Cambridge CXC Transport - Arcam irDAC: Burn In Required?

My circa 1998 Arcam Alpha 9 CD player (with ringDAC) died and I needed to replace. I could have spent months researching a replacement but I figured during the past 17 years technology must have substantially improved, so with 10 hrs of research I purchased a Cambridge CXC CD transport and an Arcam irDAC. My thinking was that this combo, both British designs (and one an Arcam which already has my seal of approval) must be able to produce a sound, soundstage and musical vibe AT LEAST as good as my 1998 Arcam CD technology.

Out of the box and an hour or two into listening, I have to say that this new gear is not knocking my socks off. I'm using the digital coax cable that came with the irDAC (looks super cheap) and I placed the irDAC on top on the CXC transport (it happened to fit nicely).

So, my questions are:
1) Is a burn-in time required for this gear? If so, how long?
2) Does the el-cheapo cable make THAT much of a difference?
3) Does placing the DAC on top of the transport make a difference?

The difference I'm hearing in the new gear versus the old is: less depth and less pizzazz. (What's pizzazz? You know during the opening of the 1960s Batman TV show all those "Pow," "Wham" and "Zap" things? Well, I'm getting less of that.) Basically, it sounds good but all the music seems to be coming from a "cloud" between the speakers instead of individual little pockets of sound. And things like a snare hit or acoustic guitar note aren't sounding as awesome as they used to.

Do I need more time? Better cable? Or, is the old gear simply better?

Thanks.

 

Probably just better older gear. The newer DAC no doubt incorporates some newer technology, but is probably lacking in the output stage.

 

I've had positive experiences with 5 different entry level cables from UK cable manufacturers.

http://www.whathifi.com/best-buys/audio-interconnects-digital

 

Thanks.

 

If anyone has a real-life experience to share, that would be most appreciated. Thanks! I've been searching the web and have seen people say 200 hours to "open up" on an irDAC. I know tubes and caps have a burn-in time, but I wasn't expecting the same from digital equipment.

 

My Arcam irDac does wonders with my digital transports. Not quite as sweet as my ArcamCD37 but darn close. I use entry level cables. Hope burn-in works some magic!

 

Everything makes a difference!

Put a CD on repeat & let it cook overnight. Listen to it again afterwards & see what you think.

The Alpha 9 is/was a wonderful player. When mine died, I replaced it with the Rega DAC. It took it awhile to settle in too. You just need a little more time!

Cables do make a difference too. I won't get into that right now, I'm probably going to get flamed as it is!

 

Thanks man! That's exactly what I'm doing. I powered my integrated amp off but am running the transport through the DAC. Does the amp need to be on? Do you connect via coax or optical? I always thought the Alpha 9 was a very good sounding player...now I REALLY know.

 

My irDAC sounded putrid out of the box. After the first couple of hours I seriously considered bringing it back. I stuck with it though, hoping burn-in would help, and it most definitely did. Love the sound I get out of it now. Give it time.

P.S. I use BJC coax.

 

Thanks for your "real experience" feedback. Most appreciated. Did you hear improvement using the BJC over the freebie coax that came with the irDAC?

 

I don't think I ever tried using the freebie coax cable. From the outset I used the same BJC cable I was using with my previous DAC (CA DacMagic).

 

Thanks for that. I let the transport and DAC cook for 20+ hours. It DOES sounds better -- but is still missing what the Arcam Alpha 9 had -- namley more punch, excitement and dynamics.

 

I am running an optical cable from my CXC to my McIntosh D100 and sounds good to me. So far only about 50 hour on the transport.

 

I'm not using any of the equipment in question but I can say without a doubt that the DAC I'm demoing sounds different tonight than it did last night, fresh out of the box. I've had it running constantly since last night. It sounded thin and lifeless last night - still very highly resolving, I was picking out things I hadn't heard before (which I really didn't think was possible given how many times that's happened in the past 3 months with various new gear and tweaks along the way). It should continue to open up, same with the amp I'm demo'ing also, it being brand new too.

 

@Earwax - I'd also say that your system is more sophisticated than mine, so you may be able to pick up on details (or lack thereof) that my system cannot expose.

