Warming up for best performance.

[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, ...

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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.

 

 

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

 

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

 

[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.  

[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, 😉.

[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. 

[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 ...

[Teresa]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Everyone is frustrated because I haven't a "magic formula"...

 

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

That isn't why people are frustrated...

 

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.

 

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. 

[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 ... 😜.

 

[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. 
 

 

 

 

[Teresa]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

...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...

 

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.

[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 ...

[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. 

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, STC said:

please grant me the magic wand. Thanks. 

Done.

[Ralf11]

a group delete function might be handy - e.g. search and delete all posts with a specific text string...

[RickyV]

Or maybe a group banning function. 😂 Now that would be handy. 😁

[kumakuma]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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 ...

 

If this is the kind of music you like, here is an audiophile label that I would recommend:

 

https://store.acousticsounds.com/l/459/APO_Records

 

I also recommend Doug MacLeod.

 

His albums for Reference Recordings (another audiophile labels) are very well recorded:

 

https://referencerecordings.com/artist/doug-macleod/

 

 

There is, of course, also this classic:

 

 

[Summit]

Okay as fun as it is to read about Frank and his wisdom about audio gear I think we may can move on now 😊.

 

Warming-up is an expression used for gear that sound better when their circuits has reached their optimal temperature. It can also refer to gear or components that sounds better after some sensitive circuits has stabilized.

 

All components and circuits has an electrical and temperature span in with they will work optimal. Some components has a rather wide span while some has a much narrower span. This is true both in spec and in practice. In all audio gear we have some components that are “known” to sound quite different depending on if they have reach their optimal temperature and/or if they have stabilized electrically. Crystal oscillator is one component that normally has a rather slim temperature span and that also need some time to stabilize (voltage) before it will perform at its best. Another component that can be rather picky about the right temp is transistors.

 

The first category of circuits that will benefit from been on for a while is the one that will get considerably warmer after a couple of hours. The difference between a Class A circuits temp cold and after it been left on for 2-3 hours is obvious and easy to understand, for most people. The second category of circuits is much harder to understand just how it can take so much time for them to stabilize. I can’t explain it, but still I know it can change the sound profoundly. If you are in doubt of this, just listen to a Schiit Yggdrasil cold for example and then after a few days. The temp is reached after a couple of hours.  

[gmgraves]

16 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.

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!

Quote

"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 ... 😜.

 

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. 🙄🤦🏼‍♂️

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, Summit said:

The difference between a Class A circuits temp cold and after it been left on for 2-3 hours is obvious and easy to understand, for most people. The second category of circuits is much harder to understand just how it can take so much time for them to stabilize. I can’t explain it, but still I know it can change the sound profoundly. If you are in doubt of this, just listen to a Schiit Yggdrasil cold for example and then after a few days. The temp is reached after a couple of hours.  

 This doesn't have to be the case . Yes, the HFE of a transistor increases with temperature to a certain degree, but it is quite possible to overcome this problem with careful design using the temperature coefficient of a Silicon diode or another additional transistor in the current mirror area of a Solid State Class A amplifier as I have done with my 15W/Ch. (in full Class A) DIY Amplifier.

 It tracks and compensates for the changes immediately after switch on and is completely stable in SQ within several minutes

[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.

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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 …

 

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