objective comparisons. Having said that it is always possibly to enjoy music even with such simplistic system by conditioning our mind. That’s what enjoy music and let our imagining is about. Know that difference. Reproducing sound and enjoying music are different aspect of this hobby. 

[STC]

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

How many times can I say, "Oh dear, ..." 🤨

 

Now you know how how the rest feel when you refused to pay attention.