HELP! Sony SACD players

dwmann, I'm glad to hear that the 'C555ES is working out for you. I read your initial post and knew something wasn't right. There is no comparison between the 'C555ES and 'CE775. I bought a 'C555ES for my main system last November and was so happy with it that I bought another one for my second system back in April. The 'C555ES is a great CD player for the money, and SACD is a bonus!

 

I agree 100%...When you say next year, do you mean about a year from now (not this year's product releases, but 2003)?

 

The REAL answer is:

However long it takes you to acclimate to any real or imagined difference between your old and new systems. How much does the sound change? Not at all.

CD player 'burn in' is a myth, unsupported by *any* scientific or engineering evidence.

 

Well,

I guess there are two kinds of people in this world - those who believe that "CD player 'burn in' is a myth, unsupported by *any* scientific or engineering evidence" and those that don't.


The truth is, ALL electronic equipment requires a certain amount of burn-in time before it performs optimally (although the differences are usually not great, as they are with the 555). Also, ALL electronic equipment requires a certain amount of warm-up time each time it is turned on before it performs optimally, although this is not always audible, especially with cheap equipment.

Also, no two pieces of equipment, even from the same manufacturer with the same model number, produced on the same manufacturing run are EXACTLY identical, because each component in the equipment is subject to manufacturing tolerances. Curiously, this is less audible on cheap equipment even though the tolerances are much wider, because cheap equipment is incapable of producing enough clarity to allow anyone to be able to tell the difference.

Also, contrary to what you will read in magazines like Sound and Vision, imaging and soundstage are not just a function of your speakers and speaker placement. If so, we could all buy cheap receivers at Best Buy and dump all our $$ into the speakers.

Yes, cables make a difference, too, although not necessarily in the way cable manufacturers claim. One good cable is not necessarily "better" than another - the sound you hear depends on the synergy of the SYSTEM as a whole, and cables that sound great in one system may not sound as great in another. This is true for components also. Systems that are carefully matched tend to sound better than systems that aren't. Again, with cheap systems it doesn't really matter, because you can't hear it anyway.

Also, humidity and atmospheric pressure will affect how a system sounds day to day. Your electronics will be affected more by humidity, whereas your speakers will be affected by both. The quality of your AC current can make a difference, too. As can altitude.

That these facts are true is indisputable, and many of these differences either can be measured in a lab, or could be if the test equipment was sensitive enough. This is because the electronics are delivering an electric signal to your speakers, which are converting the signal to sound. SO: ANYTHING in the signal chain that can affect the signal (whether it is an amp, a cable, a transformer, capacitor, or whatever) will affect the signal that is actually delivered to the speakers. It HAS to. It is simple physics, and part of electronic theory. Why do you think manufacturing tolerances exist in the first place? If a slight variation in a resistor or capacitor made NO difference you could stick any old resistor or capacitor in there and as long as it nominally approached the correct value everything would be fine. Manufacturing tolerances exist because variation DOES affect the end result, and tolerances are accepted or rejected on a cost vs benefit basis - some equipment manufacturers use components with much wider tolerances to save on costs. But if these components were just as good as more expensive tighter tolerance components, no on would BUY better components. And when you put all these little tolerance variations together, it should be obvious that two identical components will not produce EXACTLY the same signal. They can't.

Although I think much of what some audiophiles are concerned with approaches voodoo, I think that to deny the things I've pointed out here is to deny reality. The question is not is this true. The question is, how much of this is audible. And it depends on the person. Some people can hear differences easily, some can hear them when they are pointed out, and some can never hear them. My theory is that it has to do with some individual's ability to hear much higher frequencies and more dynamic range than others, but I base this only on the fact that I can hear frequencies WAY beyond what is normally considered audible, and hear sounds too low in volume for normal people to hear at all. And yes, I CAN detect changes in the sound of my system that are due to weather conditions. My system sounds better when the barometric pressure drops.

Obviously, YOU can't hear any differences in equipment after some burn-in, or else you attribute these changes to psychological quirks. Usually these differences are not great, and I would not have believed a piece of equipment could change as much as the Sony 555 did. Obviously, others who own this piece have observed the same thing. I guess that in your opinion we are all just highly suggestible subjects, and we all imagined it.

Why is it there is always some guy who holds our meager scientific knowledge/test equipment up like some kind of verifiable god that butts into these topics insisting everyone else is wrong? It's almost like a religion with you guys. In 100 years people will be laughing at what we thought we knew or could measure. Hey, I'm glad you can't/won't hear these things - it probably makes your musical experience much easier to deal with. However, I (and others) CAN. But don't tell me something I believe is true is a myth and is just in my head. Ignorance is bliss. And that works both ways.

