Does a new cd transport require break-in time?

How annoying to have to find specific CD players and other devices that send zeros when paused or in between tracks.

Looks like a design mistake if this DAC was engineered to be compatible with a variety of devices.

I can understand and accept a device can click relays when switching inputs but a pause or a skip to a new track is not a change of input.

Perhaps they will issue a firmware fix for this serious limitation.

Hi Rv,

I have a feeling that when you get your "stuff" back from Schitt that it will work wonderfully with your Cambridge. I want to be straight with you I have heard a break-in period with the Cambridge. But for people who don't think that stuff breaks in that's ok.  In the long run you are going to like the Cambridge/ Gumby/Gungy?  synergy. Have a great Thanksgiving!
Best wishes

Charlie
PS I use a 1.5 digital interconnect RCA to BNC

Charlie,

Thanks for the encouragement!
Hope you’re right.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

Richard

I agree with char2 although in my case the CXC was great from the beginning I guess in general it needs about 50 hours to break-in as some reports I read at other forums  , further more maybe there is a need to upgrade  your coax cable to allow better transmission of the data from te CXC to your dac .dac in general needs long term break-in period not less than 100 hours so don't judge your system after so short time you have to be patient my McIntosh dac for example was lousy at the beginning very harsh and bright especially on high levels volume it took about 3 month for break-in and now it's amazing .

I’m using the CXC every day for many hours with my old DAC.  That should break it in pretty well.  When I get the new Gungy, it’ll take a while till that breaks in.

most people say I need a few hours of time to warm up to them....

Almarg,

This is Cambridge’s answer:

“The Answer to your question is that the impedance is 75 ohms, a + & - would be a figure for tolerance and not impedance.”

Richard

Well, if the gentleman’s response is accurate it would mean that the "<75 ohm" spec is a misstatement. So if either of you chooses to follow up with him, you might ask "then why does the spec say <75 ohms?"

Best regards,
-- Al

I just got a cc from Cambridge from someone who asked that question.
Maybe I’ll get an answer.

“Carbon copy”.
They answered my query through another correspondent’s  email, rather than answering me directly.  Strange.

Almarg,

Here is the final answer:

“After speaking with the engineers on this one again it turns out that the < that is in the spec sheet of the CXC is a printing error and should not be there.”

Well, here’s the latest chapter in the saga of Schiit service.  

They sent me a label which I was supposed to place on the package of the Gungnir Multibit I was returning because it didn’t work.  Very graciously, they offered me a new replacement, even though it was beyond the 15 day return period. So, I carefully placed the label on the package and brought it to a FedEx office.  Schiit said as soon as they received the tracking information from FedEx they would send me a new unit.  I waited a week.  No indication of them sending me anything.  I called and they said there was no evidence I had sent it, even though I followed their instructions implicitly,  
By this time they had received my unit. And, they tell me there’s nothing wrong with it!!  And,what’s more, they couldn’t possibly send me a replacement because of “scratches and gouges” on the old one.  Hardly!! I had just gotten iit.
So, it must have been my imagination that the many times I tried to run it, it was silent. 
Thiis could go back and forth for a long time.

Seems to me like a sh***t company .it's a shame. 

The package was put in its original carton and packed securely,
i dont think it could have gotten scratched by FedEx.
Schiit still says I didn’t put the proper label on it when I assured them I did.
Aggravating!
Its possible that FedEx did screw up by pasting their label over Schiit’s but  Schiit insists I’m at fault.

......I waited a week. No indication of them sending me anything. I called and they said there was no evidence I had sent it, even though I followed their instructions implicitly,
By this time they had received my unit......

When you send something Fedex, regardless of the entity paying for the shipment, *you* immediately receive a receipt with the tracking number that you can (and should) use to track the package. Point is you would know whether or not they received it.

Here is something else to do now, as I’m about to "pull a string" here on your behalf. Send an email directly to Jason Stoddard describing your situation *and fedex number*. Email him at at jason@schiit.com. Then, kindly report back here (as you have already been doing) as to whether or not you are getting the service you expect and deserve.

Unfortunately, I have no record of the serial number.

Also, I was tracking the package with the number I got at the FedEx office, and it got to Schiit the day it said it would.

I wasn’t supposed to send a tracking number.  All I was supposed to do was paste the label they sent me onto the package.
Evidently there was a tracking number on that label that would have started the return process.
 FedEx probably covered the label with their own and assigned a different tracking number that Schiit had no knowledge of.

As a one-time experimental psychologist working in perception and cognition I suspect I am one of few people in this forum to actually do  human experimentation for a living. I have no time for the double-blind crowd because there are just so many things wrong with their claims. At the outset, experiments  proceed by demonstrating that there are differences between conditions not that there are no differences. In statistics this is called rejecting the null hypothesis.   However accepting the null hypothesis is not proof of no difference, rather it is a statement of failure to find a difference and such results are rarely even accepted for publication because they are inherently suspect on the grounds that any fool can botch an experiment. The auditory judgments underlying high fidelity are subtle and complicated and not going to be teased out without major work meaning many experiments.  In any case I have not heard heard of a single item of audio equipment which has been evaluated and then sold on the strength of scientific testing of its sound quality.  This is not because some equipment is not better than others but rather  the difficulty of doing such work. Like it or not, we rely on the golden ears of designers.

