Audiolab 6000CDT, bright sounding, burn in time?

[Norcal]

Of course, we're not fun! We're a bunch of super hardcore science geeks staring at an AP with our lab coats on all day.

Don’t forget ‘listening to test signals instead of music’…

 

[fatoldgit]

By simply sticking "Silent Coat" 4mm aluminum backed Butyl constrained layer damping sheet strategically inside the case and on susceptible parts of the mechanism he has achieved the following:

Point of order.

Strategically implies some kinda of strategy, a plan maybe even some testing to isolate the exact source of the issue... from the looks of it I would suggest it was "stick this stuff on every available surface".

One would imagine in a reasonable design the CD mechanism (where it meet the chassis) would be damped in some way?

I am surprised that the sides of the transformer escaped treatment... imagine the gains missed by not doing this.

Peter

 

[Rednaxela]

First of all, that is not a proper burn in technique for transports. You can't just leave the player playing random music because there could be serious consequences.
Let's just hope your player isn't ruined.
You need to prepare music material in advance and you have to do it in order. Before you even start playing some music, you need to play 10 minutes of pink noise so that you try to negate the damage of random music playing.

You said that the sound is clinical? Then you need to start with mid bass, so play some 50s Jazz and use only Impulse and Bluenote releases. Think Miles, Coltrane... 60hours
After that you need only 30 to 40 hours of 2000s minimal techno for sub bass.
Now the hard part is to open up those kicks and to solidify the bass and for that you need some 80 hours of drum n bass.
All this is good for the bass, but it will close up some mids, and to reopen them, you must play 40 hours of male crooners from 40s to 60s like Sinatra, Dean Martin, Early Bennet... But please, no Michael Buble or you will mess up the imaging.
Now finally for silky smooth upper mids and highs you can play modern jazz female vocals like Nicki Parrott, Emilie-Claire Barlow and similar. 40 hours will do it.

The important note is that you can't just let the player play without you listening or you will develop something which is called the Cold Burn and that will mean that your player would be unburninable anymore.
Also, you should own original CDs of the material, but play only the burned copies because it will burn in the player without wearing out the motor. And please, use only 8x burn speed for CDs, not the 16X or you will cause overburn.

Good luck!

Brilliant.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Don’t forget ‘listening to test signals instead of music’…

Is there something wrong with that?

Spoiler: The Objectivist’s "Strictly Scientific" Playlist

"For when your ears are an unreliable measurement tool."

1. "1kHz: The Benchmark Banger"
   • A tone so pure, even your DAC will shed a tear of joy. Guaranteed to measure at 0.0001% THD.
2. "White Noise: The Sound of Truth"
   • Immerse yourself in the chaos of all frequencies, perfectly balanced (as all things should be). Ideal for disproving golden-ear claims.
3. "Pink Noise for Golden Egos"
   • Because real objectivists know flat power response isn’t optional -it’s a lifestyle.
4. "Bass Sweep Drop (20Hz to 20Hz)"
   • A short but sweet demonstration of why your subwoofer doesn’t deserve a bigger amplifier.
5. "Square Wave Scorn"
   • A brutal, unapologetic diss track for anyone who dared to call tube amps "warm."
6. "440Hz: The Only A You’ll Ever Need"
   • Why listen to a symphony when one perfect pitch suffices? Bring your tuner -this one's not for casuals.
7. "Dynamic Range Deathmatch"
   • Battle-ready tones for proving that your favorite recording is actually over-compressed garbage.
8. "Stereo Imaging: The Ping Pong Prelude"
   • Left. Right. Left. Right. Test your setup -and your patience -with this hard-panned classic.
9. "Impulse Response Rhapsody"
   • A percussive masterpiece where every peak is a reminder that timing accuracy is non-negotiable.
10. "THD Tango: Zero is Sexy"
    • A sultry tone designed to expose harmonic distortion in all its ugly glory. (Because if you can hear it, it’s too much.)
11. "The -3dB Breakup Ballad"
    • An ode to poorly designed crossovers and the heartbreak they leave behind.
12. "Nyquist No-No"
    • A high-frequency thriller that stops just short of 22.05kHz -because anything beyond is a myth.
13. "The RMS Blues"
    • A slow, soulful track dedicated to all the misguided fools who only measure peak power.
14. "Multi-Tone Mashup Mayhem"
    • Perfect for those who think single-frequency tests are for amateurs. Can your amp handle this harmonic chaos? Probably not.
15. "The Silence Sonata (0dB SPL)"
    • 3 minutes of absolute silence, so pure that you can finally test your noise floor -and your existential dread.

