Warming up for best performance.

[fas42]

The song I sing is that virtually all recordings can be experienced as powerful, emotionally engaging events - if the song you want to hear is that most recordings are only fair to mediocre, and that one has the most fun by playing with gear, and constantly recycling a small, select group of recordings "which are good enough" to show off your equipment ... so be it, 😉.

 

What makes no sense to you is that integrity of the complete playback chain is vital to achieving that higher level of listening satisfaction - like most, you want to be casual and sloppy with many of the aspects of the setup ... and so you reap the consequences of having that attitude.

 

Because you have never experienced what's possible, you claim it's nonsense - because that allows you to be comfortable with where you're at. That's fine 🙂 ... but I suspect there are more than a couple of readers who aim to get more from listening to their recordings ... what my 'song' is aiming to to do is to motivate those people to consider trying other than the old, worn out ways to get there, that have been trotted out since year dot ...

 

 

[fas42]

Always interesting how people react when something is presented which makes them uncomfortable ...

[fas42]

The laptop is used for playing music clips that are posted online - and to check for differences in versions of such, and to note whether there is anything obviously wrong, in the capture of an audio system in operation.

 

Other rigs are used for "serious stuff" ... geddit?

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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

 

 

Alex ... brilliant ... 👍

[fas42]

Might need a dose of this,

 

 

[fas42]

1 minute ago, Racerxnet said:

 

What other rigs? You can't answer? You don't have one? To embarrassed to say what you have? Are you saying you are using a laptop to compare another audio systems playback? What are you capturing?

 

 

(Sigh) ... I have repeatedly posted on forums, including this one, what has been used on the journey ... I'm taking time out at the moment, to fix up bits of the house - you know, what some consider essential - the fools!! ST's thread on Inside High End has some pics of samples of the gear that's been used - won't do you much harm to try tracking this down ... good mental therapy, 😄.

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 When confronted as to what specifics are used to achieve the results, you ALWAYS come up empty handed. If you want to talk shit all day, guess what? Your going to get hammered on. Most everyone is proud of what they have, and are glad to share what they are doing specifically when asked. Most have some pictures of the system they have assembled. Are they perfect? NO! Is mine? NO! But its the best I can afford and have derived great pleasure from it. 

 

Because the specifics are things that people don't want to tune into - most want Porsche logos adorning their treasures; because that's a major part of the thrill! 😝

 

You see, the 'secrets' for the first rig coming good were: it was a very simple setup; the components had high intrinsic integrity; I took warming up very seriously; and I hardwired every connection in the chain ... there you go, I've just shared what I did - and it didn't hurt a bit!

 

What it did do was demonstrate that what most people went on about as being very important was quite irrelevant - which is the point I keep trying to make, on these forums 🙂.

 

I'm pleased that you're happy with your system - a key part of what I talk about is that it's quite unnecessary to buy expensive stuff; because careful evaluation and tinkering with what one has, right now, can reward one enormously - but one has to be prepared to start thinking that way ...

 

Quote

The only thing I warm up is the Tri Vista21 DAC. Its old, but sounds very good. 

 

I hope you have a pleasant day!

 

MAK

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the positive thoughts, 🙂.

 

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 It was hard enough replacing the degraded electrolytic capacitors in an earlier PC monitor which had resulted in it's failure due to the high internal temperatures over a period of time.

 

Speaking of which, you might have some experience here of value 😉 - I use an auxiliary monitor on the laptop, and the LG I was using for ages had something go sour, very suddenly, on its power supply, it appears. Didn't have the time to try and diagnose, so grabbed a Dell to replace it.

 

Symptoms are, the power supply tries to kick in, but the LED indicator never goes to green, meaning all OK. Extremely long shot, of course - but any thoughts?

[fas42]

Everyone is frustrated because I haven't a "magic formula"- well, I don't, because that's not the way it works ... I look at a rig that's producing sub-par sound as being faulty, and I diagnose what could be causing issues. And fix 'em.

 

You might as well be upset with a mechanic who "won't tell me how to make my car run better!" ... without saying at all what the car you have is doing wrong. That is, you start with symptoms, and proceed from there ... that's how it works ...

[fas42]

You want the start of a "formula"? Right, go out and buy a dCS Rossini  ... all the reports I've read since the model came out tick the boxes which say the engineering has been done well enough, so that the normal digital 'nasties' have been eliminated - so, at least one component is now "good enough" in raw form that it doesn't have to be fiddled with.

 

So, it costs money? Well, that''s how it works, if you want solutions ...

[fas42]

Talking about being frustrated, have I mentioned that I'm steadily getting more peed off with Windows 10? 😝 Just before, it and Firefox got into a crazy dance when I was trying to type in a post - the interface lost the plot; Task Manager refused to come up, just blipped at me - who writes these junk OSes, anyway? 😄

 

 

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Have you heard it? How does it compare to your current DAC?

 

Don't need to - what people who have heard it are saying, are what I look for in the qualities of the sound ...now, I need to cajole and treat with lots of TLC the DACs I use, to get those qualities emerging, So, if that unit can produce the quality without using any special tricks, that means the integrity is of a high order - and should definitely be taken very seriously as a means to an end.

