840C and MHDT Havana

"I suppose it is all about attaining the right balance between dynamic, punch, sparkle etc. and smoothness/musicality."

Yes.

The Paradisea ain't bad with the former either IMHO, in particular with the Tung Sol tube replacement.

The stock GE tube does "sparkle" more though.

Mapman,
Sorry I misunderstood.

The Reimyo betters all over, Bass, mids, treble, sound stage, harmonics, inner detail, imaging you name it. Above all it really makes the whole music come into play (no pun intended...)

When you compare it to LP played on TW Acustics Raven AC, fitted with Phantom toenarm, Lyra Skala, Nagra VPS then the Reimyo sounds as if it is missing out on something, and I guess that if one day I hear my current TT fitted with a better cartridge I would then say that the Lyra Skala is missing something. I've been on the HiFi ladder for 25+ years and ever step has bought its worth of extra insight into music; that is what its all about.

I used the Havana in a very high end system that is very balanced; the Havana did very well.

If I did not have the the Reimyo and say a <5000$ CD player I would guess that the Havana would equal or better. It is a fine piece of kit.

As I stated I use it in my Home Cinema installation from digital source and its is really great for that. Would I use it for music only? Yes and I truly recommend the Havana.

Tim

X, I just sold my Havana here on Audiogon. I owned it for 2 months and while it sounded good (especially with better tubes)compared to my Rega Apollo, I did not hear enough difference to justify the $800. Keep in mind that I use a tube integrated amp and I do hear differences when I "roll" tubes and I hear differences when I change my phono cartridges and phono preamp- so I am not a "they all sound the same" kind of guy but the Havana just didn't blow away my Apollo.

Thanks for that feedback Rad21. What I have been reading up about quite a lot is the burn-in factor for the 840C....a lot of guys even saying they never believed in burn in until the 840C. From my understanding, quite a few people got the 840C new from shops (online or bricks and mortar) and only have 20-30 hours to form an opinion.

There seems to be quite a lot of consensus on the Cambridge requiring a good 150-200hrs of run in, after which the initial dryness/glare/sheen subsides. Has anyone had this experience? Did you find, as some have reported, that the brightness and harshness is reduces substantially (but the detail and dynamics remain)?

Cheers
X

I bought an 840C about a year ago. There is certainly a burn in, but I'm not sure it takes all of 200 hrs. Its difficult for me to say exactly how long it took for the 840C, because I replaced my pre after I had less than 100 hrs on the 840C, so there was some burn in required for that piece too. As far as the "dryness/glare/sheen" I think sheen is probably apt. As far as dryness, I suppose it could be in the wrong system, but I think the 840C is capable of remarkable sweetness with the right source material. Glare as a descriptor would be way off base in my opinion. This is a smooth sounding piece, not digital sounding as I think of digital sounding, but not analog sounding either. My 840C replaced a NOS filterless dac (Audio Mirror) that I liked quite a bit. I would say the 840C betters the AM in most areas although it does not match the dynamics and bass of the AM. The 840C is a good match for you if you are looking for detail, imaging, and lack of congestion on complex passages. If presentation of tympani makes or breaks your assessment, then the 840C may not be for you.