Vetterone,
I did notice a change during burn-in of the DACT. It sounded cleaner and clearer from the moment I put it in, but as I recall, it seemed to improve over 50 hours or so. But that's just my recollection. I can't say for sure that it was 50 hours; all I can say for sure is that it did improve with time.
The cheap Alps pot that came in my Chardonnay was fuzzy around the image edges as compared to the DACT. Consequently the imaging seemed a little more holographic with the stock pot, but clearly "less focused" than with the DACT. That may not make sense, but I will try to put it another way. The stock pot seemed as if I was listening to my system "slightly" out of phase as compared to the DACT.
I clearly prefer the DACT and I suspect now that it is fully burned in, the DACT might possibly better the Alps pot with the "holographic" thing, as well. I would have to put the stock pot back in to find out and that ain't gonna happen.
It is true that "precise imaging" of the soundstage IS NOT the way "live" music is typically rendered. Images usually seem unfocused with "live" music reproduction. But I believe ours eyes compensate for the lack of soundstage focus as they help to precisely render the sounds "we hear" with the images "we see" in our brain.
When I am listening at home, I don't have the advantage my eyes give me "live", so PRECISE imaging in my system helps enhance the illusion of "real" since my eyes can't help my brain render the soundstage. (Not sure if that makes any sense to anyone else, but that's how it seems to work for me! LOL)
So back to the DACT.
I much prefer precise imaging in my system. Could it be more hi-fi to someone else...? Sure. I guess it's just a matter preference. But one thing's for sure, I couldn't stand the fuzz of the Alps! I did a long search online before choosing the DACT and virtually every post I read extolled the virtues of the DACT over any pot. But to each his own and if Mick prefers the Alps to a DACT, who am I to argue with him!
The stock pot did have the convenience of minute volume adjustments compared to the DACT. In my system, the steps on the DACT can be a little louder than I would like, but the good news is that I can adjust the volume on my Berning ZH270 to compensate.
Now to the Mundorfs.
The difference they made in my preamp was huge. I am glad to hear Mick is now using them. I am about to try them in my Audio Note DAC in place of the Audio Note Copper caps that I used when I originally built my DAC. I will post my impressions after they burn in. I don't know if they will be superior to the AN Coppers or not, but after the difference the Mundorfs made in my Supratek compared to the Auricaps, I'm sure gonna find out!
I did notice a change during burn-in of the DACT. It sounded cleaner and clearer from the moment I put it in, but as I recall, it seemed to improve over 50 hours or so. But that's just my recollection. I can't say for sure that it was 50 hours; all I can say for sure is that it did improve with time.
The cheap Alps pot that came in my Chardonnay was fuzzy around the image edges as compared to the DACT. Consequently the imaging seemed a little more holographic with the stock pot, but clearly "less focused" than with the DACT. That may not make sense, but I will try to put it another way. The stock pot seemed as if I was listening to my system "slightly" out of phase as compared to the DACT.
I clearly prefer the DACT and I suspect now that it is fully burned in, the DACT might possibly better the Alps pot with the "holographic" thing, as well. I would have to put the stock pot back in to find out and that ain't gonna happen.
It is true that "precise imaging" of the soundstage IS NOT the way "live" music is typically rendered. Images usually seem unfocused with "live" music reproduction. But I believe ours eyes compensate for the lack of soundstage focus as they help to precisely render the sounds "we hear" with the images "we see" in our brain.
When I am listening at home, I don't have the advantage my eyes give me "live", so PRECISE imaging in my system helps enhance the illusion of "real" since my eyes can't help my brain render the soundstage. (Not sure if that makes any sense to anyone else, but that's how it seems to work for me! LOL)
So back to the DACT.
I much prefer precise imaging in my system. Could it be more hi-fi to someone else...? Sure. I guess it's just a matter preference. But one thing's for sure, I couldn't stand the fuzz of the Alps! I did a long search online before choosing the DACT and virtually every post I read extolled the virtues of the DACT over any pot. But to each his own and if Mick prefers the Alps to a DACT, who am I to argue with him!
The stock pot did have the convenience of minute volume adjustments compared to the DACT. In my system, the steps on the DACT can be a little louder than I would like, but the good news is that I can adjust the volume on my Berning ZH270 to compensate.
Now to the Mundorfs.
The difference they made in my preamp was huge. I am glad to hear Mick is now using them. I am about to try them in my Audio Note DAC in place of the Audio Note Copper caps that I used when I originally built my DAC. I will post my impressions after they burn in. I don't know if they will be superior to the AN Coppers or not, but after the difference the Mundorfs made in my Supratek compared to the Auricaps, I'm sure gonna find out!