[883dave]

883dave - One opinion is valued more than the other because...? Most of the experienced people here have their favorites but have also heard a lot of gear and as such can offer a more well rounded opinion. I've gone to many of them to help me find the gear and sound I was searching for and found the majority of the advice very useful.

Opinions are no more valuable than the next....except went opinion is in the guise of fact, or when ones thoughts and experiences become the basis for everyone else.

The last comment by Ray seems to support my statement.

"How can you then give him an openion or help him as to how the Hornet sounds if you have not heard the "M" Hornet????
Remeber he has the Moded Hornet...."

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Samuels How can you then give him an openion or help him as to how the Hornet sounds if you have not heard the "M" Hornet???? Remeber he has the Moded Hornet.... May I ask kindly as which of Ray Samuels Audio amps is your cup of tea????????? Oh don't answer, I allready know.. Ray samuels

The reason I chimed in was he/ volcomjerk was being told he was wrong for not liking the sound of the hornet .... which hornet is irrelevant. I didnt like the sound of the one I heard either so I guess we both must be crazy.

Ones I like? I thought the raptor sounded pretty good when I heard the amp at the Cinci meet a couple months ago.

 

[Romanee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by volcomjerk .....I couldn't honestly tell myself I was happy and if I can't be happy with any portable amp then there's no point in spending that much for it you know? Might as well just get a DIY and I'll be happy that I spent less and am satisifed as much as I can be with a portable rig after all the iPod isn't the best source.

If/when you do find something that you really like, please do post your experiences. I will be very interested to hear about it!

Regards...

 

[wakeride74]

Well anyone that takes sonic opinions from other members here as fact are not all that bright IMO so I don't see how anyone with half a brain would assume that the Hornet is good or bad because (insert name here) says so. One could say it has 3 poss gain and comes in these colors and that is fact but as soon as the sonics are discussed it FWIW based on individual tastes with gear, music, and tuning.

There is a lot of tension in this thread for some reason. All I was trying to say is the Hornet sounded drastically different to me after the 250-300 hour mark. I just hooked it up to my PC and let it burn-in straight for like a week and a half. I know I am in the minority that enjoys the stock Hornet intimate presentation.

I totally understand where volcomjerk is coming from... for $350 I expect magic out of the box too! I was also very under impressed by the E500's and sold them within a week. I actually sold my first Hornet and ended up coming back to it after hearing and comparing it directly to a SMv6 with AD8620 and a Headroom Micro. The other amps are great amps but in the end I enjoyed the Hornet most. It's really not that big of a deal if you don't like something find something else... most of my rig is the intimate presentation with what most here would call big bass so my opinions may not be valid to some because of my preferences... all FWIW

 

[PFKMan23]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Samuels Was the hornet that you auditioned the "M" Hornet? You spend 2 weeks of your precious time listening to the Hornet? The buyer has all the right to like or dislike what he listen to & full privillage to retun his hornet for a full refund. Ray samuels

The Hornet that sacd_lover heard was my personal unit, which at the time of his audition, had well over 350 hours on it. The time of the audition was 2 weeks as previously stated.

...

volcomjerk,

I am glad that you have found things out for yourself. I wish you luck in your journey to audio bliss.

 

