Certain DAC's .Certain Tubes.Certain speakers. All this to add a bit oif warmth and tame a bright treble in a lot of thin recordings. The easist and cheapest way is just add Tone controls or Equalizer to a neutral accurate system This way you can add a bit of warmth and tame the high frequencies of those recordings that need it,but not have to add it to recordings that do not need it.A warm system without any adjustment will add it to those recordings that don't need it as well as those that do.
Many people felt otherwise, which I guess is what helps makes the world of Hi-Fi equipment so personal.
My CDP certainly doesn´t choose between those criteria. Not bright, not warm, it sounds how I want it to sound.
Your equipment may be perfectly balanced but the majority of the recordings played back on it will not be. Most recording are flawed in some way.At least one in five,i would say, tend to be a slightly bright and thin.They will still sound bright and thin in a well balanced system.Some recordings have recessed vocals or are a bit boomy.A well balanced system will not improve that sound. The argument is that people just want to hear what is on the recording,faults and all,but that sound is just the way the studio engineer on the day or the person chosen to master the recording made it sound.It is not necessarily the way the group wanted it ,or the way it sounded originally in the studio.Nor does it necessarily have the best sound it could of had..So tweeking tone control sometimes to bring the recording back to 'neutral' is not always a bad thing Adjusting tone controls is a also a far cheaper way of achieving the sound you are after.Rather than spending thousands on DAC's,carts,Tube amps, that can slightly alter the sound to reflect the sound you want,when you have that ability to achieve that sound by adjusting a few knobs or sliders on your amplifier..Just look how great it is to have Tone adjustment on certain speakers such as the JBL L100..So why not on amps?
Perhaps reconstructing and adding harmonics (up to the 32th level) in the D/A conversion will meet your criteria? Waversa has developed a process to do that (WAP en WAP/X). They have CDP’s and DAC’s. It allows you to select the level of “warmth”. Reviews are very positive, but it is still quite a new kid on the block.
I equate warmth with a fullness and depth of sound. I also believe that tubes provide a inherent amount of “ringing” that contributes to this effect that also “flushes out” harmonics but doesn’t effect or cover up resolution in any way. It’s a more lifelike sound specially on female vocals. The combination of tubes harmonic depth coupled with the powerful drive of solid state can be a hard presentation to surpass. If I were in the market I’d certainly want to add a tube stage most likely the preamp.
I tried one of these some years ago, along with a few others. I would never describe the sound as warm, in fact my partner at the time said it gave her a headache ! I remember it being ultra detailed but far from relaxing.
Just out of curiosity, were there any standalone DAC's that used the TDA 1541 /1543 chips? I've seen inexpensive DAC boards from Asia that claim to sound like the TDA 1541 /1543 set, but they use something different.
This is the joy of audio, three people, three different opinions! I personally wouldn't call it warm and in an all Linn system, especially after going active I and a few people who heard it alongside me could listen to it continuously for hours on end without headaches or any listening fatigue. BUT the room the system was installed in didn't harden the sound. A CD player would have to be very badly coloured to have more affect than rooms can have.
I find that the majority of the recordings I listen to have nothing objectionable sounding about them and besides who would I be to decide that a recording is flawed or doesn't have the right balance. The album I take home in what ever format I choose to listen to it on is exactly, better or worse what the artist and the producers intended. There's nothing about my system that can improve or take away from the recording's sound except to convincingly portray what's contained in the record's groove or the CD's pits. My amp has tone controls but I've never turned them on other than to get a feel for their actions on the music. I find they induce colorations that mask the artist or producer's intent not to mention the uncomfortable effect they have on imaging and sound staging. I think the whole idea of being able to "tweek" the sound is just a panacea and has no beneficial outcome on what you're supposed to hear.
The Lector digital gear does sound great I've heard the big brother of this player, 0.7 maybe, and also their Dac/Transport combo at my dealer and both were super impressive. Not warmed up but naturally warm sounding.
