I tried several times plugging and unplugging the Oppo to no avail.
Now here’s a real queer problem:
After removing and re-plugging the coax cable between the DAC and the transport: NO SOUND! Tried pulling and returning power cords and removing and replugging cable: still NO SOUND! Only when I added an optical cable in tandem with the coax did I get any sound. Sound on both cables. The sound quality is fine. This happened on two occasions. Anybody have any idea what’s going on???
Shadorne, you’re a little slower than usual today. I just told you the 200 hours is what Oppo was declaring 4 years ago. I'll ask you again, are so gullible that you believe their electronics have no break in? No need to respond, it’s a rhetorical question.
@willemj - to be honest, I once thought as you did now, but that was 19 years ago. The idea that cables do not make any difference and bit perfect is bitperfect and “it’s just data” and speakers/components do not require burn in after a few hours is generally a mindset for people who are just starting out in this hobbie. After 19 plus years of listening and working with components, I completely disagree with pretty much everything you state. I’m sure many people believe as you do. However, over time you may start to realize that all these things we are talking about actually have merit (even though we cannot provide you measured “proof” that they exist). You might get there, but then again you may never change your mind. Keep an open mind!
Ok so now faced with evidence directly from Oppo contradicting your statement, you run off on a tangent from break-in to wires, fuses and directionality?
I have received the Cambridge transport in question, and it’s a big improvement, right out of the box, on the Oppo 105D I’ve been using as a transport. We’ll see if it gets even better as time goes on. Bad news: As I was attempting to make an A-B comparison between the two machines, the Oppo crapped out; wouldn’t power up, leaving one of my best sounding CDs locked inside. Luckily, the Cambridge does handle SACD’s, so I can still play them, although not at the higher bit-rate. One complaint about the machine’s remote: you can’t access different tracks easily, as there’s no numbers to push. Very primitive for a device dedicated only to CD’s. They save money and lose space by making the remote operate three separate devices. Chintzy!
Shadorne, obviously you’re following the wrong sheep. Do you actually believe that Oppo statement? Give me a break. Boy are you gullible! When I bought my Oppo 102 4 years ago they claimed 200 hours. Claiming no break in at all seems dubious at best. New manufacturing processes? Are they cryo’ing their stuff? Are the Chinese suddenly ahead of us in the materials science race? Oh, please! If anything the break in times for capacitors is higher than ever, for the good ones anyway. How does 500 hours grab you? And if you'd been paying attention to all the aftermarket fuse threads you would know fuses THEMSELVES take 200 hours to break in. Helloo! Obviously Oppo is testing out some new bizarre marketing ploy aimed at naive gullible audiophiles who are AFRAID of break in and directionality and things of that nature. 😱 That’s akin to some cable company and fuse companies stating they do not believe there is such a thing as directionality. Of course, you guys swallow it up, pile it up higher, higher. 😀
""Break in" is a process of accelerated aging for mechanical, electronic, and acoustic components. By exercising the components for a period of time, early component failures can be weeded out and parts can settle down to their final working mode. With advances in manufacturing processes and quality control, break in is no longer universally prescribed. Many manufacturers, including OPPO Digital, recommend that customers use the products normally and maintain that the products will achieve optimal performance either out of the box or after a very short period of use."
Do you just make up whatever nonsense that helps to support your sales agenda? (Obviously most of your Machina stuff does absolutely nothing so of course you don't support blind tests that might expose this)
willemj Glad you are not in charge of quality control for critical components. You had better stay with your innocous magical boxes.
Huh? Nobody in the high end who has any credibility uses blind testing. Except maybe to attract people that actually believe such fairly tales. Good comeback, though (cough, cough). I actually have been in charge of quality control for critical components so I think I should know. I’m talking about critical to the military and air traffic, you know, where they have *standards* for testing, not some fluffy audiophile component. 🐩
I'm not saying Blind Tests or any tests are not useful sometimes. Im
pointing out the fallacy that blind tests or ANY tests can prove an
argument. A test is only one data point. If the results are negative or
inconclusive it might be due to errors in the test. Therefore when
naysayers throw up Blind Tests as a way to prove something or another
it's a logical fallacy. Same for any tests, you have to take all the
tests and their results and analyze them.