 

[Mnyb]

Even though a CD transport operates largely in the domain of ones and zeroes it would appear that resonance and vibration can play havoc with the sound quality.

The gentleman who owns this example has found the answer to the horrific and destructive power of these unwanted physical assaults.

View attachment 410236

By simply sticking "Silent Coat" 4mm aluminum backed Butyl constrained layer damping sheet strategically inside the case and on susceptible parts of the mechanism he has achieved the following:

"Immediately sounding better already from power up in terms of solidity, soundstage depth, separation and detail.
The sound is bigger, clearer and projects better. Speaking of detail, the player sounds more relaxed, but more detail is coming through?
It's like it has more time to play music, things sounding more 'right' in terms of timbre and timing."

Link

You can thank me later.

Ha ha.

I owned a rotel transport ,that did not lock properly to my DAC . I figured why . Previous owner had improved the thing by putting blu-tac on the oscillator crystal ( its housing ) it apparently disturbed the cooling enough to put it of a bit , when removed all was good again.

 

[fastricky]

Bumping up this thread as I have the exact same feeling about my 6000CDT as the OP - bright, thin, semi harsh sounding, very fatiguing. I mitigated this with a Hagerman tube buffer and a Schitt EQ and got it to where it now sounds great (through my Pontus II) but now I'm wondering if I'm just masking a turd and should move on? Curious to hear what the OP went with if they're still out there? Or if anyone can suggest what a good significant step up in sound quality would be from the 6000CDT? And please no comments of "they all sound they same..." because they truly do not.

 

[MattHooper]

Bumping up this thread as I have the exact same feeling about my 6000CDT as the OP - bright, thin, semi harsh sounding, very fatiguing. I mitigated this with a Hagerman tube buffer and a Schitt EQ and got it to where it now sounds great (through my Pontus II) but now I'm wondering if I'm just masking a turd and should move on? Curious to hear what the OP went with if they're still out there? Or if anyone can suggest what a good significant step up in sound quality would be from the 6000CDT? And please no comments of "they all sound they same..." because they truly do not.

I was going to say that the OP missed a chance to possibly have a very informative experience, if you could manage to blind test between the 6000CDT and his other digital gear. And all likelihood if he listened under conditions where he was controlling for bias, he would’ve been able to to detect no difference between the transport and another one.

Have you considered testing this way yourself?

I’ve had lots of interesting experiences, blind, testing my equipment over the years.

Several years ago, I switched music servers, and then it seemed to me like the sound coming from my system was a little bit more bright and brittle sounding. I was annoyed by this because I didn’t expect it.

However, I also knew about the role bias can play, and also that it was not technically likely at all that there would be a difference between the sound sent from the two different servers to my benchmark DAC.
But maybe there was something I was missing. Some setting or something. I couldn’t find anything amiss so I decided to have a friend help me blind test between my previous and my new music server.

The results were that this “brightness and brittleness?” disappeared - I couldn’t tell any difference between the new server and the old server.

So for me that put the problem to rest.

And shortly after I didn’t even have the impression anymore that my system was any brighter or had any problem. That bias effect in this case just went away once I was disabused of it.

This can be really helpful to experience these things for yourself.

 

[kemmler3D]

Hey, welcome to ASR!

it now sounds great (through my Pontus II) but now I'm wondering if I'm just masking a turd and should move on?

If it sounds good, it is good. It sounds like you used a reasonable approach to adjusting the tone to taste. Don't mess with success, etc.

If you want to get a different amp anyway, there are a lot of good options, IMO you should start by figuring out how much power you need and then find the amp with the least noise / distortion that fits your need and budget.

But unfortunately I have no basis on which to tell you anything other than "they all sound the same".

I mean they also don't, if you hear something you really heard it. But the difference occurs in the brain, due to placebo / expectation, not the gear - in the vast majority of cases.

I haven't seen measurements of this amp so maybe it really is doing something to the treble region, I have no way to say from behind my keyboard here, (nor do most of us), that would be up to you to test / measure somehow...

 

[Robin L]

You even have retailers, manufacturers offering burn in service for audio cables!

And you have cryogenic treatment available (for a price) for audio cables, though neither burn or deep freeze will affect sound in the slightest.

 

[antcollinet]

Bumping up this thread as I have the exact same feeling about my 6000CDT as the OP

If you'd taken the time to read a page or two of the thread, you'd have discovered that CD transports do not have a sound.

They deliver the digital data of the disc unmodified to the DAC which then converts it (audibly perfectly - if even a half decent Dac is used) to analogue.