 

DWMANN, you're right. Now let's see what the backlash is going to be? I figured I'd let you do it since its your thread. Good luck!

 

This time is generally measured in seconds.

Again, there is NO evidence that 'burn in ' time amounting to more than that is necessary for solid state equipment to function optimally.

Does your computer need to 'burn in' before it performs optimally?
Or does it run on tubes?

Evidence that this warm-up time amounts to more than a few seconds, please?

This, while true, has nothign to do with burn in .

S&V certainly does not advise that all speakers perform equivalently.

Cables make a difference mainly if they're badly designed.

Of course, but what's thsi got to do with 'burn in'.?

er, no, they aren't. Some of the audible differences you cite are well-supported and reasonable, some aren't.

But human hearing is not infinitely resolving. So not all differences in signal will be audible.

Why are you ranting on about this? The question was about burn in, not whether there are *any* grounds for audible difference.

 

And where is your proof of this one? I happen to agree with dwmann as I do hear the differences. Sometime subtle, sometimes not so subtle.

 

I happen to agree with Krabapple, in that I really don't know as much as a lot of you do on the the technical aspects of this topic; but I consulted with someone who does. This individual read this thread, and works with electronic/audio/video equipment for a living; and agrees with MOST points that Krabapple pointed out.
Also, I am learning that the new Sony 755v DVD/SACD/CD player that you can pick up for $225 is NEARLY as good as some of the earlier Sony products that sell for many hundreds of dollars more. Seems like technological advances are bringing prices down again. That's good news for the mainstream consumer, who while likely balk at a $800 SACD player, but will have no trouble with $250 at all, and get a progressive scan/bass management player to boot

 

Electrochemical devices change over time. Agree?

Capacitors are electrochemical devices.

Capacitors change over time. Agree?

Then burn in in a CD player has nothing to do with a silicon chip, but with the electrochemical devices like capacitors.

If capacitors can change, then why can't their sound change?

-Matthew Anker
www.SACDmods.com

 

I know what I claim to know because:

I intitially bought a 555es. It did NOT sound very good, so I bought a 775 for comparison. (I did not want either player for a main player - I needed a multi-disc player for uncritical listening.) The 775 was a demo, the 555es was boxed. I figured "why spend the extra money on the 555es if it's not going to sound all that great anyway."

Initially, the 775 sounded a lot better than the 555es, even at lower volumes. There was not as much detail, but the soundstage was much wider, and had more depth. The sound coming from the 555es sounded like it was smashed up against the back wall. I was suprised - I expected the 555es to sound better than the 775. When it didn't, I needed to decide between the build quality of the 555es or the sound of the 775. So I kept both players and A-Bd them daily 4-5 hours for over a week. Some listening was critical, some was fom another room, and some was done while doing other things in various parts of the house. The 775 continued to sound better than the 555es, although it seemed the 555es was improving. In the process I read about the 555es needing a long burn-in. I loaded both players with discs, and let them run 24/7. (Note: All listening tests were conducted using the SAME preamp and identical cables.)

After two weeks the sound of the 555es began to improve. The 775 remained relatively unchanged. After three weeks the 555es began to sound VERY good - Wider, deeper sondstage and MORE detail. Much better than any multi-disc player I had ever heard, although still not what I would consider audiophile quality. However, it continued to improve slightly each day. And the 775 sounded like mud in comparison. While this was going on I learned I could get the 555es from Oade Bros for $240 cheaper than the unit I had. Since I had bought the 775 and 555es from Tweeter with a 30 day return, I decided to return the 555es (they would not match the Oade price) and ordered one from Oade. However, I'd had to pick up the 775/555es at a store 40 miles from my home, so I still had them when the new 555es arrived.

When I plugged in the new 555es, it sounded terrible - the sound coming from it sounded like it was smashed up against the back wall. The FIRST 555es sounded like a completely different machine, and the 775 sounded better AGAIN. So I have been playing the new 555es 24/7 for over a week. It sounds better, but it STILL doesn't sound very good. However, the first player required about three weeks before it began to sweeten, so I assume this one will require time to improve also.

If what YOU say is true, I started to like the first 555es simply because I got used to the sound. If this is correct, and if the 555es requires no burn-in, logic would dictate that the new 555es would sound like the first one (unless it is defective) and I would prefer it to the 775. However, neither is true. The new 555es sounds NOTHING like the 555es that I put at least 500 hours on, and the 775 still sounds a little better, although after a week it's getting close. And the new machine IS improving, so I doubt it is defective.