[mjg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romanee I agree that no amount of "burn in" will make everyone like the Hornet, "M" or stock. Diversity is what makes this hobby fun, and I respect everyones' differing preferences. As far as running a business making it too challenging to "burn in" an amp, that's a stretch. Work and family always keep me busy, stressed and generally sleepless. I always just put a component aside with iTunes library looped and monitor it once in a while until it I feel it's developed as much as it can. Of course I do often carry amps and phones with me to play and enjoy at work when possible, but the standalone routine helps a lot. Hornet is hardly the only component -- amp or headphone -- that needs a lot of play time to mature and stabilize to reach a good (or great) sound. Even the old standby K501 phones sounded so crummy to me out of the box that I returned them after a few days (when I started the headphone hobby). Later, after auditioning well over a dozen other phones, I bought another 501, gave it a long set-aside-burn-in -- and I found that the sound opened up beautifully (stiff drivers?). If every product had to sound great out of the box most of the manufacturers would be out of business by now. Most purchasers would give a quick listen, react "Yuck" and return product X, Y or Z -- unless their hearing/tastes aren't terribly fussy and they enjoy whatever they get. "...using burn in as a crutch to excuse..." doesn't apply. If someone who doesn't like the out-of- box sound hears a well-played unit and still doesn't like it -- fine. however, if they hear a well-played unit and hear a very different sound that is to their liking, then "burn in" is hardly irrelevant, or a crutch. If you feel that every product should sound optimal out-of-the-box -- well, good luck convincing manufacturers of the practicality of that request. [EDIT: Sorry -- I deleted a paragraph that wasn't relevant or appropriate. This is just a discussion -- I was a bit too reactive.] Man -- I seem to have stepped into a bog in this thread. Curious.

Romanee,

I consider us friendly, please don't over react... I didn't read whatever you said, but I wasn't attacking you. Yet-- I clearly disagree on your suggestion that it sounds entirely different after burn-in (or most products for that matter). I feel i'm experienced enough as a headfi'er anad with that product (after owning it 8 months) to have valid conclusions. It doesn't go through an entire change in sound, the sound refined itself and improved... yet i don't agree with any comments that it turns into a radically different piece of gear. I also will add to that not any piece of gear I had burned in (lots of gear) didn't turn from say a sennheiser, to a grado. That in my opinion, is audiophile mythology, and exageraation.


Now, I never debated the concept of burn in, i'm well awere of how it works... and please don't put those kinds of words in my mouth that I believe manafacturuers should have to make it not happen. Yet, if even the manafacturuer makes such bold comments, I think it's a poor decision to not compensate for the problem in some way... For example, allow an extension in the "Borrow" time of the product for proper burn in, or burn the product specifically in, if it's a supposed syndrome of that product.

has anything I said really stood out as unreasonable? I think my points are clear.

 

[Romanee]

I wholly agree with you that vendors should extend their return period policy when a product (at least ostensibly) requires 200-300-400 hours to manifest the target sound.

I don't think I said the sound changes drastically (though I have experienced that with other amps I've beta-tested), but in my experience I have perceived important changes with the "M" Hornet, and significant changes with the latest Portaphile -- from virgin to "matured", with negative twists along the "burn-in path". That's obviously subjective and perhaps what I feel is significant, you or others may feel is less so.

My apology for being too reactive.

 

[Romanee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFKMan23 The Hornet that sacd_lover heard was my personal unit, which at the time of his audition, had well over 350 hours on it. The time of the audition was 2 weeks as previously stated.

350 hours is exactly, in my experience, the time when the "M" Hornet should reach its optimal sound. If he didn't like the sound after that, then there's nothing else to say. It's just not his cup of tea.

 

[Ray Samuels]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjg Romanee, I consider us friendly, please don't over react... I didn't read whatever you said, but I wasn't attacking you. Yet-- I clearly disagree on your suggestion that it sounds entirely different after burn-in (or most products for that matter). I feel i'm experienced enough as a headfi'er anad with that product (after owning it 8 months) to have valid conclusions. It doesn't go through an entire change in sound, the sound refined itself and improved... yet i don't agree with any comments that it turns into a radically different piece of gear. I also will add to that not any piece of gear I had burned in (lots of gear) didn't turn from say a sennheiser, to a grado. That in my opinion, is audiophile mythology, and exageraation. Now, I never debated the concept of burn in, i'm well awere of how it works... and please don't put those kinds of words in my mouth that I believe manafacturuers should have to make it not happen. Yet, if even the manafacturuer makes such bold comments, I think it's a poor decision to not compensate for the problem in some way... For example, allow an extension in the "Borrow" time of the product for proper burn in, or burn the product specifically in, if it's a supposed syndrome of that product. has anything I said really stood out as unreasonable? I think my points are clear.

mjg, my friend, You know that I burn-in all my amps, pre-amps & phono stages for 100 hours before shipping.
Remember as the orders come in, I build them one at the time & put them on the burn-in table, then ship them.
The only 2 amps I do not burn-in are the SR-71 & the Hornet,
Try to burn-in hundreds of SR-71 or hundreds of Hornets that way, then you know why I don't. Where am I going to find 10-30 AC connection & sources to feed these amps?
Tell me how can I keep the waiting customer from getting his Hornet, by telling him or her, I have to burn-in your amp when they are so anxious to recieve it as soon as they order it?
You have to be in my shoes to know that when you have to ship battery operated amps you don't have time or batteries to burn them in.

