2. misc-audio
  3. 149982-118236

What differences should I be hearing as my new system breaks in?

I recently upgraded and replaced my entire stereo system. I have been using the new components a few weeks now, maybe two or more hours per day. I’ve been reading here the components have various burn in times. My question is, what differences or improvements should you expect to hear as the system breaks in over time. All the components were purchased brand new except the power conditioner. I understand different components take longer to burn in than others. From what I’ve read, on the low end, the cartridge should take maybe twenty or so hours to break in. On the high end the speakers might need up to three or four hundred hours.

My new system consists of a pair of Magico A3 speakers, a Luxman L-507uX MkII integrated amplifier, a VPI Classic 2 SE turntable with an Ortofon 2M Black cartridge, and a Marantz SA 8005 CD player (which I have had for a few years). I also acquired a Shunyata Hydra Denali 6000/S power conditioner, used, which everything is plugged into. Wiring consists of Audioquest Rocket 88’s to the speakers, VPI’s house brand cable from the turntable to the amp, and an Audioquest Colorado cable fom the CD player to the amp. The Shunyata Hydra Denali uses a Shunyata Venom power cord to the wall outlet.

It’s been interesting so far. Thus far some records or CD’s sound very different form what I’ve been used to listening to over the years. I had my old Dahlquist DQ-10’s, Bang and Olufsen Beogram 4002 turntable and Phase Linear 400/4000 amp/preamp combination since the late seventies.

Some sparsely orchestrated Joni Mitchell sounded wonderful and beautifully articulated. Art Blakey’s Jazz Messengers with Wayne Shorter, playing as I write, really shows off Mr. Shorter’s sax playing in full bodied way I’d not heard before. I really enjoyed Shostakovichs 5th symphony, where I’ve usually not been able to warm up to classical music. Stuff I’ve heard a million times before and was a little bored with has come alive for some reason. The Grateful Dead’s "Wake of the Storm" sounded inexplicably different and better for some reason. Bill Wyman’s bass intro into on the Stone’s "Live With Me" off Let It Bleed was a revelation. I’d never heard it before like that, although I’ve listened to Let It Bleed hundreds of times as the daily played soundtrack of my senior year in high school. Oddly, Let It Bleed sounded poor, particularly Mick’s vocals, at the speakers demo, to which I had taken it. Go figure.

On the other hand Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon on Mobile Fidelity sounded like a muddy mess and super crackly to boot, although an almost brand new pressing. Next up is a record cleaning machine to see if that makes any difference with well cared for records like the Pink Floyd recording. Paul Desmond’s alto sax practically jumped out of the speakers on the Brubeck’s Take Five album, which had previously left me non-plussed, but now was quite enjoyable. I’ll have to try a little more West Coast jazz. I’ll stop rambling right now.

Anyway, I’m curious how much better things may get and what may change, as the system gets burned in properly. I’d appreciate any input about what to expect from those of you who have some experience in this area. There’s been mostly nice surprises so far. Thanks,

Mike
skyscraper

Showing 10 responses by glupson

glupson
7,842 posts
 
skyscraper,

DSD material, under that name, is sold as downloads. However, DSD material on the purchased disc is SACD. Somewhere on each SACD you will see written DSD. The idea of DSD predates current widely-accepted music file download era so it came "packaged" on the disc (SACD) which provided a few more "advantages" (no copying). Since then, DSD files proliferated while SACDs continued existing. In general, SACD players play SACDs and some of them, including yours, will play DSD files via digital input (yours will NOT do it via front panel USB).

There is a couple of consumer-level disc players that will play DSD files from a disc that is not SACD but those are relatively rare and probably not what you will be looking for. For them, you could burn a data disc (not SACD) with DSD files and they would play.

It does get confusing but, in short, you have a set up to do, more or less, all that there is. Records, CDs, SACDs, digital files of many kinds. You are good to go, it seems.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
skyscraper,

DSD is closely associated with SACDs. For simplicity, you could think of it as SACD equals DSD although it is not quite like that. Your Marantz player will play/decode SACDs just like it plays/decodes CDs and you have nothing to think about there. DSD, as the name of the file (it is actually .dsf, or .dff, but do not bother yourself with that) becomes important if you have such a file and you want to play it through some DAC (digital-analog converter). If you ripped a SACD and wanted to play it as a file, and not as a physical rotating disc, you would end up with DSD form of it.