Since I DO NOT always trust my own sensory impresions, I've played all three of these machines for friends who seem to hear the SAME things I do, to some degree, except for one guy who can't tell the difference between the new 555es, the old 555es, the 775, or my Yamaha DVD player.

No. These were NOT scientific double-blind tests, but since none of these people had any idea WHICH machine was playing or which "SHOULD" sound better (none are audiophiles, and all think I'm a little nuts to spend so much on stereo) and all but the one guy who couldn't hear a difference were amazed that two identical machines could sound so different.

No. I didn't level match. I let each person listen to EACH machine at various volumes. However, they were all "walk-ins" i.e., people who just dropped by - I just told them I was trying to decide on a new CD player and asked for their opinions. I didn't even tell them two of the players were the same until they had made their choices.

I am sure the "scientific proof" faction could find a way to criticize all these results and explain away EVERYONE's opinions of these players and say that none of this matters and doesn't prove anything. I, however, will continue to play the new 555es until the sound sweetens and it sounds like the first one, and figure that all you "scientific proof" guys need to listen to a system that is capable of resolving this kind of difference. And perhaps get your hearing checked professionally. Seriously. I'd be willing to bet that your hearing does NOT resolve extremely high frequencies or EXTREMELY low volume sounds. Many adults cut off in the 14K - 17K range. I'm 46. When I was younger I could hear beyond 21kz (The Dr. was AMAZED and ran the tests over and over.) Three years ago I was somewhere between 19K and 20K. I listen to Klipshorns powered by dedicated McIntosh 7270s that are bridged for mono and are fully balanced in briged mode. Preamps used to compare these players include McIntosh C-28, McIntosh C-34, Yamaha RXV1 (from main outs), and McIntosh C2200. I've listened to all players thru all preamps, and feeding the line-levels directly to the 7270s, which sounds the best, but it is hard to match speaker levels. I've also fed the line levels directly to a Sony NA77Es amp (huge mother with big meters). Preamp used for tests with friends: Yamaha RXV1, which is not as resolving as the C34 or the C2200). However, you can even hear the differences thru the C-28, which was built in the 70s and is NOT a great preamp by todays standards - too noisy and grainy and "solid state."

Anyway, I'll believe what I believe, and you guys believe what you believe.

By the way, in a recent issue of S&V (review of Yamaha RXZ1 and 2 other higher end receivers) the writer clearly stated that soundstage, depth, etc. is dependent on speakers/speaker placement and not affected by the equipment unless it is using DSP. In another issue they said most good solid-state amps should sound the same. These guys probably cut off at 12-14K, or they wouldn't make statements like this.

 

ah, capacitors, the perennial savior of the 'burn in' crowd.


please see:


http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&output=gplain

and

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&output=gplain


these from speaker designer John Dunlevy:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g...=UTF-8&[email protected]

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g...=UTF-8&[email protected]


many more can be viewed by using 'capacitor' and 'burn' as a pair of search terms of RAHE in google.

In audiophilia , it has been claimed that even *cables* need 'break in' time!

 

It's in the literature of the psychology of perception. The branch that deals with hearing is called psychoacoustics. It's an interesting field that every audiophile should investigate.

But the thing is, you *might not*. Unless you've eliminated known sources of bias, there's reason to doubt. *That's* the take home message from 50 or more years of psychological research.

 

<etc>

I appreciate that you've gone to a lot of effort, but if the comparisons were not done 'blinded' -- meaning, you didn't know which
component was playing at a given moment -- the listening test *wasn't* critical. It was lacking a crucial control.

In te case where you had friends listen, it's important that they not be inadvertantly influenced by you, *and* that their own comparisons were blind. This is achieved by a 'double blind' protocol.

You also say you didn't level match, and that too, is a *crucial* control, since any difference could have been due simply to mismatched levels (also, small incraeses in volume tend to be heard as 'better' by most people, other things being equal)

Indeed. Which doesn't mean you *didn't* hear the differences -- it just means the issue remains open.

What I can or cannot hear is irrelevant -- in fact, I've made no claims whatever about what I can or cannot hear, here. When I do make such claims, I'll be sure to say whether they derived from properly controlled comparisons or not.

Can you quote it for me or name the issue? I can't find the ref on their website.

On any modern system, speakers and speaker placement do make the prime contribution to how a system sounds, for reasons that are fully explainable in terms of known acoustics.

That's a rather bold assertion. Fact is, that claim could be based on
other reasons entirely.

Anyway: Most good solid-state amps *should* sound the same. Why wouldn't they, if they are good solid state amps? Their job is, after all, the same: to transmit the signal uncolored, plus gain.

 

Has anyone bothered to ask a manufacturer, like Sony, whether there is a "burn in" time...if there is such a thing.