 

To answer your last question I'd say, yes, to your ears the old Arcam is better. It probably has a more relaxed, inviting sound than the new stuff.
My question is what was the problem with the old Arcam? If it was a laser assembly problem it might be an easy fix and you could make a direct comparison with the new stuff.

 

Thanks for that info. I've been reading PhD electrical engineer postings that show signal graphs, etc. and these guys are adamant that unless it's a "moving part" there is no break-in or burn-in period and that any change in sound is simply the human brain adjusting.

I've been developing a critical listening ear since 1998 and for as much as I don't want to believe cables or burn-in makes a difference, I have heard with my own fussy ears that cables, burn-in, etc. DO make a difference. Perhaps not huge, but if you use the same test pieces of music over and over you can hear subtle changes. I say "subtle" but they are enough to make me satisfied (or not) with my gear.

I hooked up the optical cable that came with the irDAC -- so I have coax (1) and optical (2) and have been going back and forth and by a small, but distinguishable degree, I prefer the optical. That may mean I have power issues (I've also heard people rave about power conditioners).

Anyway, since first hook-up 48 hours ago I can say I do hear an improvement – now I’m only about 5%-8% away from what I heard from my Arcam Alpha 9. Perhaps a proper cable (spending no more that $50-$60) will be an improvement over the el-cheapo cables that came with the irDAC.

 

I spent $15K in 1998 for everything -- TT, tonearm, cartridge, interconnects, amp, CD, speakers, stands and rack. But back then you could spend $15K on a pair of interconnects. So it's all relative. I'm know medium-grade gear (which I consider mine to be) in the right room can sound awesome.

 

Alpha 9 had a humming transformer for a while. I opened up, loosened screws stuck in padding and tightened back up. I then put a heavy weight on top of the player. It sounded great (really great!) for about 3-4 years, then the transforming huming came back, got worse, then really worse and last time I played it all heard was a garbled break-up of sound. I'm not throwing it away, and if I can get it fixed for a few hundred I probably will. So, far the Cambridge CXC transport, Arcam irDAC and optical cable have improved with burn-in such that I'm inclined to wait longer before final judgement.

 

I have the Arcam irDAC with optical to a Squeezebox Touch, and connected to Rega Brio-R and KEF LS-50. Very happy with the sound.

 

So far, after about 12 hours of listening and 20+ hours of being powered on, the Cambridge CXC (CD Transport) and the Arcam irDAC have absolutely improved in sound and dimension. What I've noticed:
1) Not as much depth as the circa 1998 Arcam Alpha 9 it's replacing (but it's a lot better than first power on)
2) Bass is more focused and accurate than Alpha 9 . Makes a big difference.
3) Was able to dial in REL subwoofer like never before - very easy to hear it's "right."
4) Treble is bright but smooth - Alpha 9 produced more sibilance (somewhat harsh "S" on certain CDs)
5) The optical connection is a tad brighter in a good/bad way. Not as smooth overall but on one CD in particular brought out more detail in a tympani drum passage.
6) I'm beginning to relax and hear music instead of critically listening, which I think means it's sounding "right" (er)
7) Hooked up wife's iPhone and played "highest definition" (320?) Spotify file. Same song on CD blew it away. Zero-critical-listening wife noticed immediately.

I've read posts where people are called "stupid" if they hear a difference between optical and coax or digital equipment burn-in. But using 5-6 reference CDs, I do hear a *difference, regardless of the physics and graphs/charts that prove otherwise.

*Of course most people couldn’t give a $#!T about the small differences I'm hearing.

 

Thanks for this - I'm thinking about buying a Arcam irDAC

 

Thanks for your review, a DAC or Streamer, not sure which, is on my horizon sometime over the next year & irDAC or MDAC are on my list for consideration.

We hear what we hear, its more than just ears, its a wonderful thing, certainly worth a bit more than a $#!T and I say Viva La.

 

No joke...clean your ears before critical listening. Hydrogen peroxide, soak cotton ball, tip head, squeeze cotton, 3-5 minutes. If it sounds like rice crispies that's the viel being lifted from your ears. If you hear nothing, congratulations on not being a gross, dirty-eared person.

 

Makes sense, especially if we're trying new equipment on a demo or 30 day return / approval period.