I do believe in burn-in, when I purchased the two mono blocks CAD 211 aniversary adition, from "CARY AUDIO", prices at $15,000.00, they truely did not sound like my older mono blocks SLM100, by "CARY AUDIO", if fact the older sounded much better for 1/3 of the price of the new ones. But I am a believer in burn-in, got my 8 ohms 50 watts resistors, let the mono blocks run for a good 5 days first, then shot them off & another 5 days later.
NOW the WOW factor is there, those mono blocks are the best amps I have ever heard worth every doller I paid for.
The Hornet has very big capacitor, it is 15000mf, this cap needs time to settle, if you do not believe in that, that is your right, I do.
Thanks.
Ray Samuels

 

[that_aznpride101]

Wow, what is this? Audiophile battle royale?

Sorry, I don't want to create a flame war again, but this is just my two cents.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Romanee I wholly agree with you that vendors should extend their return period policy when a product (at least ostensibly) requires 200-300-400 hours to manifest the target sound.

I'm not a pro, just a new guy exploring the world of becoming an audiophile. I respectfully disagree that vendors should extend their return period policy for a customer to find that 'target' sound. I believe that if a customer has to return a product, it's because of a manufacture defect, not because the customer didn't like it. For example, if I bought a pair of brand new shoes from the store because I heard they're very comfortable to wear from other people but instead they hurt my feet (even after several days of breaking them in), I don't think I any right to return them to the reseller. The reason is what may feel uncomfortable to me may not be uncomfortable for another. It's all subjective.

Just like shoes that feel uncomfortable for me, that 'target' sound for an amp is just as subjective. A person's dissatisfaction with that 'target' sound of the amp doesn't justify a manufacture or reseller to extend their return policy or even give back a full refund. Just Ray Samuels willing to give a full refund, satisfaction guarantee is more generous than most sellers out there.

As for manufacturers burning in amps for the consumer... That isn't cost effective for the company. That will require more space, more electricity, more time, basically more $$$. If I were the company, I would refuse to do that for my consumer. In basic economics, the goal is not to increase revenue, but to decrease cost.


I hope that makes sense.

 

[Romanee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by that_aznpride101 Wow, what is this? Audiophile battle royale? Sorry, I don't want to create a flame war again, but this is just my two cents. I'm not a pro, just a new guy exploring the world of becoming an audiophile. I respectfully disagree that vendors should extend their return period policy for a customer to find that 'target' sound. I believe that if a customer has to return a product, it's because of a manufacture defective, not because the customer didn't like it. For example, if I bought a pair of brand new shoes from store because I heard they're very comfortable to wear from other people but instead they hurt my feet (even after several days of breaking them in), I don't think I any right to return them to the reseller even if they hurt my feet. The reason is that what may feel uncomfortable to me may not be so true to another customer who wears them. It's all subjective. Just like shoes that feel uncomfortable for me, that 'target' sound for an amp is just as subjective. Although an amp may sound better to some or worse to others after burn-in, whatever that 'target' sound turns out to be doesn't justify a manufacture or reseller to extend their return policy. I hope that makes sense.

Hi, that_aznpride101!

This industry/hobby is somewhat different from other retail arenas. Luckily for us, our manufacturers are very supportive/accommodating, etc., and have been very helpful in permitting us to return a product if we find it objectionable -- within a stated period of time.

