CD/DVD/SACD player break-in: true or myth? (plus review of sorts) (1 Viewer)

[Yohan Pamudji]

Before I ask my question, first here's my story.
So I got my Sony DVP-NC650V combo player in yesterday. It plays CDs, DVDs, and SACDs. I bought it because I've been curious about SACD for a long time but the entry price to satisfy this curiosity has been too steep for me until now. I setup the player, plopped in some SACDs of albums that I also own on CD, and listened.
The short version of the story: I was disappointed.
The long version follows. I AB-ed Miles Davis' Kind of Blue and Dave Brubeck's Time Out on CD and SACD. I adjusted the internal volume of the CD player to match the SACDs as closely as possible for each album (the respective levels were different for each album). CDs were played on a Marantz CC-4000 5-disc CD changer; SACDs on the Sony DVP-NC650V. Both used analog out to a Marantz SR-7000 receiver, direct stereo input setting on receiver. Interconnects were AudioQuest Jade for CD and AudioQuest Diamondback for SACD. Speaker cable was Tributaries SP-4 to Paradigm Monitor 9s, no subwoofer.
My expectation of SACD going in was that I was going to be wow-ed by the experience. Instead, I was impressed but not overly so. By synchronizing the CD and SACD I switched back and forth to listen for differences. The SACDs had a slightly fuller and smoother sound, but that's about it. The drums in Time Out SACD sounded more realistic because I could hear the rattling of the drum enclosures more clearly instead of just the sound of drumsticks striking the drum surfaces. The horns in both SACD albums sounded smoother at higher frequencies and maintained the punch of high notes without the ear-grating effect I noticed on the CDs. All of this is good, but not incredible. If I walked into a room playing SACD without knowing it was SACD I'd probably think it was CD, on this SACD player anyway.
Before you respond with the typical debunking answers, consider these points:
1. Yes, I realize this was not a true AB comparison, nor was it blind in any way. The equipment for playing each format was different, cables were similar but different, and the levels were not exactly calibrated. But the playing field was definitely skewed in favor of SACD (except for the players, which I'm not sure how they compare). SACD had better interconnects, the calibrated levels were close but the SACD was oh-so-slightly louder, and I wanted the SACD to kick ass. All indications pointed to the conclusion that if SACD is really that much better than CD I would be blown away. I wasn't. Wanting SACD to be awesome but barely being able to tell the difference between it and CD is not my idea of "amazing".
2. So what if the SACD player is only $399 retail? If this is a product that is so awesome that mainstream public will pick it up, it should offer a performance increase similar to, say, DVD over VHS, or CD over tape, regardless of price. A low-end DVD player will blow away a low-end VCR, same with CD and tape. A low-end SACD player should blow away a low-end CD player. Well, that's what I think it should do anyway. Maybe my expectations were unrealistic.
Now to my question. Is the media player break-in theory true or is it a myth? Will playing this thing for a week non-stop really open up the sound and make it produce the incredible sound I was expecting to hear from it? What's the basis of this theory? Am I just expecting too much out of it? Do I have to shell out $800 for the 555ES before I'm amazed? If so, see my #2 comment above.
Thanks for any comments, criticisms, and insights. I still want SACD to kick ass. Help me make it happen. So far SACD is not the killer app I'd thought it would be.

 

[Bob McElfresh]

In general, electronics dont need break in time.

You did hear a difference, which is good. (Although even experienced reviewers have been fooled into saying one amp is better than another because of a small amount of volume difference).

I suspect your speakers may be the weak point.

While the Paradigm monitors are good, they are a monitor style speaker. Compare this to a electrostatic or panel speaker like Magnapan or Martin Logan which have a huge radiating surface and are much more sensitive, I suspect you would have heard a greater difference.

The other part to "break in time" is your ears. If you can, try listening only to the SACD disks for a few days. Then, play one of the matching CD's. Getting used to the new sound over and over again will make you more sensitive to the small changes. (IMHO this is why people change a wire and claim a "dramatic change" - they are very acclimated to the previous sound & material so small changes sound huge to them).

 

[JerryW]

My view?

