How I tamed digital glare.


For months I have been trying to eliminate digital glare in the my system, which showed up most noticably in the upper middle frequency vocal range, especially female vocals. I tamed some by replacing the stock fuse in my dac with HifiTuning Supreme Cu on the sage advice of Chris Van Haus of VH Audio, resulting in a significant improvement in tonal density, detail and clarity. So far, so good. Today I lightly dusted the laser lens in my CEC transport with a microfiber cloth and was astonished to discover a substantial improvement! And the laser lens and drive compartment appeared clean to begin with (in a smoke free environment). I tried cleaning contacts, swapping power cords and interconnects, rolling the tube in my MHDT dac, and so forth, but this simple protocol was more effective than any of those experiments. I suppose results may vary as every system is unique, but for me this simple tweak was revelatory: greater clarity and a signifcant reducton of hash. Wish I had thought of tt in the beginning; it would have saved me considerable time and frustration.
pmboyd

@effer The data is being played back over time.

Do all computers run the same program in the same amount of time?  Come to that, does the same computer always run it identically?

It doesn't matter exactly when a page loads.

Does does matter exactly when the trumpets come in...

Post removed 
I think a lot of the negative talk about CDPs and their susceptibility to fail at any and every turn to correctly read the data is borne out of some very well done advertising by the audio computer industry. 

Just because it can misread doesn't mean it will misread. There's so much built into it that compensates for errors as well as the fact that most are very well made, that it all comes down to trying to prove a negative. 

Anyone can pipe up and ask how sure you are that it's not misreading the data? That's just trolling for trolling's sake. All of this is dancing on the head of an already crowded pin.

All the best,
Nonoise
Post removed 
nonoise
Just because it can misread doesn't mean it will misread. There's so much built into it that compensates for errors as well as the fact that most are very well made, that it all comes down to trying to prove a negative.

Anyone can pipe up and ask how sure you are that it's not misreading the data? That's just trolling for trolling's sake.
Actually, no, errors on CD are well established and widely researched.  See IASA website. Also, research by Trock (which I think you can get from IASA) and others. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here, or to pretend that prior research doesn't exist.