How I tamed digital glare.


For months I have been trying to eliminate digital glare in the my system, which showed up most noticably in the upper middle frequency vocal range, especially female vocals. I tamed some by replacing the stock fuse in my dac with HifiTuning Supreme Cu on the sage advice of Chris Van Haus of VH Audio, resulting in a significant improvement in tonal density, detail and clarity. So far, so good. Today I lightly dusted the laser lens in my CEC transport with a microfiber cloth and was astonished to discover a substantial improvement! And the laser lens and drive compartment appeared clean to begin with (in a smoke free environment). I tried cleaning contacts, swapping power cords and interconnects, rolling the tube in my MHDT dac, and so forth, but this simple protocol was more effective than any of those experiments. I suppose results may vary as every system is unique, but for me this simple tweak was revelatory: greater clarity and a signifcant reducton of hash. Wish I had thought of tt in the beginning; it would have saved me considerable time and frustration.
pmboyd

Showing 9 responses by nonoise

tom8999, I can’t take full credit as others here who have gone before me have praised the MC-0.5. Only after awhile, when the dust has settled and folk like lowrider57 gave his impressions, that I thought I’d try it out.
This stuff is the real deal.

All the best,
Nonoise

Wow, my last post of "+1" for two previous posts (one which is still up) was deleted. It didn't violate any rules and yet.....

Time for the kids to eat at their own table.

All the best,
Nonoise
Talk about projection. No one is doing what you accuse them of. No one said "perfect sound forever." 

The only embracing done is by those who dislike an opposing view. The premises drawn are just a straw man argument meant to deflect by attributing views and stands that no one proffered.

My CDP may make a mistake, or miss step, now and again but is it big enough to hear? Does it detract from the enjoyment. No, to both questions. 

Now, compare that to computer audio where there's so much networking involved and any small change in software and/or hardware can and will elicit an equally large change, for better or worse, in the resultant sound. There's still lots to work out and it's evident by the reviews and anecdotal evidence of those who've tried out better transports and came away with the opinion that's it's just as good, or better, than lots of the high end, expensive computer rigs out there.

This hobby is based on subjective listening and evaluation and to unequivocally state that one can't or shouldn't hear what they're hearing is just, plain, silly.

All the best,
Nonoise
I believe there has to be a "perfect storm" of sorts for everything that can go wrong does. And when it does, just get another and better made CDP.  What I hear from my Marantz SA15S2b is nothing to sneeze at. It's some of the most sublime music I've heard.

Audio shows that use computer or streaming audio never won me over. It all sounded like really good to just okay FM. It spanned the gamut from edgy and shrill to milquetoast. Successfully getting music to play seemed to be the great accomplishment, not the quality.

It's kind of like you too can be your own DJ/radio host and tinker with all the settings and lose the forest for the trees with the forest being the music and the enjoyment you get and the trees that distract you being the hardware.

I'm just too old skool as for me it's plop it and play it.

The only computer rig that floored me was an MSB demo that turned out to be their CD player playing in their system. Vince Galbo just smiled when he told me after I said it was the best computer audio I've heard.

With new CD sleds out there like the Blue Tiger, CD is far from dead. They claim they can get more data in a more secure way to pass it down/out to the DAC. We don't have to rely on older tech and a diminishing supply of good quality sleds. 

All the best,
Nonoise
I think a lot of the negative talk about CDPs and their susceptibility to fail at any and every turn to correctly read the data is borne out of some very well done advertising by the audio computer industry. 

Just because it can misread doesn't mean it will misread. There's so much built into it that compensates for errors as well as the fact that most are very well made, that it all comes down to trying to prove a negative. 

Anyone can pipe up and ask how sure you are that it's not misreading the data? That's just trolling for trolling's sake. All of this is dancing on the head of an already crowded pin.

All the best,
Nonoise
tom8999, Looking forward to hearing back from you on this. It was always that last bit of glare that eluded me until I got the MC-0.5.

I hope it works as well for you as it did for me.

All the best,
Nonoise
There's more to life than this silly hobby and if other facets of life spill into it, that can be a good thing.
Try the High Fidelity MC-0.5 power conditioner. I had a bit of glare in the upper mids on strong female vocals, highs, when the volume is increased, piano key strikes, and horns. Fuses are a great way to start but you’ll reap bigger benefits with the MC-0.5.
 I kid you not.

The best price, if still available, is gained from calling direct and asking about any B-stock availability, which are 40% off retail.


All the best,
Nonoise