Your Marantz SA-8005 can actually be used as a DAC only and it does support/play DSD files (2.8 and 5.6 MHz). It opens a world of possibilities for trying and time wasting. To do that, you need a DSD file and to figure out how to do it which should not be too complicated. If you are willing to dip your toes in that, I believe that those two albums we have been talking about exist as DSD downloads on some of the "high definition" websites/stores.

If you have not heard your Marantz play SACDs yet, I would like to urge you to try it soon. It is usually quite a difference from a regular CD. You will have to decide if it is big and worthwhile difference, but it is definitely worth trying.

You have to make sure it is set to read SACD layer of the disc. Some players can be adjusted to preference so yours may be a regular CD layer which would be missing a point. Page 30 of the manual explains what to do...

https://www.us.marantz.com/us/products/pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=hificomponents&ProductId=...

glupson
7,842 posts
 
skyscraper,

I forgot to mention that there are at least two versions of Let It Bleed SACD. Second one is Japanese SHM something (it will certainly brag about it on the packaging and wherever you see it for sale). First one is the "original" one from 2002 in Digipak/gatefold and that was the one I had on my mind, if for no other reason but because it is likely cheaper. Gurus on the Internet have different preferences but it seems that more people prefer that 2002 Digipak version. I have never heard SHM version but this "original" one is quite good, I think. Just make sure it is a SACD and not only DSD. Later in the cycle, they started printing same CDs with signs DSD but those were not SACDs. They came in regular plastic boxes.

Here are a few observations from others...

https://www.sa-cd.net/showreviews/6498

I know, it has nothing to do with burn-in, but you may find it useful anyway.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
It is not about burn-in, but you may want to try Let It Bleed SACD for comparisons of something you are familiar with. Once upon a time, I read an article that band members bought SACD players and were positively surprised by the sound of those albums. I think it was in an interview with Keith Richards, but I may be wrong.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
sleepwalker65,

Ouch: That was a low blow!

geoffkait,

"glubson is my opposite."
Thanks for the compliment.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
I have never been in a motorcycle accident. I have seen a few, though.

Sorry skyscraper, I did not mean to hijack your thread.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
"As I said, just going by what you say, you don’t know much about anything."
It takes one to know one.

At least I do not build my statements on inaccurate facts I invent to support them.

Instead of trying to divert every thread into three or four topics you feel would make you appear really cool, try to be helpful at times.

Dark Side of the Moon SACD is worth recommending to skyscraper. He will decide if it was worth buying it, not some website of unknown reliability.


glupson
7,842 posts
 
"There’s a perfectly valid reason why the 2003 SACD Hybrid Dark Side of the Moon is the cheapest."
2003 SACD Hybrid Dark Side of the Moon is not the cheapest version of it. In fact, it is quite expensive. Let’s see if you can guess why.🤔

I was referring to those two particular copies as being the cheapest ones on the market at this point. At least on the quickly accessible market on the Internet. Even then, they are expensive for a used CDs.

As a side note, "loudness-war" database is in practice as relevant as geoffkait’s obsession with it. It is less reliable than that, though. You can always be sure that he will try to quote it. Maybe the answer to problems with yogurt on a hot day can be traced to it, too.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
It seems these are the cheapest these days so do not wait for too long.

https://www.discogs.com/sell/item/973918554

https://www.ebay.com/itm/PINK-FLOYD-THE-DARK-SIDE-OF-THE-MOON-SACD-HYBRID-CD-2003-RARE/401816981992?...
glupson
7,842 posts
 
If I am reading it right, more or less everything but Pink Floyd and one song by The Rolling Stones sounds better than before. Is it the material and not the equipment that is failing on those two? Trying to put it together with your original post title, no break/burn-in may fix it.

Your CD player may be relatively the weakest link but get Pink Floyd SACD ($15-20, used) and check what difference it may make. If nothing else, it is already considered burned/broken-in.

All in all, it seems that your upgrade of the system was successful. I remember when you were planning, it is nice to read it has worked.
More to discover