I agree completely. Another fallacy is when people say, "He flunked a blind test." The devices under test in an abx blind evaluation don't include the listener. The test is designed to judge components. If a listener claims to hear differences between two components when sighted, but can't identify the difference in a blind test, we can only conclude that the difference - if it exists - was not detected by that listener during that blind test. The result does not prove that there is no difference.
cleeds geoffkait ... The dreaded Double Blind Test raises its ugly head! 👹 The threat of double blind testing has done a great deal of harm to the hobby by preventing progress and suppressing innovation and creativity. Double Blind Testing is the favorite weapon of died in the wool pseudo skeptics and knuckle dragging naysayer ...
That sounds a little bit harsh to me. I think double blind testing, such as abx testing, is a very useful tool. But it is just one tool. Oddly, many of its advocates insist that it is the only reliable way to evaluate audio components, and now williemj narrows that even further, proclaiming that "comparing a product over the course of many hours is an invalid methodology."
Double blind testing has its place in many fields, including audio. But for actual audiophiles, I think it is of limited value. If it is applied with a strict time constraint, I think its value is near nil.
>>>>I suspect you misunderstood my post. I'm not saying Blind Tests or any tests are not useful sometimes. Im pointing out the fallacy that blind tests or ANY tests can prove an argument. A test is only one data point. If the results are negative or inconclusive it might be due to errors in the test. Therefore when naysayers throw up Blind Tests as a way to prove something or another it's a logical fallacy. Same for any tests, you have to take all the tests and their results and analyze them.
Audio memory is a debatable subject IMHO. I don't believe for a second that most experienced audiophiles do not (rpt not) have excellent audio memory. I know I do. I do think that tracking the sound over long periods of time is made rather difficult however due to the influences of a large number of variables including but not limited to weather, time of day, day of week, how many other changes are made to the system or system configuration. I kind of doubt many audiophiles actually keep logs of their changes/additions/deletions, whatever. So in that respect their memory might get a little bit confused or forgetful.
There is a misunderstanding, but perhaps I did not express myself clearly. What I meant is that if something needs to be burned in over a few days or a few weeks, it is impossible to compare the ex post to the ex ante state. You cannot go back in time to when the very same unit was not burned in. Human audio memory is just not good enough to remember exactly what you heard days or weeks ago.
@cleeds I agree completely. Changes are subtle and systems are complex. You have to know a system well before you'll be able to hear any changes. From there it takes more time to decide exactly what those changes are and whether they are an improvement or not. It takes time, the mental space to listen and be focused and a lot of different music to ascertain subtle changes in a system.
... The dreaded Double Blind Test raises its ugly head! 👹
The threat of double blind testing has done a great deal of harm to the
hobby by preventing progress and suppressing innovation and creativity.
Double Blind Testing is the favorite weapon of died in the wool pseudo
skeptics and knuckle dragging naysayer ...
That sounds a little bit harsh to me. I think double blind testing, such as abx testing, is a very useful tool. But it is just one tool. Oddly, many of its advocates insist that it is the only reliable way to evaluate audio components, and now williemj narrows that even further, proclaiming that "comparing a product over the course of many hours is an invalid methodology."
Double blind testing has its place in many fields, including audio. But for actual audiophiles, I think it is of limited value. If it is applied with a strict time constraint, I think its value is near nil.
I would give a hour or two to warm up and you are good to go. If a solid state device drifts audibly in performance over 50+ hours then it will probably never stabilize reliably and you may as well return the faulty device.
