Raysonic 168

i have heard the 168 in my system, during a short break-in process of about 48 hours. according to a raysonic dealer, the player opens up and becomes more resolving as it approaches 168 hours, which, supposedly is a reasonable amount of time to allow before judging its presentation. from what i heard, there is no tube bloom and has the sound of a typical burr brown dac chip. it was not irritating, but was not very smooth either.

in many respects i prefer the musical fidelity a5. if the audio dealer is accurate in his appraisal, i suspect that this player may be unforgiving and very detailed.

hi eric:

i stand by my statements. i did not slam the 168, and yes i prefer a darker sound. this is old news. i also mentioned that the player had 48 hours of play. all statements are factual. when i spoke to you i did not mention my brief experience with this player. and at this point, pending further break in and tube change , i prefer the a5. all facts. what's the problem ?

the a5 is not dark sounding in my opinion. it is very balanced in frequency response. it seems puurer sounding than the raysonic. note, the raysonic is not fully broken in and the eh tubes have yet to be replaced.

what impresses me about the a5 is that it doesn't seem to exaggerate any region of the frequency range. in addition since it is close to neutrality, i can "color" the sound with another component to approach the voicing i prefer.