If you are hearing a difference to any other CD transport using digital output in the same unchanged system, then almost certainly what you are hearing is the effects of the perceptive bias inherent in your (and every other human being's) auditory system. The sound waves reaching your ears will be identical - the difference is created in the wetware between them. Again - not a criticism of you - everyone on the planet can (and routinely does) experience similar effects.

If you try comparing properly controlled and blind - you will not be able to detect any difference.

 

[Mart68]

And please no comments of "they all sound they same..." because they truly do not.

As long as you keep thinking like that you're going to continue having bad sound.

Problem is clearly somewhere else in your system, it -truly - won't be the CD transport.

 

[fastricky]

Thanks for the comments everyone, lots to chew on:

- The concept that I'm going into the listening biased has merit, but not in this instance, the sound is indeed sharp and bright - this is in comparison to my analog system (I have a Rogue Audio tube integrated amp so my system is set up for semi warmth but I'd say the Rogue isn't the warmest tube amp going). For reference, my analog rig is sounding ideal (tube phono preamp too). Before doing a deep dive $-wise into acquiring my present analog system, I listened to CDs primarily (though my system then wasn't to the level it is now) so I believe I know what decent tone is from CDs.

- I understand the argument that a CDT is not a complicated unit per se, so there won't be any difference from one unit to the other. But I suggest that it's more than just the laser/reader. There are caps etc that must effect the tone if designed in such way. If not, why would anyone pay more than the cost of the 6000CDT? There are some VERY pricey transports out there, that I'm sure folks on this Forum own... why pay more? I can't be just for the loader/tray differences?

Anyway, I'm not arguing these points, just volleying them out for clarification/discussion. Bottom line is with the right CD, the digital system now with the EQ and tube buffer sounds great - so if I stay pat with the help of comments here I'm happy to save money, time and effort.

One additional note I've found now that I'm spending time with CDs again on a high end / resolving system - the average off-the-shelf CD doesn't sound very good! I've got a number of audiophile CDs and those sound great. I'd say in my informal experience the average LP is way better sounding than the average CD (mastering, source material etc are generally much better on LPs).

 

[Svend P]

(I have a Rogue Audio tube integrated amp so my system is set up for semi warmth

Most likely you are also wrong about your tube amp having a specific sound

If "Tube Sound" Is a Myth, Why Tubes?

Disclosure: my university education was in applied physics and signal processing, and I currently work in the software industry, so my knowledge of electrical engineering is not zero, but I'm no EE. So apologies in advance for any technical errors. This thread is inspired in part by comments...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[JeremyFife]

Thanks for the comments everyone, lots to chew on:

- The concept that I'm going into the listening biased has merit, but not in this instance, the sound is indeed sharp and bright - this is in comparison to my analog system (I have a Rogue Audio tube integrated amp so my system is set up for semi warmth but I'd say the Rogue isn't the warmest tube amp going). For reference, my analog rig is sounding ideal (tube phono preamp too). Before doing a deep dive $-wise into acquiring my present analog system, I listened to CDs primarily (though my system then wasn't to the level it is now) so I believe I know what decent tone is from CDs.

- I understand the argument that a CDT is not a complicated unit per se, so there won't be any difference from one unit to the other. But I suggest that it's more than just the laser/reader. There are caps etc that must effect the tone if designed in such way. If not, why would anyone pay more than the cost of the 6000CDT? There are some VERY pricey transports out there, that I'm sure folks on this Forum own... why pay more? I can't be just for the loader/tray differences?

Anyway, I'm not arguing these points, just volleying them out for clarification/discussion. Bottom line is with the right CD, the digital system now with the EQ and tube buffer sounds great - so if I stay pat with the help of comments here I'm happy to save money, time and effort.

One additional note I've found now that I'm spending time with CDs again on a high end / resolving system - the average off-the-shelf CD doesn't sound very good! I've got a number of audiophile CDs and those sound great. I'd say in my informal experience the average LP is way better sounding than the average CD (mastering, source material etc are generally much better on LPs).

Just have a think about your second point ... this is a digital transport, there's nothing analogue and no actual music. The data being transferred contains the instruction that a DAC will use to reconstruct an analogue signal. If the transfer is bit-perfect (no change to the data) then there is no possible impact on e.g. tone.
One to get your head around

 

[xaviescacs]

Thanks for the comments everyone, lots to chew on:

- The concept that I'm going into the listening biased has merit, but not in this instance, the sound is indeed sharp and bright - this is in comparison to my analog system (I have a Rogue Audio tube integrated amp so my system is set up for semi warmth but I'd say the Rogue isn't the warmest tube amp going). For reference, my analog rig is sounding ideal (tube phono preamp too). Before doing a deep dive $-wise into acquiring my present analog system, I listened to CDs primarily (though my system then wasn't to the level it is now) so I believe I know what decent tone is from CDs.

