[NCSUZoSo]

Already found a new quirk with this revision and figured out how to fix it. Do NOT use RCA shorting plugs with the Burson Play, it will create a lot of distortion. Does anyone know why this is? I run XLR and RCA shorting plugs on many devices, never seen (well, heard) this happen.

Hey!

Is this ok, that my Play! is kinda hot? I mean the outer case is very hot, tho I don't want to disassembling it. I Put some little case under it cause the bottom of the Play! case was very hot. How long should I use the Play! when I am gaming? There is a way to cool it down?

Cheers,
kebcy

I touched my foot on the Play after it was used all night (by accident, forgot to turn it off) and it felt like it burned me it was so hot, haha. Then I found out what others have already pointed out, amps/pre-amps in a Class A configuration put off more heat than most of us are used to when compared with other modern amp configs. You can always leave the top off to reduce temps if that is a concern, that is if you have a safe place to put it where dropping a drink or a rogue dog peeing won't hit it . I have considered cutting fan slots adding a low RPM fan. Even if the temps are normal, the lower the temps the longer the over product life will be.

 

[raoultrifan]

Already found a new quirk with this revision and figured out how to fix it. Do NOT use RCA shorting plugs with the Burson Play, it will create a lot of distortion. Does anyone know why this is? I run XLR and RCA shorting plugs on many devices, never seen (well, heard) this happen.[...]

What do you mean by "shorting plugs"? Bear in mind that RCA is directly connected to Class-A output stage transistors, so don't try adding any resistors or anything else to modify the output impedance.

 

[NCSUZoSo]

I talked to Alex from Burson Audio and he said the amplifier section was simply not designed to be used with RCA shorting plugs. He said it could even damage the device. This makes me wonder how to know what devices benefit and what devices suffer from using these. I first heard about these in Robert Harley's "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio"

The plugs look like this and they simply short the RCA jack ring to the tip, a lot of the time this reduces hum/hiss. They also make these for XLR. Obviously these are only meant to be used on unused RCA/XLR jacks.

 

[raoultrifan]

Not sure who designed these so called "plugs", but under no circumstances should be used in any audio device, because it shorts-circuits the output stage. No matter we're speaking of an op-amp or discrete output stage, using these adapters should be forbidden.

 

[NCSUZoSo]

Not sure who designed these so called "plugs", but under no circumstances should be used in any audio device, because it shorts-circuits the output stage. No matter we're speaking of an op-amp or discrete output stage, using these adapters should be forbidden.

It's meant to short unused RCA jacks. That is the main difference I realized, the RCA jacks of the Play are technically never "unused", even with the headphone jack used, the RCA jacks are still outputting.

Edit: AHHHH I realize my mistake now (thanks to Alex @ Burson), they are meant to only be used on inputs, not outputs. DOH!

I can tell you for a fact, they do make a difference on some of the equipment I have tested them on. I have a dozen of these on my main home theater amplifier, have for over a year. Never had a single issue until I tried to use it with the Burson Play. (To make it crystal clear, that is because the home theater amp's RCAs are INPUTS while the Burson Play's are OUTPUTS!! Don't short outputs!)


This isn't a new device, they have been around for decades.

Even AudioQuest makes them: https://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-RCA-Noise-Stopper-Caps-pack/dp/B00447ZOCE

"Product description
In a world immersed in RF/EMI interference we all need the sound of silence… Nothing makes an audio/video system more irritable than RF interference- the bane of dynamics and clarity. To reduce the amount of RF interference entering your system we recommend “capping” all unused RCA and XLR inputs. You’ll be pleasantly rewarded with a blacker background, deeper soundstage, and a richer more satisfying overall experience."


Inputs Good! Outputs Bad! (for RCA or XLR shorting plugs)

 

[Eiffel]

Anybody willing to try this config? I need other opinions on this.[/Spoiler]

I think the V6 Vivid have a problem, probably a lot of OP-AMP's will sound better ( more natural ).
The V sound shape is too much exacerbated compared with the old Burson OP-AMPs - the frequencies in the 300-900 Hz spectrum seems seriously atenuated ( not measurable but audible in songs ) - male voices are lower and female voces are more pitchy than normal.

The V6 Classics are more neutral - with a slight bump in almost same frequencies than the Vivid, but very very slight.

