[FYFL]

Nothing wrong with indulging yourself a little. Life’s too short.

 

[]eep]

Right. Nothing wrong with enjoying yourself with something beautiful. You're not made for suffering but for glory. You just need to find a way to recreate that condition.

On the question of 'burning in' or 'loosening up' or after how much time does your cartridge sound optimal? That depends on the damper, the system and the manufacturer. The rubber or w/e needs to relax by movement. Like any machine you need to wear off the edges first carefully before you can put the pedal to the metal. That doesn't apply to a cartridge obviously, but it does to speakers. And combustion engines. Some manufacturers use pre-aged rubber. Or different material. But generally after a few hours it starts to sound really good. Sometimes improvements take longer and after that it's all downhill. That's just life isn't it? Enjoy it while you can. And don't waste time (and keep it clean but watch out with some cleaning fluids!).

I had a short conversation with someone who was selling his cartridge. He had the diamond replaced because he lost his original. His warning was that the needle cleaning fluid had eroded the glue and the diamond tip just dropped of. The exact same thing happened to my Koetsu, the needle dropped off since I had started using fluid for a year. Caveat emptor.

 

[The Jester]

There’s a few makers that actually state “use of any cleaning fluids will void warranty” while years ago I bought a Stanton cleaning kit that contained a small bottle of fluid and a nice dense carbon fibre brush, at least that way the maker can control what’s in their cleaning fluid, fluid and Stanton cartridge long since gone but the little brush still works really well .. and no fluids …
Got into the habit of a quick wipe wth a Thorens microfibre pad type cleaner after playing the record too, just in case the stylus has dug anything out of the groove that’ll end up back in the sleeve … dunno but it can’t hurt right ?

 

[]eep]

I forgot to mention a good cleaning method that is almost free and works well and is safe. That melamine sponge. Just cut off a thin slice, glue it to a coin for the weight and simply drop your needle on the surface with the cuing lever. Just a few times and the tip is gunk free. Fluffbunnies you can simply remove with the carbon fibre brush.

 

[FYFL]

I forgot to mention a good cleaning method that is almost free and works well and is safe. That melamine sponge. Just cut off a thin slice, glue it to a coin for the weight and simply drop your needle on the surface with the cuing lever. Just a few times and the tip is gunk free. Fluffbunnies you can simply remove with the carbon fibre brush.

I did start using this Hudson HiFi UV/ultrasonic stylus cleaning gadget on cheaper styluses. I’m still not convinced how safe it is long term so quarterly cleaning is all that I’m willing to commit to at this moment.
Zerodust Onzow is still my preferred daily go to for stylus cleaning. DS sells similar style gel based gadget but at twice the price. Why so expensive? I have no idea.
My third method is Mr. Clean Magic Eraser. Also used periodically on cheaper cartridges.

And thanks for feedback on suspension break in.
Yeah, I keep hearing all these various hypotheses as far as break-in period is concerned and it frustrates me a bit. Not that I don’t believe it, I do. Just the discrepancy between break-in time period from those who report on it.
I usually don’t pay that much attention to it and try to take similar approach that applies to tubes break-in. Enough to satisfy my subconscious sense of ease regarding this subject.

Not sure how someone can tell the difference between a cartridge that was used for 20 and the other that has 200hrs on it? Maybe with direct A/B comparison? But even then, I would be very skeptical given our inherently short auditory memory.

Anyway….
Getting some records into my “nightstand” setup rotation.
•The Jacques Loussier Trio Plays Bach at the theater champs elysees
• Eloy “Ocean”
•Portico Quartet “Monument”
•Robert Palmer “Clues”
• Paul Horn “Inside the great pyramid”
•Strunz & Farah “Misterio”
•The wonderful sounds series “The wonderful sounds of female vocals”
A compilation put out by Analogue Production.

P.S. Finally got my “microscope” amp back to do some in depth evaluation.