- I understand the argument that a CDT is not a complicated unit per se, so there won't be any difference from one unit to the other. But I suggest that it's more than just the laser/reader. There are caps etc that must effect the tone if designed in such way. If not, why would anyone pay more than the cost of the 6000CDT? There are some VERY pricey transports out there, that I'm sure folks on this Forum own... why pay more? I can't be just for the loader/tray differences?

Anyway, I'm not arguing these points, just volleying them out for clarification/discussion. Bottom line is with the right CD, the digital system now with the EQ and tube buffer sounds great - so if I stay pat with the help of comments here I'm happy to save money, time and effort.

One additional note I've found now that I'm spending time with CDs again on a high end / resolving system - the average off-the-shelf CD doesn't sound very good! I've got a number of audiophile CDs and those sound great. I'd say in my informal experience the average LP is way better sounding than the average CD (mastering, source material etc are generally much better on LPs).

You know... one think is talking about what do you or anyone else like the most and another one is talking about fidelity

Sometimes tube based systems produce a lot of distortion which despite being subtle can be audible and turn the sound into a richer, warmer and more detailed one due to more, artificially added, harmonics, that is, notes. All the sudden that dry originally tone appearing to stream from a cheap casio keyboard sounds like a grand piano note with a lot of harmonics.. but the one on the recording was the casio one, and that is how it sounds in a higher fidelity system.

 

[fastricky]

Just have a think about your second point ... this is a digital transport, there's nothing analogue and no actual music. The data being transferred contains the instruction that a DAC will use to reconstruct an analogue signal. If the transfer is bit-perfect (no change to the data) then there is no possible impact on e.g. tone.
One to get your head around

Understood, so why do folks spend the big bucks on say an Audio Note transport? Or why does the Audiolab 9000CDT (at nearly 3x the price) exist? It can't all be "snake oil" surely?

 

[DVDdoug]

Understood, so why do folks spend the big bucks on say an Audio Note transport?

MOST of the "audiophile community" is nuts! This is one of the few rational-scientific resources. There's a fair amount of mythology in the pro audio world too but they aren't as crazy as audiophiles.

My two favorite links:
Audiophoolery
This is mostly about the (few) REAL characteristics that determine sound quality and sound character. "Audiophiles" tend to use a lot of meaningless words that seem to mean something... Words like "detail" and hundreds of others. Can I get 3dB more detail?

What is a blind ABX test?
Proper-controlled blind listening tests can be VERY humbling!

 

[EdW]

Understood, so why do folks spend the big bucks on say an Audio Note transport? Or why does the Audiolab 9000CDT (at nearly 3x the price) exist? It can't all be "snake oil" surely?

The salesman in the hi end audio store is an expert at manipulating your mindset and in most cases does not have your best interests at heart - so he persuades you to buy the most expensive item. After a time he starts to believe his own BS . , , and the sincerity then really shines through

 

[jsrtheta]

Understood, so why do folks spend the big bucks on say an Audio Note transport? Or why does the Audiolab 9000CDT (at nearly 3x the price) exist? It can't all be "snake oil" surely?

Because people lie to themselves. They always have and always will.

That is the entire raison d'etre for double-blind testing. Now, if you want to learn something, go here: https://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/audio_critic_down.htm. (There are many other, even better sites, but Peter Aczel's journey parallels most.) Start with Issue 16.

But to your point, that you hear a difference between components that should sound the same, this has been debunked a thousand times over. The reason is that we are human beings, prone to illogical and magical thinking.

My first test was between a B&K power amplifier (100 watts) and an Electrocompaniet 100 watt amplifier. The Electrocompaniet cost considerably more than the B&K and, look! the Electrocompaniet is European, while the B&K was made in the USA and was very reasonably priced! Obviously, the Electrocompaniet will sound better!

It didn't, once I had no idea which amp was being played when. It was undeniable - I just could not discern a difference. Nor could the other person who went through the same test later that day.

Until you subject your listening comparisons to the double blind protocol, you probably will continue to think you hear differences.

But get this: Once you learn to disregard the promotional claims and understand why this is, you'll save a lot of aggro down the line. And money.

 

[fastricky]

Thanks all, I will say "The Emperor's New Clothes" is one of my favorite fables which dovetails with this conversation