Is there a break-in period for speakers? Yes. I've personally heard it myself. I bought a set of speakers as surrounds. Later, I bought a pair of the same model for use as another set of surrounds. The older pair and the newer pair sounded very different (the new pair sounded more artificial and strained). Then, after a month, both pairs sounded identical.

Solid state equipment and cables? I don't think so, I've never experienced it and not heard any credible evidence to support it.

The gray area? Tube equipment. I think it can change because of deterioration of the tube filament, which is much more substantial than deterioration (if any) of ICs.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Outside of speaker systems, no components require a break-in period. That's a myth promulgated by the snake oil-selling writers of the "high-end" audio press. Any decently designed electronic component only needs about thirty minutes to reach full thermal stability. Otherwise, leaving the thing on and running while you're somewhere else will only result in a shortened lifespan (for the component, not you).

 

[Marty M]

FWIW, I read a review of the Kind of Blue SACD version and the reviewer did not think the SACD version was an improvement over the recent remastered CD. I have read that there are some Telrec recordings that sound great in SACD.

I have been trying to decide if I want to take the plunge to SACD or DVD-A with a new player. Since my DVD player is working fine right now, I just might wait and see if one format wins out over the other, or if either make it.

 

[KeithH]

Yohan, a few things concern me about your observations. For one thing, as someone else said, your speakers could be the weak link in your set-up, though I would not say that electrostatics or planars are required. Secondly, Kind of Blue is not one of the better SACDs in my opinion and that of others on message boards and in print. Finally, the 'NC650V is not good enough to convey all that SACD has to offer. It will show improvements over CD as you observed, but to hear more of what SACD can offer, you will need one of the ES models, such as the 'C222ES or preferably the 'C555ES (assuming the rest of your system is up to snuff).

For now, I agree that you should give SACD an extended listen on the 'NC650V before you throw in the towel. You might consider picking up a few more SACDs for variety.

 

[Yohan Pamudji]

Thanks for the replies and suggestions so far. Keep them coming.
Thanks everybody for clearing up the player break-in issue. Now I know that it's hogwash.
I have a bad feeling that SACD will not take hold in the general market. Audiophile circles perhaps, but not for the average Joe. My equipment is nowhere near high-end, but it's not exactly boom box either. It is apparent from replies so far that my speakers are not good enough to reveal the benefits of SACD and the NC650V isn't good enough either. If entry-level SACD players cannot provide enough of an improvement over CD to be noticable using not-great-but-good speakers like mine, how the hell is Joe Blow gonna care how good SACD sounds on a $20k system? The only way for SACD to grab a hold on the general market is to have DSD and PCM on 1 disc. Backwards compatibility is key.
Very helpful comments on the Kind of Blue SACD. I'll quit using it for A-B comparisons. Instead I'll look at other currently available SACDs that also have CD versions out. Anybody care to suggest some titles on both SACD and CD for comparison purposes?
I will say this though: Sopranos: Peppers & Eggs sounds very good--very compelling vocals. Unfortunately I can't A-B this right now, but I'll probably pick up the CD as well. Scratch that--I will pick up the CD version, tonight. I definitely think the software I'm using is contributing to the disappointing results of my listening sessions.
Like I said, I still want SACD to kick ass. But at the moment I'm not ready for any hardware upgrades, so the only option is to find some good software to see if that makes a difference. Time to save up for those Paradigm Studios, the Sony C555ES, and separates

 

[KeithH]

Yohan said:

Thanks everybody for clearing up the player break-in issue. Now I know that it's hogwash.

