Raysonic 168

i have heard the 168 in my system, during a short break-in process of about 48 hours. according to a raysonic dealer, the player opens up and becomes more resolving as it approaches 168 hours, which, supposedly is a reasonable amount of time to allow before judging its presentation. from what i heard, there is no tube bloom and has the sound of a typical burr brown dac chip. it was not irritating, but was not very smooth either.

in many respects i prefer the musical fidelity a5. if the audio dealer is accurate in his appraisal, i suspect that this player may be unforgiving and very detailed.

Thanks, for the info. I believe what happened in your unit is that when one tube failed, the filament voltage increased in the remaining tubes due to lower current draw. Resulting in a percieved change in sound. I still need to known which pair is for the RCA outputs and which for the xlr.

Mrtennis,

I am not 100% sure but I think we spoke on the phone regarding the Raysonic CD players numerous times. I apologize if this is not you, but I think it is and everything is lining up here (you called me twice about your obscure sound preferences). For the record, these players are anything but unforgiving and overly detailed. Just read the reviews, this player is as liquid as it gets, which I told you.

I think you need to be honest with the others here on Audiogon and those who would read your post and tell people what you are looking for in a player: You told me on SEVERAL occasions that you wanted a MUFFLED sound, NO detail, laid back and a cd player that blends all the sounds together. Now I may be paraphrasing your words, but this is the sound you are looking for.

I am not sure there are any other audiophiles here who would be looking for such a sound and your critique above is unfair due to your unique listening preferences. I also would have appreciated some honesty from you when you called me asking about this player. You should have told me you had it already and just been honest with me.

Let's just all be honest and open here before we start to slam products, MRtennis!

hi eric:

i stand by my statements. i did not slam the 168, and yes i prefer a darker sound. this is old news. i also mentioned that the player had 48 hours of play. all statements are factual. when i spoke to you i did not mention my brief experience with this player. and at this point, pending further break in and tube change , i prefer the a5. all facts. what's the problem ?

Mrtennis: By implication, are you saying that you find the MF A5 dark sounding? I am curious, as I have never heard this player referred to as dark, or lacking in detail resolution.