Personally, I think determining whether there is a "burn in" time by listening is not possible. Your ears can play tricks on you. For example, has anyone thought about that the amount of wax in your ear canal changes during the day? Then, there is the physics of sound, such as the air temperature and humidity. And external factors that have nothing to do with the equipment, such as the effects of oxidation on the cable terminals. The list can go on and on and on. My point being is that you will never be able to determine whether there is a "burn in" time by a listening test.

Anyways, I do think the voltage through a capacitor or transistor changes over a period of time. Sure, you can smell the components as they are being "burned in". Whether this affects the frequency response detectable by the human ear is another story.

 

July/August 2002 comparison of Denon AVR-5803, Yamaha RX-Z1, Integra DTR-7.2 p42: " Whether you're listening to stereo CDs or discrete multichannel sondtracks encoded in Dolby Digital or DTS, imaging quality is determined primarily by the program material, the speakers, and the speaker setup. Nonetheless, a receiver CAN help improve imaging with processing that provides additional spatial cues."

Right. Hook up a high-end pre-amp/amp combo to a great set of high-end speakers (stereo or surround). Then hook up a cheap Best Buy Sony etc. receiver to the SAME speakers, with the SAME speaker placement and match the levels. Then tell me what happened to the imaging and the soundstage and why everything sounds like it's full of mud.

By the way, I found this article absolutely USELESS. It seems I can choose between these receivers based solely on power requirements and features, because they all sound perfect. Which is a crock. I HAVE a Yamaha RX-V1, and I've HEARD the Z1 and the Denon, and THEY DON'T ALL SOUND THE SAME, although the V1 and the Z1 are very similar - whivch they should be, since they are almost identical.

Nope. I didn't match levels. However, everyone heard each piece at a number of different volumes, and everyone seemed to think the burned-in Sony 555es sounded the best no matter what level it was played at. I didn't tell anyone which player they were listening to, and I selected players and volumes at random. No one was really even sure how many players there WERE. (If you saw my equipment setup, you'd understand why.) All but one listener figured out there were three different players with three distinct sounds, and prefered the burned-in Sony.

Good solid-state amps DON'T sound the same, and WON'T until someone is capable of building an amp that PERFECTLY reproduces whatever is fed to it. And even then, only those PERFECT amps will sound identical. Everything else will add SOME coloration to the signal, and will have a diffent soundstage, imaging, depth ect. Especially at the level of the Denon, Yamaha, and Integra, which are not exactly "audiophile quality" equipment. (although they are excellent a/v receivers.)

Not true. What you and other "scientific" types can or can't hear is the most important thing, as far as I'm concerned. You guys think I'm unscientific, and you're correct. I don't NEED to be. I know what I hear. I am aware of what I hear, and that my hearing is different from day to day. Some days everthing sounds more "alike" to me, too. However, I think you (and other "scientific" types) are either listening to equipment with no transparency or else you can't hear higher frequencies. (And most people can't. ) As I noted earlier, one of my friends couldn't tell the difference between any of the SACD players (or a DVD player) However, four people COULD, and they all picked the same player I did (in an uncontrolled test). So EITHER we are all biased and suggestible, or we can hear something he can't.

There is NO WAY I could ever convince the guy who thought everything sounded the same that it DIDN'T. And I'd imagine if the guy cared enough about sound equipment to try to figure out how to explain it he'd claim the test was defective, and provide a lot of reasons WHY he was right, and that all the players really DID sound the same.

I addressed some of this in an earlier post. You are totallt correct that hearing varies. However, if you have two identical players, and one has 500+ hours and the other has about 20, and one sounds fairly sweet and the other is irritating and flat, and sounds like the other player did at FIRST, I think it's safe to assume that SOMETHING happened to the sound in those 500 hours. And I sure hope the same thing happens with the new player, or I'll be stuck with something that sounds kind of lousy.

 

This is convincing. Not many of us have the opportunity to compare to similar players in this manner.

I know that the sound of my system is far better than it was three months ago; that's when the last component change was made (DIY 99.999% silver interconnects). But I can't prove it to anyone. Does it bother me that I can't prove it - of course not. To me, it's not simply a collection of electronic and electromechanical compenents - it's my MUSIC SYSTEM.

Regards,
Geoff

 

Doesn't a car need to be "burned-in" also? Don't they recommend driving mellowly for the first 500 miles to break the engine in?

 

Top-of-the-line A/V receivers from Yamaha, Onkyo/Integra, and Denon are not exactly audiophile quality? Why not? Or to put the question another way, what qualifies a piece of gear as being of audiophile quality?