I have not observed break-in of solid-state components, but some people certainly believe in it. People on Audio Asylum talk about it all the time.
Like anything else, hearing the benefits of SACD depends on the quality of equipment being used. There are people out there who will say that a $5000 stereo system consisting of a pre-amp, power amp, speakers, a CD player, and cables in no way does the CD format justice. Everything is relative. One should expect that a high-resolution medium like SACD will be particularly sensitive to the capabilities of all components in the reproduction chain, including the player itself. Again, everything is relative. Still, you are hearing benefits of the SACD format on a self-proclaimed mid-fi system with software that probably does not best represent what SACD has to offer sonically. That's not bad.
Will SACD appeal to the average Joe? In my opinion, no. The "average Joe" has a system far below yours and will likely hear no improvements with SACD as a result, that is if he even tries SACD. The average Joe wants MP3 over CD, so you can forget SACD. :frowning:
I picked up The Sopranos SACD set last week, and it is excellent. The Sinatra track is to die for. To use a trite analogy, it sounds like Sinatra is in my living room. Truly wonderful. I don't have the CD set for comparison, but I will have to pick it up.

 

[Evan S]

Keith, I'm sorry for the intrusion into this thread, but I've been seeing some posts regarding SACD a little troubling and I'm looking for perspective. First off...

I picked up The Sopranos SACD set last week, and it is excellent. The Sinatra track is to die for. To use a trite analogy, it sounds like Sinatra is in my living room. Truly wonderful. I don't have the CD set for comparison, but I will have to pick it up.

I have been hearing this more and more across the board and I just don't get it. You realize that even on Yohan's system (which is far more meager than yours) there is a definate improvement in sonics from SACD when compared to Redbook. This we all know. So why do SACD converts INSIST on getting the Redbook version disk to the majority of SACD releases they buy just to do an A/B comparison? Why spend $20 for the SACD only to follow it up and spend $15 for the redbook to sit back and say..."Yep, SACD's better! I knew it." It effectively doubles the cost of the software you buy.

I have 4 SACD's in my humble collection. I've had my player for about 2 months. In all 4 cases, the SACD I bought was purchased SPECIFICALLY because I didn't have the Redbook version but I liked the artist and title. While I agree it's cool to do an A/B once in a while (my roommate has Thriller by Michael Jackson on Redbook while I got the SACD), I don't understand the affinity for running out and getting the Redbook for a majority of purchases. That seems to be norm rather than the exception.

Also, I noticed your comments on another thread regarding the New York Benefit SACD. While the comments on the thread were not highly glowing, you made mention of how you were going to be on the lookout for the disk. Does the dearth of quality SACD releases force the true converts of the hi-rez format to run out and get anything that even seems decent just to check it out.

Please take no offense to my comments. I know it sounds like I am brandishing you here. I am not. I am just trying to delve into the psyche of someone who is very into the hi-rez format. I totally respect your opinions across this board and share many of the same feelings. I guess I'm just looking for perspective here.

Sorry to commandeer this thread.

 

[Rachael B]

I have accumulated over 20 SACD's already and I'm very underwelmed by most of the Sony discs I have. The pattern for me has been that most of the Sony SACD's that have seemed weakest are of material that's 10 years old or much older. Here's my disappointing list:
Miles Davis- MILES SMILES
Bob Dylan- BLONDE ON BLONDE
Billie Holiday- LADY IN SATIN
Santana- ABRAXAS
Herbie Hancock- HEADHUNTERS (stereo version)
Blood, Sweat & Tears- (self titled).
The above group of titles don't sound better than CD's to me.
This group of titles I believe sound a little better than CD's:
Kenny Loggins- THE GREATEST HITS OF
Billy Joel- THE STRANGER
My list of hot titles is:
Joe Satriani- ENGINES OF CREATION < totally hot! defines how good SACD can sound IMHO.
Willie Nelson- STARDUST < the detail in his guitar playing is stunning
Al Dimeola, John McLaughlin & Paco DeLucia- FRIDAY NIGHT IN SAN FRANSICO LIVE < muy excellente!
Keb'Mo- THE DOOR

 

[KeithH]

