Thoughts on keeping it all on all the time vs using standby / off?

[MarkusBarkus]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

With this feature, you actually play music 24/7 and the difference - at least in my situation - is crazy. The sound is so so much more clean (more crispy, more responsive). And of course right from the first tones of music for the day. 😉

...I hope others can show similar stories. We can only learn from it.

Peter

@PeterSt I agree that music "flowing" through the system end-to-end for a while seems to make the system sound "smoother."

I leave everything on 24/7 and I very often have music playing through my headphones, sometimes for days on end, overnight, etc.

 

I especially do this if I know Sweetie will be going to the gym, etc. and I plan a more attentive listening session.
 

I recognize playing through the speakers, probably the most "mechanical" piece of the puzzle, would be better, but it's not always practical...although I have been known to pass music through the speakers/system overnight at very low volume for an early morning listen.
 

Regarding your ideas on turning gear off occasionally, would, say, once per month be sufficient? Have you "tracked" and of those reset cycles for performance of the gear or the sound, by any chance?

 

Please keep your reply brief and continue working on my Lush ^3s 😉 

[MarkusBarkus]

Las Vegas, Times Square, Ginza Strip, <add your favorite light display here> vs. my few watts leaving my gear on? 

[MarkusBarkus]

16 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

...startup transient spikes are more likely to cause damage than leaving gear constantly powered, which I find credible. 

That is what we "learned" '70s era, so I follow that thinking still. Like the '70s vintage video game Tempest: "avoid spikes!"

It "seems" like steady-state is easier on the gear. If more modern thinking refutes these old ideas, I would gladly update my paradigm.

[MarkusBarkus]

...OK I just looked up Tempest: 1981. Don't bust me on that. Felt like the '70s from memory.