My only point is that within this friendly context, there are a few products that require an inordinately long "burn in" period which can easily run past the time allowed in the return policy (even with 24/7 "burn in" -- which I sometime found hard to maintain), and it's only in these special cases that I feel there should be an additional allowance concommitant with the unusual needs of a particular product.

There have been quite a few cases (with various components) in which new owners have returned products to keep within the policy period -- without ever actually hearing the optimal sound that other owners highly recommended. Obviously these owners have been disappointed, dubious, disgruntled, annoyed, or simply firmly disbelieving (assuming they at least attempted to play the units long enough to achieve the desired sound, and ran out of time) -- and I can't fault them for their frustration or disappointment.

(All this is obviously avoiding the frequently-raised issue of those who firmly believe that no amount of "burn in" will affect any significant sonic change -- and some don't believe it makes any difference whatsoever.)

BTW - I try to be understanding, appreciative and supportive of our friendlier manufacturers because these are our friends who create these marvelous toys -- and they have been very understanding and helpful to us.

 

[Filburt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romanee Not sure if this falls under the umbrella of your discussion, but "burn in" does not always result in positive results, so that a blanket statement that psychological acclimation is a significant (if not pervasive) reason for "growing to like" the sound of a piece of equipment would seem to fail in at least some instances.

Your post is perhaps relevant in subject matter, but probably not argumentatively. If you re-read my post, you may note that I did not make a blanket statement and that what I did make was a statistical generalisation relatively weak to that of a blanket statement (e.g. "often" versus "always", "all cases", etc.). That doesn't mean it wasn't interesting, but I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying in my post.

However, regarding burn-in, the phenomenon of headphone burn-in and that of something like the Hornet verges on categorically different. Headphones rely on a mechanical device that is suceptible to relatively large amounts of hysteresis in a relatively short amount of time. The level of change in your amplifier that you're describing appears to entail several decibels worth of change in distortion products and whatever else is involved in its response. While this is permissible, perhaps, in audio, this sort of performance drift is not permissible in other industries that I'm aware of, especially if it's being induced by something like the capacitors...which would seem to require very large performance shifts over a period of time very small relative to their rated stable service life. Audio is a minor industry compared to the major target industries of many of the components we use (if not all...even the AD8397, and many other op-amps en vogue today, are targeted towards ADSL line driving). As such, there is a big incentive not to produce components that drift like this, and I can't find anything in the datasheets nor in tests I've conducted myself to suggest that this sort of drift is occurring or is expected to occur.

If you can produce for me an explanation for why one can reasonably expect such significant performance drift over the specified periods, I'd very much be interested. Ostensibly, I can't produce the explanation nor the evidence for you, so I can't carry the burden of proof for you on this one. I can, however, suggest a test that may be helpful - If you can, obtain a few Hornets, burned-in and not burned-in, and DBT (or, at least, SBT) to see if you can tell the difference between the new Hornets. Then, see if you can tell the difference between the burned-in ones, and then see if you can between the new and burned-in ones. The data obtained will hopefully help us at least make some basic (though perhaps still a bit weak) inductions about: 1. Whether there is some inconsistency in what each new Hornet sounds like, 2. Whether there is some inconsistency in what they sound like later, and 3. Whether "burn-in" is in effect. I don't have the personal resources to conduct a test like this myself and, based off of my past experience, it seems as though I'm also lacking the skill, know-how, or something else that is required to successfully replicate results such as yours with respect to burn-in.

Note - I've read that BlackGate caps do require some time for the charge barrier to form, but those places where I've read this seemed to suggest the period was much shorter than something like 300 hours. So I don't know if that can still be argued to be responsible, especially if not in the signal path.

