Ctm_cra wrote in two posts above:
Guidocorona wrote:
Hi Guidocorona,
Based on my experience with the APL NWO-2.5 and the 2.5T, I totally agree with your comments about break-in. I heard major improvements on my 2.5 around 250-hour mark and it continued to improve until it was upgraded to a 2.5T at the 370-hour mark (200 hours on Redbook and 170 hours on SACD). Since Alex's 2.5 had only 200 hours, it is likely that its sonic excellence is yet to unfold.
When I received my 2.5T upgrade, I left everything else in my audio system and room unchanged so that I could evaluate (subject to memory and elapsed time) the sonic differences between the 2.5 and the 2.5T. Out of the box, the 2.5T had greater fullness, more defined and explosive bass, more sparkling highs, quicker transients, more harmonic and ambient detail, and it was more involving in the bass region. Since that is based on my memory of the 2.5, take it for what its worth.
Guidocorona, What may be more significantly related to your comments is what happened as my 2.5T burned-in. Between 60 and 70 hours the bass and midrange opened up and became more detailed and more refined; the midrange was now more involving. Although the treble had more sparkle than what I recall the 2.5 to have, it did not have the same level of openness at this point in the burn-in process as the bass and midrange. That is now changing. Today, the 2.5T upgrade part of the 2.5 has 110 hours on it. (The 2.5 part now has 480 hours.) The treble has begun to open up nicely and the continuousness of the sonic landscape is enhanced beyond that of the 2.5. I wait with bated breath to see what further improvements will unfold with the burn-in process.
According to Ctm_cra, as a 2.5T, Alex's unit had only 30 hours. Based on my experience with 2.5T's burn-in, your estimate seems reasonable to me that 80% of break-in for his machine is yet to come. If the 2.5T was properly burnt-in, could this have also been a "Redbook blow-out" as well as an "SACD blow-out"? We'll have to wait for the next round. Hopefully, everyone's player will be fully burnt-in.
Best Regards,
John
The APL NWO 2.5T Alex brought with him had 200 hours of burn in as a 2.5 only model. As as a 2.5T it barely had 30 hours.
The Meitner's owner also confirmed that it has surpassed the burn-in time requirement. The DCS and Meridian are regularly used, but I have no specific info to provide. The same goes for the Opus 21.
Guidocorona wrote:
I should like to point out that a TEAC UX-1/X-01 derivative with 200 hrs of playing time on part of the circuit and 20 on the balance is not at all a well broken in device. . . likely 80% of break in is still ahead. How many hrs of playing time had been logged on the other contenders? Next time the shoot out is conducted I suggest all units be fully broken in. The condition would harden your findings.
Hi Guidocorona,
Based on my experience with the APL NWO-2.5 and the 2.5T, I totally agree with your comments about break-in. I heard major improvements on my 2.5 around 250-hour mark and it continued to improve until it was upgraded to a 2.5T at the 370-hour mark (200 hours on Redbook and 170 hours on SACD). Since Alex's 2.5 had only 200 hours, it is likely that its sonic excellence is yet to unfold.
When I received my 2.5T upgrade, I left everything else in my audio system and room unchanged so that I could evaluate (subject to memory and elapsed time) the sonic differences between the 2.5 and the 2.5T. Out of the box, the 2.5T had greater fullness, more defined and explosive bass, more sparkling highs, quicker transients, more harmonic and ambient detail, and it was more involving in the bass region. Since that is based on my memory of the 2.5, take it for what its worth.
Guidocorona, What may be more significantly related to your comments is what happened as my 2.5T burned-in. Between 60 and 70 hours the bass and midrange opened up and became more detailed and more refined; the midrange was now more involving. Although the treble had more sparkle than what I recall the 2.5 to have, it did not have the same level of openness at this point in the burn-in process as the bass and midrange. That is now changing. Today, the 2.5T upgrade part of the 2.5 has 110 hours on it. (The 2.5 part now has 480 hours.) The treble has begun to open up nicely and the continuousness of the sonic landscape is enhanced beyond that of the 2.5. I wait with bated breath to see what further improvements will unfold with the burn-in process.
According to Ctm_cra, as a 2.5T, Alex's unit had only 30 hours. Based on my experience with 2.5T's burn-in, your estimate seems reasonable to me that 80% of break-in for his machine is yet to come. If the 2.5T was properly burnt-in, could this have also been a "Redbook blow-out" as well as an "SACD blow-out"? We'll have to wait for the next round. Hopefully, everyone's player will be fully burnt-in.
Best Regards,
John