Evan, I don't mind your jumping into this thread. You are entitled, at least until the Moderators say otherwise.
Most of the SACDs I buy are on the Sony label simply because Sony Music puts out the most titles that interest me. I say this in terms of music content, not sonics. If I were only after sonics, I would continually buy SACDs from Telarc, Chesky, and the like. In any event, I am disappointed that Sony is not releasing SACD/CD hybrid discs. As a result, if I want the CD version for any reason, I have to go out and buy it separately. Now, why do I buy the CD versions? Well, honestly, I like to compare the CD and SACD formats. Now, I do not compare CDs and SACDs out of some insecurity that SACD may not be better than CD on a particular title today. For me, the comparisons are not borne out of some need to prove anything. SACD is better than CD, and I like comparing various titles on the two formats to hear the differences. More importantly, I buy CDs because I haven't yet found an SACD head unit for my car or an SACD-ROM drive for my computer at work.
As for the 9/11 benefit SACD that just came out, yes I will buy it. Why? Well, for one thing, it offers a number of artists that interest me. Secondly, a couple people say that it is not not a stellar SACD. Well, should I just accept that? Of course not. I want to hear it on my system and decide for myself. Even if I find it to be a lackluster-sounding SACD, I am sure that it beats the CD. And yes, I will probably buy the CD too if I like the performance enough, again for the car and office and to compare it to the SACD.

 

[Philip Hamm]

I have a bad feeling that SACD will not take hold in the general market. Audiophile circles perhaps, but not for the average Joe.

You seem to feel strongly that this product should be a mass-market item. Why? I can guarantee you that neither SACD nor DVD-Audio will ever eclipse CD for the general public. If your judgement of a format depends on how many people will jump into it then bring back the SACD player right now. SACD and DVD-Audio are to CD as LaserDisc was to VHS in the 90s. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

Your experience echoes mine with the DVD-Audio of Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature". Maybe a little better, but the differences are so subtle as to be non-compelling. In both cases the CDs are exceptionally well mastered. Unfortunately that is usually not the case as the general trend in CD mastering is to often introduce a great deal of audio compression. I'm hoping SACD and DVD-Audio will buck this trend for the audiophile market. If they are mainstream then we're doomed to the same lifeless dreck we currently get on CD.

 

[KeithH]

Philip, maybe I am in the minority, but to my ears, the Steely Dan DVD-Audio disc (stereo track) is noticeably better than the CD. True, the CD is very good, but I feel the DVD-Audio version is much better. Just my $0.02.

By the way, what happened to your post count? Been meaning to ask you.

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Here's my disappointing list:

Miles Davis- MILES SMILES

Bob Dylan- BLONDE ON BLONDE

Billie Holiday- LADY IN SATIN

Santana- ABRAXAS

Herbie Hancock- HEADHUNTERS (stereo version)

Blood, Sweat & Tears- (self titled).

The above group of titles don't sound better than CD's to me.

Wow. I found the SACD of Blonde on Blonde to be jaw-droppingly better than the Mastersound gold CD, not to mention the crummy original issue. Much better low end, much less harshness, much more clarity.

I should point out that the SACD is totally different mix than previous issues, so the difference is more than just SACD vs. CD. Most who've heard a CD-R copy of the SACD much prefer *that* to the regular CD.

Abraxas also sounded pretty good to me, but I haven't heard the most recent CD remaster, just the first issue.

But, life would be boring if we all agreed on everything...

Ryan

 

[Yohan Pamudji]

Philip Hamm said:

If they are mainstream then we're doomed to the same lifeless dreck we currently get on CD.