Until now I've tested in IV the V6 - Vivid and Classic, LME49720, Muses01 and V5i. Best sounding are the Muses01, V6 Classic and V5i. The V6 Classic however need about 60 h of burning to start sounding better on violins, and need the Vivid in LPF for a better sound. The Muses 01 are the closest to the Classics - more balanced than the Classics, but less fast than them - have some problems with big orchestras and very fast rythm.

In LPF I-ve put both V6 - Vivid and Classic, OPA2132 and Muses02. OPA2132 seems to make the Vivid in I/V sounding better on voices and classic instruments, but seriously alter the soundstage and transparency of the sound. Interesting, because I use it in LP on my STX combined with V5i and they are ok there. For the moment the Vivid in LPF are the best in my combinations.

This isn't a new device, they have been around for decades.

Even AudioQuest makes them: https://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-RCA-Noise-Stopper-Caps-pack/dp/B00447ZOCE

AudioQuest don't made Short Plugs - if you look better there is no pin inside. Just a metal cover to shield the connector. That's the right way to do. It doesn't short the input or output. Just add better shielding.

 

[Prabeer Patankar]

I have placed order for the new board, waiting for it to be shipped.

Spoiler

Btw, I find OPA1692 in I/V, LME49720 in LP and OPA209 in Gain stage to sound much better than the V6 Vivids.

Anybody willing to try this config? I need other opinions on this.

I will try this combo to nite for sure and update

 

[raoultrifan]

[...]

Edit: AHHHH I realize my mistake now (thanks to Alex @ Burson), they are meant to only be used on inputs, not outputs. DOH!

[...]

It makes lot of sense now, I do the same thing when listening for the background noise. These RCA plugs are also a safety measure to ensure there's no input source connected while searching for background noise with your headphones and volume to the max.

 

[imran27]

Just a couple of days back I received my another order of OPA1692 and LME49720

I was enjoying the 1x OPA1692, 2x LME49720, 2x OPA209 configuration in my Burson Play rev1.1

I figured there is some lousiness in low end which needs to be rectified. The bass notes didn't decay fast enough.

Next config: 1x LME49720, 2x OPA1692, 2x OPA209
This config rectified the issues very very well but the top end became slightly unnatural. Bass impact and speed improved a lot. The decay was quite fast, details had much better separation and were lot cleaner with a darker background.

3xOPA1692, 2x OPA209
This is the config which I am using right now.
Superb in terms of low end performance. Mids are quite natural. But the top end is less natural than any of the previous configs. Best instrument separation I have heard with chip opamps.

3x LME49720, 2x OPA209:
This config gives the most natural tonality. But the technicalities of sound like attack and decay, background/noise floor, etc. are pretty bad. Separation and imaging is bad, layering is bad.
Basically, tonality is all you get with this config.

1x V6 Vivid, 2x OPA1692, 2x OPA209:
This config sounds best of all. Even compared to configs more V6V's, this is the one that has best of everything like tonality, technicalities (attack/decay, extensions, background/noise floor) and presentation (imaging, separation, layering, etc.)
One complain I had with V6V is it is extremely subtle with the low end. That is resolved with OPA1692 in LP. Also, the highs did't seem very revealing and natural. I wanted highs something between OPA1692 and OPA2209. 2x OPA209 in gain stage solved that. Gave me amazing transparency of preceding stages with a good smooth textured mid range and top end, highs especially are pretty forward with OPA209, but OPA1692 has some roll off in the highs with pretty good extension. So overall synergy is perfect.

If I had to give up discrete opamps, OPA1692 is the one I would use for I/V. Best of all I have tried. V6V is better than OPA1692 but OPA1692 isn't extremely far off from V6V and that's bragging rights for OPA1692 considering it's dirt cheap price
For I/V: OPA1692 is best, compared to - OPA1612, OPA2192, OPA2209, OPA1652, NE5532, LME9720, OPA1622, OPA1602, OPA1662
For LP: OPA1692 for now, I have good expectations from OPA2209 but they are out of stock.
For gain: OPA209 but only against NE5534 and V6V singles.

Will be trying these in gain stage: OPA1611, ADA4610-1, OPA189
Will be trying these in LP stage: OPA2209

Any suggestions are always welcome.

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

I’ve been wondering. What volume level would be best to feed the Play into another amp? I’ve been wanting to try it with my Sansui

 

[raoultrifan]

Somewhere between 45-55, but just to be 110% sure, get a true-RMS multi-meter, feed your PLAY with 1kHz sinewave (0dB or -0.2dB if possible, audiocheck.net perhaps) and rise the knob volume till about 2V RMS.