 

[The Jester]

Anything that works by simply lowering the needle into it a few times is a great idea as opposed to something requiring a brushing action with the chance of damage if done incorrectly
With “break in” the obvious ones are something with some sort of suspension, cartridges, speakers etc, with others, like some high end Teflon caps stated break in can be as much as 500 hours ?
Then there are some who feel that a system left undisturbed from source to speaker/headphone can be affected by simply disturbing one connection ?, some theories about optimising minute current flow through dissimilar metals improving as some sort of “break in” effect, whether that can be audibly detected or just “snake oil theory” is down to the individuals perception/beliefs, in the end whatever the reason, if you think your system plays music the way you think it should sound then job done.
Having said that there’s a distinct difference between settling down to an evening listening to one LP after another and so called “critical listening” for evaluating components, cables etc, and concentrating on specific elements, “air and space” is an interesting one, most will hear a difference but is it better or just artificial “brightness” ? What needs to be listened for is variation, when warmer, darker instruments sound more so, and at the same time brighter instruments sound better, then there’s a genuine improvement rather than just a “tilt” up or down in overall frequency response balance, mainly with speakers concentrating on just depth of field can be interesting too …

 

[FYFL]

Anything that works by simply lowering the needle into it a few times is a great idea as opposed to something requiring a brushing action with the chance of damage if done incorrectly
With “break in” the obvious ones are something with some sort of suspension, cartridges, speakers etc, with others, like some high end Teflon caps stated break in can be as much as 500 hours ?
Then there are some who feel that a system left undisturbed from source to speaker/headphone can be affected by simply disturbing one connection ?, some theories about optimising minute current flow through dissimilar metals improving as some sort of “break in” effect, whether that can be audibly detected or just “snake oil theory” is down to the individuals perception/beliefs, in the end whatever the reason, if you think your system plays music the way you think it should sound then job done.
Having said that there’s a distinct difference between settling down to an evening listening to one LP after another and so called “critical listening” for evaluating components, cables etc, and concentrating on specific elements, “air and space” is an interesting one, most will hear a difference but is it better or just artificial “brightness” ? What needs to be listened for is variation, when warmer, darker instruments sound more so, and at the same time brighter instruments sound better, then there’s a genuine improvement rather than just a “tilt” up or down in overall frequency response balance, mainly with speakers concentrating on just depth of field can be interesting too …

All valid points that I won’t try to dispute as I’m with you on most of it.
Evaluation “mode” and “chill mode” are in fact two very different takes on same music material.
And when focus is shifting from various technicality presentation points and sound characteristics of any given component it sure handicaps your overall perception of grand picture.
There’s a value in scrutinizing weak points of your system’s ability to paint faithful music rendition that sounds natural, organic and technically satisfying at the same time. But I feel that guys like you and I don’t need much to assess rather quickly if system is “right” or pretentious wannabe.
I’m also not the one looking for unobtainable “perfection” on rather sane budget as I know that quest could probably drive me to insanity. Lol
It’s not to say that I don’t enjoy reading about or experiencing systems that are simply breathtaking. Not at all. I’ve heard few of those and it’s an experience to say the least. But I’ll leave it to and applaud those who can menage to afford it and do it justice in appropriate setting.

Electronics burn-in is a different story entirely and I don’t really want to get into that as it is lengthy and often polarizing subject. I’ll just say that yes, burn-in “phenomenon” exists but it’s often exaggerated by fellow hobbyists and abused by manufacturers. Example: I know one speaker manufacturer who sells direct and strongly recommends 500hrs+ “break-in” period. That’s over 20 days X 24hrs per day, non stop play time. You will need at least a week to get familiar with speakers and set them up in your room to get most out of them. And there goes your 30days in home trial period. See where I’m going with this? Some go much farther with that “burn-in” period.
And some, like Nordos cables recommend 336hrs exactly. Not 300 or 330hrs but exactly 336hrs. And how did they come up with that number? I don’t know but that’s about 11hrs per day. It used to drive me nuts. Now, I just don’t pay attention to it or companies that strongly advocate for it.