Anything that changes the risetimes and falltimes of the output of the transport (i.e., the amount of time it takes the signal to change between its two voltage states), or that changes the amplitude or spectral characteristics of electrical noise that is riding on that signal, or that affects distortion of the signal waveform that will inevitably be present to at least a small degree, could conceivably end up affecting timing jitter at the point of D/A conversion in the separate DAC component. The degree of any such effects, if present at all, would certainly depend on the specific designs of the two components, and perhaps also on how they are interconnected and on how AC power is distributed to them (which in turn can affect ground loop-related noise).
But is it possible that breakin of the electrical and/or mechanical components in a transport could affect these characteristics of the output signal to an audibly significant degree? I don’t think any of us can answer that definitively, but I also don’t think the possibility can be categorically ruled out. On the other hand, though, it certainly seems possible, and in fact likely, that **some** reported findings of breakin phenomena are due to unrelated changes in the system (such as ongoing aging or breakin of other components), or in its environment (such as changes in AC line voltage or noise characteristics, or in ambient temperature). Not to mention the possibility of inaccurate recollection.
Personally, I don’t use a separate transport so I can’t speak from experience. And in any event I would by no means extrapolate experience with a particular transport/DAC combination to other designs and other systems. But given the foregoing my expectation is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle ground between the opposing points of view that tend to be expressed on such matters. In other words, IMO the answer to the original question is a definite "maybe." :-)
Oh, no, not again! The dreaded Double Blind Test raises its ugly head! 👹 The threat of double blind testing has done a great deal of harm to the hobby by preventing progress and suppressing innovation and creativity. Double Blind Testing is the favorite weapon of died in the wool pseudo skeptics and knuckle dragging naysayers, as if they automatically win any argument by declaring, "But it can’t pass a double blind test!" Ironically, the knuckledraggers never actually do double blind testing themselves. That’s for someone else to do. In fact the naysayers don't even know how to conduct a proper double blind test.
... comparing a product
over the course of many hours is an invalid methodology, of course,
because given humans’ short audio memory you cannot do a direct
comparison over time, and time travel is yet to be invented. So what you
would need to do is a
double blind level matched comparison
...
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. You can't logically on the one hand insist on a
double blind level matched evaluation, and then deny a listener the opportunity to listen at his leisure. Either your testing methodology is capable of producing a valid result independent of listener bias and other testing errors, or it isn't. Your position sounds like you have no faith in the testing protocol you so tirelessly promote here. Perhaps you should search for a test in which you can place more confidence.
Burn in is just one of these myths. For speakers a few hours may be all that is needed, but speakers are mechanical components. In the case of electronics there is no theory that could explain why they would need break in. If you want to test the hypothesis, comparing a product over the course of many hours is an invalid methodology, of course, because given humans’ short audio memory you cannot do a direct comparison over time, and time travel is yet to be invented. So what you would need to do is a double blind level matched comparison between a used item and one that is still in virgin state. Guess what? In the case of a disc transport, it is my considered view that there are no sonic differences between them anyway. Their output is bitperfect and bitperfect is bitperfect. Anyone who wants to argue that they do have a sonic difference should show that bit by bit the files are actually not the same. And that, of course, is the beauty of the digital revolution. Bits are bits, and that is good news, because the numbers in our bank accounts do not suddenly change because the bank uses a new hard drive that still has to be burned in.
What exactly is happening during this "burn in" time with cables, amps etc etc? And no, this isn't a "bait" question, I'm really wondering.
I'll preface this by stating I'm certainly no expert regarding answering burn in questions, however, to my understanding it applies most to capacitors, so that they "form" correctly (or optimally). In the case of my speakers (Golden Ear T Ref), Sandy uses the term "heal" in the case of the crossovers, which include caps. Personally, I'm not a big believer in burn in of any kind when it comes to cables.
I got reply from Cambridge Audio customer servise that it needs about 50 hours break-in time but my CXC was very good from the beginning and over time didn't notice any change .
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