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

What DACs do you own?

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, STC said:

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

 

 

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?

 

 

[fas42]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

This clears up the confusion.

 

When folks here talk about DACs, they are usually referring to stand alone units, not the DAC circuitry within an ancient CD player.

 

I'm sure the $25,000 dCS DAC does a fine job. I'm a little surprised you would mentioned it though after all your posts raging about expensive equipment and "bling".

 

 

Stand alone units introduce another set of problems, because of the necessary link from the transport - the Rossini is a CDP, which is going to help to get the best from CDs.

 

If expensive equipment doesn't get the job done, then it's not worth the money. I went for the original Yamaha, because it was the first unit that ticked lots of boxes, back then - would cost somewhere towards $10,000 in today's money.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

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

 

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, ...

[fas42]

17 minutes ago, STC said:

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?

 

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, 😉.

[fas42]

The interesting thing is that the interior of the Philips HT all-in-one, and the NAD integrated look extremely alike, as regards quality of construction - the transformer in the Philips is much meatier, bigger smoothing caps, there are quite a few places where there's nothing in it. All metal construction, nicely rigid - if it dropped on your toes, you would be making noises for quite some time after ...

[fas42]

20 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

 

I’m not frustrated, as I have decided what @fas42 says is nonsense. 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 makes no sense whatsoever to me for if he can make unrealistic recordings sound realistic why can’t he do the same for recordings which strive to be the most realistic and accurate as possible? Audiophile recordings are often recorded in a real performance places, with no EQ and other sound altering devices?

 

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.

 

Quote

 

In addition, the devices he tweaks such as laptop computers using the built-in 1 inch speakers instead of using digital outs to decent DAC. Sharp "boombox" speakers and old Yamaha CD players. IMHO he is making a laughingstock of himself. 

 

"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 ... 😜.

 

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

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 for. 
 

 

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 ...

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

In reality it is just the opposite, it is commercial recordings that are manipulated. With audiophile and other naturally made recordings, you get what the microphones picked up in the performance space, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps, you don't like sonic realism.

 

Yes, commercial recordings are manipulated ... but it works, as a listening experience. I'm thinking here of the original soundtrack of "The Phantom of the Opera"  - there is huge manipulation, of acoustics, and introduced effects. But it's captivating - draws you into a magic world, with burst after burst of intense music making - this is Art, and it's a treat for the, auditory, senses.

[fas42]

2 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!

 

Purely my experiences, George 🙂... I could have acquired, come across, another lot of "audiophile" recordings, and have formed a very different view. ... Just, too many times of hearing some recording, and noting I'm starting to lose interest in the music - there's an element of "preciousness" at times, and it doesn't hold my attention.

 

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

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. 🙄🤦🏼‍♂️

 

Yes, they're certainly worlds apart 😉 - the Yamaha was made at a time when the company was being serious about SQ, and had a well engineered digital volume - it used a level shifting trick to give itself 20 bits resolution, which was completely inaudible in action. Very low output impedance, and had no problem directly driving a hefty power amp to a point where the amp was showing signs of strain.

 

When cold, its sound is very polite, 'modest' - it needed, yes, days of warming up to bring it to optimum performance.

[fas42]

We have a nearly 30 year old Yamaha PSR synthesizer keyboard here, was top of the line at the time  - ancestor of the current Motif range ... this has probably one of the more extreme changes in character with warmup, that I've come across ...

 

It uses samples of a Yamaha grand for its best piano sound - and this sounds almost ludicrous when turned on from cold - a cheap kid's toy could probably sound more realistic. From experience, it needs about 3 days of constantly running, that is, being left to be driven by its sequencer 24/7 before the circuits finally stabilise - at this point, that piano sound would quite easily fool someone.

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Try replacing the main PSU electrolytic capacitors in it's PSU. After 30 years they are likely to have a high ESR and markedly reduced capacitance

 

No, this was something it had from brand new - leave it sitting awhile, and the SQ was lost. We heard in the music store, where it was running in demo mode all day, etc - so knew what it sounded like when fully warmed. Of course, most people loved to have these sort of instruments for all the effects, and the zillion things you can do with them - artificial waveforms don't have to "sound right", to be impressive 😉. There was an equivalent Roland in the shop - and it just didn't sound as good ...

 

In more modern examples they've got the engineering better, of course - far less of an issue, now.

 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Summit said:

 

No not all gear will benefit from been turn on for a while before the listening session begins. I said that gear that gets considerably warmer after a couple of hours can benefit from warming-up.

 

The complications arise, because some areas of the system highly likely will improve with warm up - but other aspects will degrade, perhaps only very, very slightly, over time ... it can be a 'juggling act', trying to ensure all the factors synchronise, so that the "stars are in alignment". My first good rig caused me no end of grief, because, in hindsight, there was a static build up problem - which I didn't understand at the time ... so as an example, while waiting for conditioning to do its job, an anomalous static charge may be steadily forming - the system never hits top form, an optimum overall status is never achieved.

 

Audio systems are complex beasts, in this sense ... trying to treat it as a simple, one dimensional exercise will rarely work, I would suggest. IME, the best approach is to steadily chip away at each "bit of roughness", until the right SQ finally emerges ...