I heard this break-in comment too, but my experience with my DS DAC was Yale, Huron, Torreys then, Windom firmware changes that are definitely real.
Me, personally, I didn’t hear the same firmware get better over time with the CLX, as I used those during what would be break-in. Did it get better and I didn’t know it? Well, it was plugged-in and turned on and there it was.
If it broke-in on me, the firmware is still what made me like the DAC better and better that I know I heard after the updates. The DS DAC with Windom is a good sound for the price and that’s that in my system.
You seem quite sure of this. Hearing something we aren’t?
On the matter of break-in, I have recordings of HDMI and USB cables breaking in over the course of a week. It’s a real, recordable phenomenon. I wonder if anyone has done technical measurements of the sound profile to prove/disprove it since much of what I’ve read is speculative on this and that or recall from memory.
There is what I call digititus on some sources, but it seems to be a source thing more than the DAC. Yes, this can get better at a cost.
I did use a very expensive SD 3100-HV T+A DAC in my set-up that was very good and like I said, very expensive. Most can’t buy a $35,000 DAC so there is that. Is this a real product for most of us? Sure it is indeed the best DAC I’ve heard (like I’ve heard maybe five!) and is “better” but is it applicable to most of us even as good as it is?
Some upper crust stuff is necessary to see how close we get and to define VALUE. Without that we don’t really know how to establish price to performance and most of us have a PRICE limit with a lucky few buying performance over price.
OK, let’s talk about something that is applicable to all of us. I use an XP-25 head-amp that is a warmer sound. Great bass and SMOOTH for sure. Easy to use and live with. I tend to go for a more solid and higher image specificity and dynamic sound. What does that mean? I like my SUMIKO Blackbird’s vibrancy over my Benz Ruby Z’s smoothness for instance. I used to think it was loudspeaker dependent but no, those changes didn’t alter my cartridge choice.
I use Barry Thornton’s Black Swan head amp as it is so FAST and DYNAMIC. I seem to keep two head amps around as they are finicky (lots of gain) and change spots with MC or MM cartridges not to mention if a component goes out at the beginning of the gain stages, you’ll hear about it 60 dB later! Every head amp I’ve owned has set-up noise issues (orientation, power line noise, all that stuff).
What adjectives would you use on the Stellar phono head-amp? I have a friend with one, and need to get him here with it. This seems to be a good bet for a more vivid and dynamic sound. Yes or no?
On the 2nd thoughts - I’ve become more convinced over time that much of what is going on is not measurable by current means. Hearing is enough for me, whether I’m delusional or not😝
I left it out not on purpose but because I’m ignorant on that one. But my point is FIRMWARE is what I hear on my DAC. Maybe not so much break-in that I’m aware of.
In my side of things, DIGITAL CABLE, the LOWER temperature the better. In audio, we seem to think “warm” is good. A NPN or PNP junction temp is REALLY hot, not warm.
A CPU performs better and with less error the cooler it is. But switch to analog and all of a sudden it has to be “warmer” to be better. A CPU gets worse as it runs harder, not better.
I don’t see it as warm or cooler, but to meet the stability of the circuit at the lowest error, BER or THD or any other analog measure you want to use. This isn’t going to be the same on every component. Letting a component sit isn’t really letting it “warm-up” so much as to reach the design’s stability point as that’s what you’ll be using most of the time outside of initial turn-on.
Yeah - the firmware certainly is huge and immediate, whereas any stuff the analog stage or other bits in the DAC go through in terms of breakin are longer term, and assumedly once they’re done breaking in or warming up - they’re done.
Late to this thread but, jeez, that was one of weirder reviews I’ve read. A whole crap-ton of words, but no discussion of how the Icono variants actually sound, which might have been more helpful to someone interested in trying them.
It was more of a review of the Legacy amp that is now that reviewer’s favorite - to the extent of returning a pair of Pass XA 200.8 monoblocks. Maybe his electric bill shot up too much or his A/C couldn’t keep up, but really??!! If that ice-based Legacy amp is that good, then that’s a huge value story buried in the value story about cables.
Yes, many feel in audio more is better. That’s the difference. If you had an amp that was COLD to the touch all the time, we’d lament that it never warms up even if the amp is a warm as it needs to be to run a linear transfer function playing music.
I agree that most want to de-embed the cable from the impressions they make on specific pieces of equipment, and roll all that away from the topic at hand. But, the method isn’t wrong but different. I does span more than just the cable and like the comments on the class-D amps, is something new for readers to also consider outside of the cable. That’s not all bad. No, it isn’t usually done this way but that doesn’t discredit the methodology as “wrong” other than it is a more organic way of doing things verses dissecting the component in review away and separate from the rest of the system. He just allowed that rest of the system(s) to be part of the review. And, it is how we hear cable…in the system, always. The cable test data is pretty poor at defining how they may sound and the pure test data is about as far from our components systems as it gets so we can’t wander that far away from the “system” either. Douglas just chose to move over to the system side farther than you’re used to reading in a review. Fair to say?
For sure, Galen. An audition of any piece of the audio puzzle needs to take all of the context into consideration (system, room, cables, tweaks, listener biases, etc.). I’d react the same way to, say, an amplifier review that did not at least mention the speakers, preamps, cabling and signal sources as all of this stuff affects the sound in ways that escape measurement.
The author clearly knows what he’s doing, and thanks to him I made a mental note to give a listen to his favorite Legacy Class D amp if the opportunity arises. Digital audio sucked for 20-30 years, but has matured quite nicely, as have Class D circuits. If this one can best one of Nelson’s better designs, well maybe this aspect of digital has arrived, as well. I’d need to hear it to believe it, but I really WANT to believe that a $4,500 amp can outperform a $42,000 pair of some of the better monoblocks.
So, have no problem with some discussion of the system used for the evaluation, but this review struck me as 85% context and 15% “meat.” IMHO, for all of the digital ink spilt and effort expended the reviewer should have included listening impressions of the copper variants as this was perhaps the most fascinating aspect of my personal trials of these cables.
Douglas spent nearly 6-months reviewing Iconoclast cables in an incredible variety of systems and configurations. He was methodical and precise in his evaluation and I could not be more grateful for the time Doug must have put into writing this review and to Dagogo for publishing.
Doug is not the first person to say that Iconoclast cables are the very best they have experienced in many, many years of listening. In the last 60-days we have really been receiving exposure and more and more audiophiles and enthusiast are enjoying cables that really allow them to know how their systems and recordings “really” sound like. I hope everyone has a special holiday week and reflect.
By the way. Iconoclast cables do get better with time. Whether it is our ears and brains making adjustments or the cable matures it matters not. Something magical happens with time.
Agreed, Bob. Some things can’t be measured or definitively explained, like the differences in conductor materials’ effect on sound quality, all else remaining constant. But the perceived differences are there nonetheless. Burn-in is real.