 

[volcomjerk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt Your post is perhaps relevant in subject matter, but probably not argumentatively. If you re-read my post, you may note that I did not make a blanket statement and that what I did make was a statistical generalisation relatively weak to that of a blanket statement (e.g. "often" versus "always", "all cases", etc.). That doesn't mean it wasn't interesting, but I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying in my post. However, regarding burn-in, the phenomenon of headphone burn-in and that of something like the Hornet verges on categorically different. Headphones rely on a mechanical device that is suceptible to relatively large amounts of hysteresis in a relatively short amount of time. The level of change in your amplifier that you're describing appears to entail several decibels worth of change in distortion products and whatever else is involved in its response. While this is permissible, perhaps, in audio, this sort of performance drift is not permissible in other industries that I'm aware of, especially if it's being induced by something like the capacitors...which would seem to require very large performance shifts over a period of time very small relative to their rated stable service life. Audio is a minor industry compared to the major target industries of many of the components we use (if not all...even the AD8397, and many other op-amps en vogue today, are targeted towards ADSL line driving). As such, there is a big incentive not to produce components that drift like this, and I can't find anything in the datasheets nor in tests I've conducted myself to suggest that this sort of drift is occurring or is expected to occur. If you can produce for me an explanation for why one can reasonably expect such significant performance drift over the specified periods, I'd very much be interested. Ostensibly, I can't produce the explanation nor the evidence for you, so I can't carry the burden of proof for you on this one. I can, however, suggest a test that may be helpful - If you can, obtain a few Hornets, burned-in and not burned-in, and DBT (or, at least, SBT) to see if you can tell the difference between the new Hornets. Then, see if you can tell the difference between the burned-in ones, and then see if you can between the new and burned-in ones. The data obtained will hopefully help us at least make some basic (though perhaps still a bit weak) inductions about: 1. Whether there is some inconsistency in what each new Hornet sounds like, 2. Whether there is some inconsistency in what they sound like later, and 3. Whether "burn-in" is in effect. I don't have the personal resources to conduct a test like this myself and, based off of my past experience, it seems as though I'm also lacking the skill, know-how, or something else that is required to successfully replicate results such as yours with respect to burn-in. Note - I've read that BlackGate caps do require some time for the charge barrier to form, but those places where I've read this seemed to suggest the period was much shorter than something like 300 hours. So I don't know if that can still be argued to be responsible, especially if not in the signal path.

So basically translating this to average human intelligence (me) he wants proof. I wouldn't be opposed to that!

 

[Jahn]

You know Romanee, I've been thinking about the differences between the "M" and my stock - I know we haven't compared the two since they've had even more time to marinate, but now I'm thinking the "M" is actually not closer to the AE-1, but rather it's closer to the HR2. Being able to get that portably sounds like a good deal. I'm sending mine to Ray for the mods!

 

[Romanee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn You know Romanee, I've been thinking about the differences between the "M" and my stock - I know we haven't compared the two since they've had even more time to marinate, but now I'm thinking the "M" is actually not closer to the AE-1, but rather it's closer to the HR2. Being able to get that portably sounds like a good deal. I'm sending mine to Ray for the mods!

Since I've only had a few brief (though very enjoyable) listens to the HR2, that comparison never occurred to me.

Thank goodness you won't get a new 15,000uf cap (and need 350 hours or "burn in" all over again)!

To switch your train of thought, along the lines of Filiburt's latest post here -- regarding our plans to assemble "original", "new stock", and "burned-in 'M'" Hornets for mini-met comparison -- it would be interesting if we could assemble even more Hornets -- but I have no idea how. We'd need a quiet venue, and focus the meet solely on Hornets. Ouch! Bring the antihistamine. Well, maybe leave the meds home to avoid affecting aural acuity.

BTW Filiburt -- just a side note: As Jahn will verify, my ears are pretty good (though I doubt I have "golden ears", whatever that really means) -- at least regarding the 3 Hornet versions. When I heard his Hornet (at our minimeet), that he thought was an "original stock" Hornet, it sounded to me to be very different from the sound I remembered. I thought that perhaps Ray had made interim mods before the "M" mod. We discovered shortly after the meet that early on Ray had discovered problems with the original Hornets' Nichicon cap, and changed the subsequent stock Hornets to incorporate a Panasonic cap, replacing the "flawed" Nichicon cap. The Panasonic cap gave it a somewhat wider soundstage, more HF extension (though not to my ears as clean or extended as the "M" Hornet), better speed and definition, a brighter overall character -- but also not as good, in various respects, as the "M".