Well, I did feel strongly about SACD's need for mass market appeal, but you bring up some good points. I hadn't even thought about what widespread acceptance would do to the quality of SACD recordings/masters/final products. The reasons why I feel SACD needs to gain a much bigger market share:
1. When Sony puts this much time, effort, and money into something they would of course prefer as big a return on that investment as possible. From Sony's standpoint mass market acceptance is definitely the ideal goal. Whether or not they're seriously aiming for that is beyond my knowledge.
2. Wide acceptance = much more software. Sure, some SACDs would sound like crap due to lack of care in the production process, same as CDs. But the flipside is we would have a unified standard that allows for higher fidelity digital music than we have with PCM CDs. The higher-quality labels like Telarc and Chesky would still put out terrific titles like they do with CDs and now, but with even better sonics for SACDs, while more mass market-oriented labels might put out SACDs that are only slightly better than CDs. I think that's a preferable scenario to the current status where there's a very limited catalog of music on SACD. Mass market acceptance would not bring down the quality of the good labels, IMO, and so more is better. Plus if SACD were to ever take over CD's reign as the mass market format, SACD prices would come down--always a plus in my book.
I'm still witholding judgement on this format, seeing as my SACD collection is very limited, and some of the ones I have apparently aren't stellar efforts. The ones that are good have really shined in the couple of days that I've listened to them, and I've received a lot of good suggestions in this thread, so I hold a lot of hope for SACD. My judgement is definitely not based on whether the general market buys into SACD. The lack of mass market appeal is just a concern of mine as I've described above, which is totally separate from my opinion on the sound quality of SACD.
Rachael B,
Thanks for that list! Now I have more SACDs to try out. I'm particularly interested in Joe Satriani and Jacintha. It's also encouraging for me as a fellow Paradigm Monitor owner to hear that you can appreciate the sonic quality of SACD on your "lowly" Monitor 7s. I'll make an SACD convert out of myself yet
Evan S,
For the Sopranos SACD, which I mean to buy the CD version of also, I already have somebody lined up to buy the CD off me after I'm done comparing it After this initial comparison phase I won't be buying the CD version of any SACDs I buy, if I even decide that SACD is worth it--which I most likely will. I don't drive enough to care what I listen to in the car, and my main system at the house fills my entire house with sound, so no real need for the CDs.

 

[John Beavers]

Outside of speaker systems, no components require a break-in period. That's a myth promulgated by the snake oil-selling writers of the "high-end" audio press. Any decently designed electronic component only needs about thirty minutes to reach full thermal stability.

What would those who poo poo the "break-in" theory say about this explanation?

"As with all audio components, audio cables require an adjustment period. This is often mistakenly referred to as "break-in". However, break-in is properly used to describe a mechanical change - engines break-in, loudspeaker and phono cartridge suspensions break-in. A cable's performance takes time to optimize because of the way a dielectric behaves (the way the insulating material absorbs and releases energy), changes in the presence of a charge. Cables will continue to improve in sound or picture quality over a period of several weeks. This is the same reason amplifiers, preamplifiers and CD players also require an adjustment period. The key difference between "adjusting" and "breaking-in" is that things don't "un-break-in", however, electrical components do "un-adjust". Several weeks of disuse will return a cable to nearly its original state.

The run-in time is essentially the same for all cables. However, the apparent need for run-in varies wildly. As with amplifiers and other components, the better the cable, the less distortion it has, and therefore the less there is to cover up the obnoxious distortion caused by being new. Since human perception is more aware of the existence of a distortion than the quantity, the better the cable, the worse in some ways it will sound when new, because the anemic forced two-dimensional effect reulting from being new will not be ameliorated by other gentler distortions."

 

[JerryW]

John, I think it's very... creative.

 

[Rachael B]

Ryan, maybe that has something to do with the fact that I first heard Bob D. and Santana on vinnyl, my lack of enthusiasm? I stille have both records too but haven't actually compared them. I realy don't have time for that sort of thing, generally. I've always thought that records could sound better than CD's but I've embraced CD's because rcrds were seldom pressed with a decent grade of vinnyl. I've bought many a record in the past that didn't even have one good play in them! I've had far too many records that developed numerous pops after 2 or 3 plays.
Back to SACD's, I don't think Sony is putting that much effort into some of them. Maybe the master tapes used to make some of them are just too old or never were all that good? I never thought ABRAXAS was a sonically great record, performance yes...
As for Bob D. , I don't even have those CD's. I've only ever heard the album on vinnyl before. That's my point of reference. I don't see the SACD as much of an improvement. I will get the record out and compare some time soon. It's a record I really love!
Yohan, just be careful what you buy. The older stuff geneally doesn't impress me. Thanks for the kind words! Try a couple of the audiophile label discs and see what you think.

 

[Rachael B]

John, would you like to buy a good used bridge?

 

[JerryW]

Rachael, YGM about that bridge! It's not the Gay St bridge in S. Knoxville, is it?
(You'd have to live in K-ville to really appreciate the humor in that joke.)