So if all you have to do is roll off the treble to make an "audiophile" player --- then it could be accomplished by buying one of those $1000 audiophile RCA cables that are like 80pf / ft, and hooking them up to a so-so player! <hoping the emogees help>
One thing I have learned from this thread is there are a ton of nice players out there that were completely off my radar!
I think you are the exact right person to decide that a recording is flawed or doesn't have the right balance, because you're the listener and it's your system. I mean, you don't get to decide how the album is mixed and mastered obviously, but in terms of how your system sounds it's all you. If perfect neutrality and "tell it like it is" was the correct way to do it, we'd all have the same system. But it's not. That said, if one's goal is that kind of system they can do it. And if one's goal is to add more color, because that's the sound they like, they should be all means do that. At the end of the day all that matters is how much you enjoy listening.
My Marantz Cd5000 is pretty warm sounding, it uses the TDA1549t. Honestly a stock Playstation 1001 model sounds quite warm to me haha!
I agree - in terms of balance, yes a room will have a very big say in the sound. But it won't replace what's not present in the equipment. I actually tried the Karik, Numeric and Ikemi ( local Linn dealer ). The Ikemi dug out a lot more detail than the other two - no surprises it was a later model. I also tried a top Marantz and a Wadia ( 302 ). Of those the Wadia was the most real sounding. But they all went back, no real advance on what I had at the time. It wasn't until years later that I managed to get the fleshed out believable 3D sound with Lampizator DAC and then Audionote. Until that point digital was a poor second to analogue to my ears.
I know what you're trying to say, but reiteration doesn't make it seem any more correct (to me at least). Digital is not "mischaracterised" as less listenable, it is less listenable. Here's an experiment for you to demonstrate: play the opening finger-cymbal-like percussion at the start of 'Final Sunset' from Eno's Music For Films on vinyl (or even on a prerecorded cassette) and then play it on any CD issue of this that you like (e.g., the 1st Editions EG CD, the DSD-encoded reissue, etc) and notice how the analogue sounds like a real instrument with shimmer and decay while the digital sounds like a dull clunk. Here's another one to try: play 'No Self Control' from PG3 on vinyl (the inferior Geffen, if you like) and then play it on any digital format of your choice (e.g., CD, remastered CD, SACD, the 'high-res' downloads that came as codes with the LPs) and tell me that the living-and-breathing musicality and explosive dynamics of the vinyl are present on any digital version or that this is because the record has "...warmth, smoothness", or that it "throws-out" "information". If you find digital palatable then I honestly could not be happier for you -- not finding it so has been a long, ongoing, frustrating, and expensive process for me, but I think the "mischaracterisation" that you cite is from the digital camp re: vinyl, not the other way around. I have "...definitely played a record vs a high res file through the same system" and the latter sounded like junk in comparison, whether it was Genesis, Peter Gabriel, The Clash, or Supertramp. Frankly, if you need to hear "...a high-resolution file played through a good tube amplifier" to appreciate that file's merits, then it's unlikely that you'll ever recognise the false equivalence here...
That Denon model was my first CD player and indeed had a "warm" or at least smooth sound. However, I wouldn't call it reliable, it only lasted maybe 3 years. About 15 years later, I went back to Denon for the 3910 DVD/CD/SACD player which also featured a warmer sound which I think is inherent to most Denon players but again, the player crapped out after only about 4 years of use. It's my understanding the Achilles heel with higher end Denon players is the optical laser reader which seems to have a comparatively short shelf life. I also used Pioneer laserdisc players (CLD-704 and CLD-99 Elite) that I used as my primary CD players through the early 2000's that seemed to have a more balanced, neutral tone. On the other hand, I had a lower end Sony CD player that had a noticeably "harsher" more digital sound yet worked like a tank the entire time I had it. In fact, after going full Oppo a decade ago, that Sony is packed away in the garage somewhere.
Maybe the Eno vinyl just had a better master than the version that seems to have been used as a basis for the CD versions?
