2. cables
  3. 136860-111696

Need cable to soften brightness just a little?

Would appreciate some hand holding on solving a small problem. I think a different cable interconnect might be what I need. Right now I am using Blue Jeans interconnects.

Have three new variables in our TV Stereo system.
New Oppo UDP-205
Musical Fidelity A3cr Preamp
Pioneer SX-1050 Stereo Receiver (bypassing it’s preamp)

Still in use is the Arcam SR250 AV Receiver.
Speakers are floor standing Spendor FL-6.

I am an opera lover and classical music devotee and like really good audio. The Arcam SR250 is just perfect for ordinary tv watching, but I soon found out it can’t equal the musicality of a good stereo receiver, so I rigged up a way of using my Audiomat Arpege tube amp for musical program listening.   But  I just found a better use for the Arpege and decided to replace it with the Musical Fidelity Preamp and the Pioneer Receiver.   The Oppo is just a few days old as well, replacing an Oppo BDP-83SE.

There is a big improvement in clarity of spoken dialogue.
Everything sounds brighter and clearer and there is an unmistakable sense of power from the much more powerful Pioneer.
Musically it is harder to evaluate. At first there was a feeling of “wow, major improvement”, but on further listening it feels a little bright. Might be the sort of brightness that causes music fatigue.

How do I take just a little of the edge off the brightness without losing the wonderful clarity I’m getting?

And how to go about figuring out which of the three is causing that little bit of edginess.


128x128echolane
echolane's avatar
echolane OP
108 posts
 
The one I’ve always had problems understanding is the mystery of  burning in. Maybe  it helps to have an EE degree,which I certainly dont have, Or just some deeper knowledge of the behavior of electronic parts at the electron level.  

It doesn’t help when you read stories about how inconclusive are the results of double blind listening tests of interconnects. 

 Nevertheless, I became a “can’t hurt to try” believer reading posts about Yggdrasil DACs.  When you read over and over again how awful they sound straight out of the new box they come in and how dramatic is their improvement with just a few days of burning in, it’s hard not to lose one’s skepticism .  I have a friend who was a notorious skeptic about power conditioners.  Until he tried one.  It wasn’t even one of the ultra expensive ones.  In his system, which he knows very very well, he was blown away by the dramatic difference.  I’ve yet to experience that sort of a dramatic epiphany, but perhaps it’s because I’ve done very little experimenting that way.
david_ten
5,480 posts
 
@echolane  To clarify, you should have a sense of what the Oppo 205 is about within two days of run time. You bring up the Yggdrasil, which in my opinion requires a really long break in. Just want to be sure you know that the 205 doesn't require anything like that.
echolane's avatar
echolane OP
108 posts
 
I’m listening now after about 48 hours of continuous play.  Too soon to be sure, but my first impression is there has been some improvement, though I’m not sure how much.  I need much more time for listening to a range of familiar music programming.

david-ten pointed out one of the more significant changes, moving out the Oppo 83SE in favor of the Oppo 205.  I would be horribly disappointed if there weren’t a big change!  I was probably too impatient as  I should have waited to move in the Pioneer and the Musical Fidelity until I had listened to the new Oppo.

As an aside, I learned something important after I bought the SE.  It was much touted for its special analog section (the SE part), and it was the reason I paid its premium price, but when my audio guy opened it up to put in the all region kit for me, he almost sneered when he saw the power supply, a switch mode instead of the superior linear power supply.  I was pleased to learn the 205 does not have an inferior power supply - it surely ought to sound better.
auxinput
2,920 posts
 

I have compared the Arcam and the Pioneer.  All I have to do for a/b comparison is to mute one or the other.   The Pioneer leaves the Arcam in the dust.  The only difference is the Arcam is getting audio via HDMI, the Musical Fidelity/Pioneer by way of RCA interconnects.

In my opinion, you have two things against you with using the Arcam.  The first thing is that any digital audio transferred over HDMI will sound worse than digital audio sent over digital COAX or even analog audio cables.  The data bandwidth and clock timing required by HDMI interface plays havoc with the sound quality when the receiver attempts to re-assemble the digital data (which could have bits missing due to data bandwidth sharing with video) and the digital clock timing, which is already compromised.  It is always better to use digital COAX to transfer audio.  The only exception is the high res bluray audio formats (DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD).  2-channel PCM and old school dolby digital /DTS will always sound better over COAX.

The second thing is that ARCAM has its own unique sound.  While it is very well regarded, in my opinion, it has a very weird sound.  It is very clean and high definition, but to me it just doesn't sound realistic.  ARCAM likes to use what they call Class G amplifier.  It is a weird combination of a Class A amp/power supply circuit with what looks like a Class D type secondary power supply that is switched in/out as needed.  I think the result is that it gives more of a Class D type signature, which lacks air and just doesn't "sing" in my opinion. 

I think these two items are why you feel that the Pioneer receiver sounds so much better (Pioneer is standard Class AB architecture).

auxinput
2,920 posts
 
oh, and that Music Fidelity A3cr is one hell of a preamp!
More to discover