I completely agree. I’ve been saying exactly the same thing for years. Blind tests are the threat made by naysayers in an attempt to win an argument over some controversial audiophile concept, device it tweak. "Controlled blind test will demonstrate that power cords all sound the same, all fuses sound the same, or that product X is a complete fraud."
in some cases intricately and "trap" style blind tests can be devised that no one can possibly pass. As in $1 Million Dollar Challenges. Plus ANY blind test protocol or procedure can be discredited as being too intricate or not intricate enough, or unworthy system, unworthy participant, errors in the procedure, unexpected or unaccounted for variables, etc.

Double blind tests are only part of the argument, of course. Starting point is that there is no existing physical theory that can explain such 'night and day' differences. The next part of the procedure is to look at measurements. Since these do not show anything of potential significance either, the listening test is the last part. Here, expectation bias is an amply documented problem, hence the preference for double blind. It is true expectation bias is only one of many potential issues, and it is of course true that there are many ways to mess up a test procedure/be dishonest. However, there is ample opportunity for those who believe that there is a difference, to do their own tests, document their methodology and demonstrate that there is difference.

True, but voodoo cults never can.

Voodoo cults? I guess that would explain all the chicken bones. 🐔

Rvpiano,

I sympathize with your frustrating experience with Schiit. Thanks for sharing. I think the information you share will be valuable to other prospective buyers of their products. 

Gdhal:

At this point I just want a working unit.  If Schiit pulls any more sh*t I will definitely write.  They said they’re sending my unit back in working order.
Thats all I care about now.  I don’t see them sending me a new unit.
Thank you for your interest and concern!

willemj wrote,

"Double blind tests are only part of the argument, of course. Starting point is that there is no existing physical theory that can explain such 'night and day' differences."

>>>>Uh, actually there are physical theories that explain the differences. You just prefer to ignore them.


willemj wrote,

"The next part of the procedure is to look at measurements. Since these do not show anything of potential significance either, the listening test is the last part."

>>>Sorry but we've already established we don't know what to measure. We cannot measure audiophile characteristics of sound such as transparency, soundstage dimensions, musicality, presense, the sense the sound is like paper mache, those sorts of things. So if you can't measure it the only thing left is listening. 

Here, expectation bias is an amply documented problem, hence the preference for double blind.

>>>>>Actually expectaion bias is not as widespread as naysayers claim it is. It's an old wives tale, like placebo effect. Besides naysayers DON'Texpect a thing to work so it must be reverse expectation bias. Experienced audiophiles know enough to eliminate expectation bias from consideration. It's the noobs who fall prey, if anyone. Expectation bias and blind testing at the no of the day are simply naysayer arguments that are fallacies.

willemj wrote,

"It is true expectation bias is only one of many potential issues, and it is of course true that there are many ways to mess up a test procedure/be dishonest. However, there is ample opportunity for those who believe that there is a difference, to do their own tests, document their methodology and demonstrate that there is difference."

>>>>Sorry, wrong again. It's not up to the believers to do the testing. The naysayers wouldn't believe them if they did, anyway. Naysayers are by definition unswayed by any evidence that does not conform to their foregone conclusion. Sound familiar?

That’s a good question.
I’ll find out tomorrow when delivery is expected.

If you don’t like continuing sad stories, read no further.
I got the Gungnir back today, and the Oppo should be coming later today.
Great news, right?  I should be able to experiment to my heart’s content on the merits of the combinations of components.  Fun!
.... Just a few minutes prior to the Gungnir delivery, one of my monoblocks crapped out— probably a power supply problem caused by the heat of a fire I had earlier this year. (But that’s a different sad story which some of you might have heard about.)
Sent the amps immediately for repair. But will have to wait a little longer to see or hear what’s up.

SNAKEBIT!

P.S.  And Schiit failed to include the power cord I sent them with the Gungnir with the thought I was getting a complete new unit. No power cord!

I have heard broken-in demo Focal 806v speakers many times and on one trip to the store identified a pair of fresh out of the box demo speakers that sounded a bit harsh in comparison. Break-in for speakers is real in my experience.

I have a tube amplifier and it did improve with a break-in period and does require a little warm up to sound its best.

I believe that some burn-in is most likely beneficial to analog components, but struggle wrapping my mind around a scenario where burn-in could have an audible impact on a purely digital component.

The amount of perceived varience that I hear in my system is beyond anything that I could accept as a change from burn-in making it virtually impossible to identify any tiny change from burn-in.

I have Nordost Sort Kones under my SACD player and “think” they may have improved things a bit, but could never identify if someone were to remove them without my knowledge.

There are so many factors that impact the way we perceive a given listening session that I don’t think that burn-in on a purely digital component would ever be audible, especially with all of the engineering specifically aimed at perfecting the digital signal when one can build a fairly solid case that it’s just ones and zeros.

The fact that manufacturers recommend a break-in procedure can be based on objective fact in some instances and for others it’s just part of the “audiophile” culture where having a component that doesn’t require a break-in could automatically inferior. Plus, an extended listening period will most likely give the listener/customer time to adjust to any new sound (or perceived change in sound) with placebo to go with a new purchase likely to lead towards a happy customer. 

What you gentlemen do not seem to understand is that all material systems ARE mechanical. When it comes to Electronics, this means that all components do indeed respond to regular electron flow .. dielectrics take time to fully “seat” ... even wire shows change under extended load conditions as confirmed by electron microscope .  For proof simply search for white papers readily available on the web from respected universities .  

In my long experience.... given world class components.... it is certainly audible 😮