 

I have the Yamaha RX-V1, and I'm considering buying a second. It's an EXCELLENT A/V receiver, and sounds GREAT for movie soundtracks. The DSP is useful for CDs that sound lousy - they are at least listenable with DSP. However, for critical listening to music sources, it can't touch my McIntosh stereo setup. The Macs have a musicallity that the Yamaha does not have. Music sounds slightly veiled on the Yamaha in comparison to the Macs. Using just the Yamaha preamp section and running the preouts to the Macs, the sound improves a lot. But not as much as when the Yamaha is out of the system altogether. (I can't hear any real difference through my old Boston Acoustics A400s or my Klipsh kg5.5s, but the difference is obvious through Klipshorns. )

I love my MC7270 amps, and run them in fully-balanced bridged mode. They sound better bridged, and the output is 540 WPC. However, I've heard better solid-state amps from some of the more esoteric companies like Mark Levinson and Krell. Of course, they cost a lot more. And the new Mac tube amps are mind-bending at $6000 a pop. Anyway, I'd say the 7270s are audiophile quality, although some rich audiophiles might argue about it. I'd say the top-of-the-line A/V receivers from Yamaha, Onkyo/Integra, and Denon approach audiophile quality (they probably ARE audiophile quality for RECEIVERS) but they aren't quite in the same class as really good separates.

 

I think top of the line Receivers from Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer and Onkyo do reach audiophile standards.
Stereophile magazine (the bible of Audiophiles for years) has given very postive reviews to these brands for years.
The Denon 5802 is considered a world class product.

Though some people still prefer seperates from more obscure brands. It all comes down to what you can afford and how your ears hear music.

 

Thanks. That's reasonable. If I heard your rig, I might even agree with you. Here's my point, though. It's one thing to say that high-quality A/V receivers aren't quite in the same class as really good separates. But it's a different thing to say that high quality A/V receivers are not audiophile quality. For me, audiophile quality means worth listening to seriously. An audiophile rig gets enough right, and does few enough things wrong, that one can hear most of the subtleties, nuances, scale, dynamics, and soundstage of the original recording. The tonality will be right, even if there are little deficiencies in the frequency extremes. There'll be enough resolution to delineate instrumental/vocal strands, and enough coherence to make the sound integrated.

Some separates probably do these things better than most (or maybe all) A/V receivers. But that doesn't mean that high-quality A/V receivers aren't worth mentioning in the same breath as the word "audiophile." I spent almost two hours today auditioning speakers with a 300 wpc Conrad-Johnson amp, an Adcom pre-amp, and an Adcom CD player. Maybe the Adcoms were the limiting factor, but to my ears the separates, while excellent, did not eclipse my Denon 3802. Of course, I'd need a head-to-head comparison to know for sure, but that also suggests the differences, if significant, were nevertheless comparatively minor, and nothing on the order of differences between the speakers I auditioned. (KEF Reference 201, Acoustic Energy mini-monitors (didn't get the model numbers, but they go for 2K a pair), Verity Tamino (?), KEF Coda 70).

And yes, I think solid-state components can offer audiophile quality sound!

 

Yes, but that's a *mechanical* system.

 

[

I'm having trouble getting quotes to work on your post, so I'll confine my response to one issue: what was said in the receiver review in S&V.

According to your own quoting, the author said that what you hear is *primarily* determined by speakers and room interactions. This is a well-considered statement -- and it's not quite what you originally claimed was said in the review, when you accused the author of writing that what you hear is *just* a function of speakers, their placement, and DSP. What the author wrote is fully in accord with what any acoustician, high-end home audio consultant, or even most audiophiles (except the tweako fringe), will tell you : of all components, speakers *do* have the greatest role in determining your system's sound (because speakers tend to be the least 'neutral' of components) and the interaction of speakers with room *will* be the most crucial 'system' to consider.

 

Someone told me a long time ago that the equipment that is the most important in influencing sound is the equipment that changes one signal type to another signal type. , such as mechanical to electrical and vice versa.

This occurs in mainly 2 places, in the phono pickup, and the speakers...not so much for a cd player, although the DAC may have an effect. Thus, it is in these equipment where you should invest most of your money (or obtain the best equipment available for the money). If you don't like the way your system sounds, replace either the phono pickup (cd player) and/or the speakers. Speaker placement and room acoustics are secondary considerations.

 

The speakers do set the tone of your system. Because speakers come in so many sizes and variances, they have the greatest influence in an audio system.
I would say even if you use the same electronics but change out the speakers...the sound would change slightly with each speaker you listen to. That's pretty influential in a system.

I know my small speaker /sub set-up would be completely different if I changed to 2 large speakers instead.