Bushmaster DAC burn-in

[SteveW]

Until last night I was probably going through my cd's just to hear the differences that the BM has made to the way I hear them. All that greater detail/ soundstage malarky.
Then amongst the pile I dug out The Trinity Sessions by the Cowboy Junkies. Aha I thought... an old hifi testing standard. In fact I recalled a magazine many years ago claiming to use 'Mining for Gold' as the way of testing your systems resolution ( if you can hear the foot taps on the stage creating a deep rhythm at the start. Well.. Because I'm domestically restricted to small stand mounts, I've never really had the bass resolution to hear this properly.. Until last night of course. The little Harbeths really can dig deep. And then I forgot all about listening to detail as I began to realise actually how good the music on this album really is.. Track after track.
Now then... I only really have got to enjoy this music because I trusted what people on this forum were saying about a bit of kit. This came about because Stan has the tenacity to keep developing dac's that do not get progressively more expensive with time by wrapping up his products in hype/ marketing/ fancy cases/ false claims.
I also trust forum members (ok not all of them!) in reviewing the effect of cables and power supplies. All about trust.
If it doesn't work out .. Stuff can always be sold on.

[DSJR]

You are aware that according to a certain very vociferous sales director, little speakers with bass are hideously distorted, don't go loud and the bass blurs the midrange. He once cited the Harbeth P3 bass unit as such a driver "What a silly bunt...."

[jandl100]

You are aware that according to a certain very vociferous sales director, little speakers with bass are hideously distorted, don't go loud and the bass blurs the midrange. He once cited the Harbeth P3 bass unit as such a driver "What a silly bunt...."

Yup, appropriately fed, Harbeths, even quite small ones, have astonishingly deep, controlled and vibrant bass.
Sounds like SteveW's Harbies are being appropriately fed at last!

[RoboCopper]

After being in HiFi for about 30years, the "best" sound I heard so far was from heavily modified old tiny Proac Tabletts, on heavily expensive Audio Note electronics in normal size room!

Ok there was no bass in real sense, or highs, but the sound was so natural and live, organic, detailed and musical. You would just listen to music, you could hear everything on cd, it was not hifi. Music, music, music. I was there with performers. Deep bass was there, although tiny, but voices and mids (more important things for me) were much bigger than e.g. Willsons (obviously Proacs not balanced, but I liked it)

Bear in mind I heard all sorts of systems, with excellent bass or stage or this or that, but in the system from above, naturalness and music took precedence.

It is not all about bass, at least for me that is.

[MartinT]

Listening to piano in different venues will still train you in the sound of a real piano. The brain does a remarkable job of integrating all the experiences to build a sound-picture of the the real thing. For instance, one aspect of a piano is that it is a percussion instrument with a defined leading edge to notes. Another is that a grand piano listened to from, say, 5m away is an incredibly loud and dynamic instrument (I hear one being played every day at work).

When listening to a reproduction on most systems, it is trivially easy to hear that it is a copy and not the real thing. Very, very few systems I've heard can give the illusion of a piano to the level where I wonder if there is actually a one in the room.

I put it, therefore, that piano (and human voice) reproduction are very good and very stiff tests of fidelity.

[lurcher]

I put it, therefore, that piano (and human voice) reproduction are very good and very stiff tests of fidelity.

In theory I agree, but in practice I dont think its as much help as it may seem. Most if not all of us only gets to make choices for about half of the chain of equipment responsible for reproducing the original sound. We may know what a real piano sounds like, but we can't for certain know what the recording of that piano sounds like. So we don't and I suggest can't know if the reproduction a particular system gives of that recording is 99.9% as good as it can be or only 19.9%.

So we are no further forward. The only subjective measure (if such a thing exists) I can use when judging a item of equipment is if it provides a new insight into some facet of the music.

But of course once that insight is heard, it will never leave my memory of that music, so all of a sudden other kit does the same thing.

[Welder]

In theory I agree, but in practice I dont think its as much help as it may seem. Most if not all of us only gets to make choices for about half of the chain of equipment responsible for reproducing the original sound. We may know what a real piano sounds like, but we can't for certain know what the recording of that piano sounds like. So we don't and I suggest can't know if the reproduction a particular system gives of that recording is 99.9% as good as it can be or only 19.9%.

So we are no further forward. The only subjective measure (if such a thing exists) I can use when judging a item of equipment is if it provides a new insight into some facet of the music.

But of course once that insight is heard, it will never leave my memory of that music, so all of a sudden other kit does the same thing.

+1
Often overlooked, always relevant and you can’t do anything about it.
It’s an engineered recording!


(It's doubtful that one can remember any sound with sufficient degree of accuracy to make live acoustic to recorded applicable anyway)

[DaveK]

After being in HiFi for about 30years, the "best" sound I heard so far was from heavily modified old tiny Proac Tabletts, on heavily expensive Audio Note electronics in normal size room!

Ok there was no bass in real sense, or highs, but the sound was so natural and live, organic, detailed and musical. You would just listen to music, you could hear everything on cd, it was not hifi. Music, music, music. I was there with performers. Deep bass was there, although tiny, but voices and mids (more important things for me) were much bigger than e.g. Willsons (obviously Proacs not balanced, but I liked it)

Bear in mind I heard all sorts of systems, with excellent bass or stage or this or that, but in the system from above, naturalness and music took precedence.

With no disrespect to anybody (indeed, I share much of this view), I offer the above as evidence of the point I'm trying to make. I interpret the above as saying that Robocopper, even though he knows the sound he's listening to is nothing like the original or live performance, he prefers it. I am sure that many others have similar views - they like what they like because they like it, not because it sounds as though they are sat in the optimum listening position in the performance venue.
Holding such views it must be very difficult to dismiss them from your mind when you are deciding what sound you are looking (listening) for when you are auditioning new kit or new music.
So, IMHO, one man's fidelity is another man's colouration - there is no such thing as a truly realistic 'live' recording because we all hear different things listening to exactly the same performance.
YMMV of course .
Dave.

[RoboCopper]

As I am crazy about music, especially live performances, how to explain that same band/act performs so well at some venues and not so well at others? Bear in mind both performances are live, hence 100% hifi.

Apart from different audience or energy around the place, or how musicians feel at the performance time, there must be something about acoustics or how sound engineers set up the place.

At least I felt that same musicians played "better" at different venue (where for my ears sound was better), so audience looked more involved into music, with more foot tapping, louder applause and cheers...

Regarding HiFi systems lying..... what is the point of excellent 100% hifi system, when maybe other less expensive system can LIE sweeter to me?
If I end up listening to more records and music, it is good lie to me

[Macca]

.
So, IMHO, one man's fidelity is another man's colouration - there is no such thing as a truly realistic 'live' recording because we all hear different things listening to exactly the same performance.
YMMV of course .
Dave.

I'm not really in agreement with this - we are not clones but we are all very similar and IME what I think is a 'good sound' is what anyone will think is a 'good sound'. We don't like to hear distortion, lack of decay, wobbly pitch and all the attributes of poor sound. I don't think I have ever heard a system that I liked only to have another listner say 'no, it sounds awful.' And the converse is true, unless it is the owner of the system who may be a little bit biased - as he paid for it - or delusional, of course

Comparisons with live music do not apply whan listening to a studio recording because the studio recording was designed from the ground up to be replayed on a hi-fi system. A live recording is a different matter but then you may argue, as I do, that the best way to reproduce a live rock or pop recording is to play it back through a good PA. Maybe have some friends round to jostle into you and spill beer on you, and at least one attendee who is speeding his tits off and talks bollocks loudly and incessently through the whole performance - just like at the last Oasis gig I went to...