 

[Eiffel]

I use between 45-49. At about 47 it seems to get the 2V output, but depends a bit also of the recording volume. Not all albums are at same level.

 

[raoultrifan]

[...] depends a bit also of the recording volume. Not all albums are at same level.

This is why you should be using 0dB sinewaves @1kHz for this ( I actually use -1dB sinewaves for this, as a safety measure against clipping). This will ensure no clipping will occur on the external amplifier used.

 

[Eiffel]

This is how I got the 2V measurement on 47. However if the song seems to be louder I set on 45 or if it's less louder I increase to 49.

Now, for Windows 10 users - good news, it seems the new April Update works fine with the actual Burson driver.

 

[Prabeer Patankar]

Just a couple of days back I received my another order of OPA1692 and LME49720

I was enjoying the 1x OPA1692, 2x LME49720, 2x OPA209 configuration in my Burson Play rev1.1

I figured there is some lousiness in low end which needs to be rectified. The bass notes didn't decay fast enough.

Next config: 1x LME49720, 2x OPA1692, 2x OPA209
This config rectified the issues very very well but the top end became slightly unnatural. Bass impact and speed improved a lot. The decay was quite fast, details had much better separation and were lot cleaner with a darker background.

3xOPA1692, 2x OPA209
This is the config which I am using right now.
Superb in terms of low end performance. Mids are quite natural. But the top end is less natural than any of the previous configs. Best instrument separation I have heard with chip opamps.

3x LME49720, 2x OPA209:
This config gives the most natural tonality. But the technicalities of sound like attack and decay, background/noise floor, etc. are pretty bad. Separation and imaging is bad, layering is bad.
Basically, tonality is all you get with this config.

1x V6 Vivid, 2x OPA1692, 2x OPA209:
This config sounds best of all. Even compared to configs more V6V's, this is the one that has best of everything like tonality, technicalities (attack/decay, extensions, background/noise floor) and presentation (imaging, separation, layering, etc.)
One complain I had with V6V is it is extremely subtle with the low end. That is resolved with OPA1692 in LP. Also, the highs did't seem very revealing and natural. I wanted highs something between OPA1692 and OPA2209. 2x OPA209 in gain stage solved that. Gave me amazing transparency of preceding stages with a good smooth textured mid range and top end, highs especially are pretty forward with OPA209, but OPA1692 has some roll off in the highs with pretty good extension. So overall synergy is perfect.

If I had to give up discrete opamps, OPA1692 is the one I would use for I/V. Best of all I have tried. V6V is better than OPA1692 but OPA1692 isn't extremely far off from V6V and that's bragging rights for OPA1692 considering it's dirt cheap price
For I/V: OPA1692 is best, compared to - OPA1612, OPA2192, OPA2209, OPA1652, NE5532, LME9720, OPA1622, OPA1602, OPA1662
For LP: OPA1692 for now, I have good expectations from OPA2209 but they are out of stock.
For gain: OPA209 but only against NE5534 and V6V singles.

Will be trying these in gain stage: OPA1611, ADA4610-1, OPA189
Will be trying these in LP stage: OPA2209

Any suggestions are always welcome.

Imran, you are right about the combo of 1692/49720/209, the low end felt a bit slow on that. For the gain stage I have preferred the OPA209 only with warmer Opamps that lean towards the low end like the OPA1652, which was a revelation, I had tried this Opamp earlier with OPA1611 in the gain stage and the combo had become too warm and thick. The 1652 with 209 in the gain stage sounds more in control and gorgeous. The OPA1692 and OPA2209 appear a bit harsh on the top end with the OPA209, however NE5534 the stock Opamp reigns the harshness in very nicely. In fact I am coming back to the stock Opamp NE5534 in the gain stage more often. For me the best combos currently are:

3 x OPA1692 + 2 x NE5534
3 x LME49720 + 2 x NE5534
3 x OPA2209 + 2 x NE5534
3 x OPA1652 + 2 x OPA209

I am finding myself sticking to the same dual part in all 3 dual stages, it gives the best synergy and true representation of the signature IMO but that could be just my belief. Out of the Above I like the combo with1692 and the one with 1652 the best. Next I am thinking of trying the Sparks discrete parts. Haven’t tried any discrete Opamps yet.