 

[FYFL]

BTW that Jacques Loussier LP is ridiculously good. If you come across one, get it. I was lucky to get sealed copy. It had some funky residue on it but nothing that good cleaning can’t fix. Nicest piano, drums and natural/realistic hi-hat you can find.

 

[]eep]

That is the famous London/Decca FFRR sound. Not for nothing sought after. Classic albums are fabulous. Like the old Columbia or RCA Living Sound

 

[FYFL]

That is the famous London/Decca FFRR sound. Not for nothing sought after. Classic albums are fabulous. Like the old Columbia or RCA Living Sound

Especially "six eye Columbia" series. They sound really good but ppl pay silly money for some of those. Not sure why? They were made in 50s-60s for a decade or less. Maybe that's why....Got couple dozen of those. But they were freebies.

 

[The Jester]

All valid points that I won’t try to dispute as I’m with you on most of it.
Evaluation “mode” and “chill mode” are in fact two very different takes on same music material.
And when focus is shifting from various technicality presentation points and sound characteristics of any given component it sure handicaps your overall perception of grand picture.
There’s a value in scrutinizing weak points of your system’s ability to paint faithful music rendition that sounds natural, organic and technically satisfying at the same time. But I feel that guys like you and I don’t need much to assess rather quickly if system is “right” or pretentious wannabe.
I’m also not the one looking for unobtainable “perfection” on rather sane budget as I know that quest could probably drive me to insanity. Lol
It’s not to say that I don’t enjoy reading about or experiencing systems that are simply breathtaking. Not at all. I’ve heard few of those and it’s an experience to say the least. But I’ll leave it to and applaud those who can menage to afford it and do it justice in appropriate setting.

Electronics burn-in is a different story entirely and I don’t really want to get into that as it is lengthy and often polarizing subject. I’ll just say that yes, burn-in “phenomenon” exists but it’s often exaggerated by fellow hobbyists and abused by manufacturers. Example: I know one speaker manufacturer who sells direct and strongly recommends 500hrs+ “break-in” period. That’s over 20 days X 24hrs per day, non stop play time. You will need at least a week to get familiar with speakers and set them up in your room to get most out of them. And there goes your 30days in home trial period. See where I’m going with this? Some go much farther with that “burn-in” period.
And some, like Nordos cables recommend 336hrs exactly. Not 300 or 330hrs but exactly 336hrs. And how did they come up with that number? I don’t know but that’s about 11hrs per day. It used to drive me nuts. Now, I just don’t pay attention to it or companies that strongly advocate for it.

Couldn’t agree more, saying something won’t sound good until xxx hours of use is to be treated with caution, others saying something won’t achieve its full potential until xxx hours of use is a little different, in other words it’ll sound good straight out of the box and then gets better with use,
Good thing with your comments on various albums is there’s likely to be more variation in source material than replay hardware, good hardware can get so much more out of a good recording but it can’t magically fix a “dud” …

 

[]eep]

That's correct. I say it what happens in it's essence is that information can only be lost from recording the original performance. You can balance some things, you can amplify it, but this always happens at the cost of more loss of information however tiny. The opposite is entropy or chaos. You can't reorder a deck of cards by shuffling it o ce it's been shuffled. You need to look at each card and order them (put your knowledge of what information was there back). You could restore an old recording with a lot of computing power. But you can't improve the sound by shuffling with better components.

Information never ever auto-generates. It only degrades. Entropy is the arrow of time. Always points in one direction.

I didn't mean to make a verbose statement and of course Columbia 6 eyes are up there too. Like Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft 'tulips', the Philips purple 'S t er e O', Everest 35mm, Decca SXL etc. Basically from the starting era of stereo recording with only 2 or 3 microphones and before the transistor era when still all tube equipment was used. The chances to get a sublime recording then was a lot higher than now. That is why those are collectable. Not because of rare recordings or stamping anomalies. Just sound quality.

 

[FYFL]

Couldn’t agree more, saying something won’t sound good until xxx hours of use is to be treated with caution, others saying something won’t achieve its full potential until xxx hours of use is a little different, in other words it’ll sound good straight out of the box and then gets better with use,
Good thing with your comments on various albums is there’s likely to be more variation in source material than replay hardware, good hardware can get so much more out of a good recording but it can’t magically fix a “dud” …

Absolutely. Garbage in, garbage out is unavoidable reality. That’s why I am a little OCD on collecting records that meet certain quality standard. Also why I pay attention to back story of the recording. I mean,….. if I am going to spend 30/60$ on a record, it better sound fantastic.

Lots of tube gear in my HP and SPKs system so getting them both sing takes several warm up hrs. That’s my daily “break-in” routine.

 

[FYFL]

That's correct. I say it what happens in it's essence is that information can only be lost from recording the original performance. You can balance some things, you can amplify it, but this always happens at the cost of more loss of information however tiny. The opposite is entropy or chaos. You can't reorder a deck of cards by shuffling it o ce it's been shuffled. You need to look at each card and order them (put your knowledge of what information was there back). You could restore an old recording with a lot of computing power. But you can't improve the sound by shuffling with better components.

Information never ever auto-generates. It only degrades. Entropy is the arrow of time. Always points in one direction.

I didn't mean to make a verbose statement and of course Columbia 6 eyes are up there too. Like Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft 'tulips', the Philips purple 'S t er e O', Everest 35mm, Decca SXL etc. Basically from the starting era of stereo recording with only 2 or 3 microphones and before the transistor era when still all tube equipment was used. The chances to get a sublime recording then was a lot higher than now. That is why those are collectable. Not because of rare recordings or stamping anomalies. Just sound quality.

I think you are right about golden era of the recording (50’s-mid 60’s).
It gradually went down from there. With exceptions ofcause.
You are probably aware that Kevin Gray starts his own label. It will be entirely tube based. From mics to cutting lathe. I can’t wait.

 

[The Jester]

That's correct. I say it what happens in it's essence is that information can only be lost from recording the original performance. You can balance some things, you can amplify it, but this always happens at the cost of more loss of information however tiny. The opposite is entropy or chaos. You can't reorder a deck of cards by shuffling it o ce it's been shuffled. You need to look at each card and order them (put your knowledge of what information was there back). You could restore an old recording with a lot of computing power. But you can't improve the sound by shuffling with better components.

Information never ever auto-generates. It only degrades. Entropy is the arrow of time. Always points in one direction.

I didn't mean to make a verbose statement and of course Columbia 6 eyes are up there too. Like Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft 'tulips', the Philips purple 'S t er e O', Everest 35mm, Decca SXL etc. Basically from the starting era of stereo recording with only 2 or 3 microphones and before the transistor era when still all tube equipment was used. The chances to get a sublime recording then was a lot higher than now. That is why those are collectable. Not because of rare recordings or stamping anomalies. Just sound quality.

Live takes with just a pair of studio mic’s have the potential to get closer to the original than somehow “assembling” the same thing by mixing multiple close mic’s or worse mixing tracks that were recorded at different times and places and then trying to recreate the “sound” over some studio monitors, some guys can do a really good job of it but there’s not many of those around, simple test, record 2 singers in close harmony, then record them separately and try and mix them to sound the same ? …
Instruments like bass drum and string bass can create a similar sympathetic harmony which can be lost with close mic’s and post mixing vs a live take with a couple of good studio mic’s, and preserving everything as close as possible to the original is possibly why some good recordings sound better as replay equipment improves as those subtle harmonics and inflections are more faithfully reproduced, there are some wonderful digital recordings that sound transparent, dynamic and “real” with some good post processing but they still don’t capture that truely live sound of a good band of musicians playing “tight” … bass, drums, horns hitting the same notes at exactly the right time …