Thread: Problems with my Krell SACD Standard player

Posts: 98
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next

Post by Osbert Parsley July 5, 2011 (81 of 98)
DdraigGoch said:

I sometimes also get that whistling sound you mention; only occasionally does it become loud enough to really notice it. It depends on the actual disc being played, and appears to be a resonance mode that depends on the speed the disc is rotating at the time - it comes and goes.

The whistling sound in my player is definitely electronic, not mechanical and therefore not dependent on rotation speed of the disc. It is a bit like the sound that comes from a cathode ray television, only louder and with variations in volume from time to time. It starts as soon as the player is switched on (with no disc inserted) and gets louder when the player switches to playing an inserted disc (after the rather lengthy "booting up" when the disc is first inserted). Very annoying in the quieter sections of the music I play (I am an Early Music buff, so I listen to lots of quiet music like lutes and lute songs and single voices with basso continuo and chamber groups and small orchestral ensembles).

I have been considering also changing my amplifer (Cary valve pre-amp and NEW power amp - all about 10 years old) in the hope that I can find a warmer-sounding system. I suspect part of the problem is the room I use: very large (a separate room on the ground floor that runs the whole width of the house - about 8 or 9 metres, with wooden floors, concrete walls and ceiling, deep concrete beams across the ceiling also, and lots of windows at the end and along one side wall). I do not know enough about room conditioning to do anything sensible about that, except I have laid rugs and tried to put the armchairs and other furniture at angles and I draw the curtains over the windows at the end behind the system when I listen.

Post by flyingdutchman July 5, 2011 (82 of 98)
I have never used a lens cleaner. The quickest and surest way to a damaged lens is using a lens cleaner. They are pure hokum.

Post by rammiepie July 6, 2011 (83 of 98)
Osbert Parsley said:



I have been considering also changing my amplifer (Cary valve pre-amp and NEW power amp - all about 10 years old) in the hope that I can find a warmer-sounding system. I suspect part of the problem is the room I use: very large (a separate room on the ground floor that runs the whole width of the house - about 8 or 9 metres, with wooden floors, concrete walls and ceiling, deep concrete beams across the ceiling also, and lots of windows at the end and along one side wall). I do not know enough about room conditioning to do anything sensible about that, except I have laid rugs and tried to put the armchairs and other furniture at angles and I draw the curtains over the windows at the end behind the system when I listen.

Osbert, I would say that you are in DESPERATE need of some tuning devices as I have a problematic basement with concrete walls (paneled and art deco painted) and have had GREAT success with Shakti's holograms (pricey at $1295 a pair but invaluable).

Sometimes we replace perfectly good equipment when the room acoustics are at fault. The concrete ceiling HAS TO GO........deadens the sound.....replaced my acoustic tiled ceiling with slats of pine and the difference was astounding.

Only know of one place to buy the shakti holograms (Music Direct USA) but I am going to invest in another pair for my rears (have four (2 pairs) across the front). Am also using RoomTunes which are much less expensive in tandem with the Shakti's.

My room is also 35 feet long and I have a 102" Stewart Screen in the middle and I have no idea how it in~ fluences the sound.

Do you have a dealer in your area that could possibly loan you some tuning devices before investing?

I almost guarantee you that your listening room is the culprit.......concrete and high end audio are NOT a great mix........take my word for that!

Post by Disbeliever July 6, 2011 (84 of 98)
A concrete floor is OK.. you can all so take my word for that! acoustic tiled ceiling should also be OK but must be correctly installed.. The walls should be fitted with acoustic foam panels, this is used in UK dealer Dem rooms with great success, no mystical tweaks needed and as Hired Fox says do not put marmalade on discs for a sweeter sound, Just received a Telarc disc on the cover is a Red Warning label, says put no fluids of a any kind on this disc. Finally as I have posted many times to the wrath of tube lovers get rid of antique tubes.

Post by rammiepie July 7, 2011 (85 of 98)
Disbeliever said:

A concrete floor is OK.. you can all so take my word for that! acoustic tiled ceiling should also be OK but must be correctly installed.. The walls should be fitted with acoustic foam panels, this is used in UK dealer Dem rooms with great success, no mystical tweaks needed and as Hired Fox says do not put marmalade on discs for a sweeter sound, Just received a Telarc disc on the cover is a Red Warning label, says put no fluids of a any kind on this disc. Finally as I have posted many times to the wrath of tube lovers get rid of antique tubes.

Mssr. Bearman, I've had great success treating those discs which specify NO Goop. Tubes sound sweet but are problematic (ever dress your tubes in "tube jackets" which reminds me of my British friend who dresses his dachshund).

Your foam panels sound correct but will they detract from the decor? No women in her right mind (the wife factor) would EVER put up with my maze of room treatments and wires, etc. As the rep from Meridian exclaimed when he saw my listening room: "This man IS an audiophile!"

What more is there to say?

Post by Disbeliever July 7, 2011 (86 of 98)
rammiepie said:

Mssr. Bearman, I've had great success treating those discs which specify NO Goop. Tubes sound sweet but are problematic (ever dress your tubes in "tube jackets" which reminds me of my British friend who dresses his dachshund).

Your foam panels sound correct but will they detract from the decor? No women in her right mind (the wife factor) would EVER put up with my maze of room treatments and wires, etc. As the rep from Meridian exclaimed when he saw my listening room: "This man IS an audiophile!"

What more is there to say?

Ralph, Fortunately the foam panels can be attractively decorated so I am told and no true audiophile will be bothered with the WAF. His & Her rooms. I gave up last remaining tube some 25 years ago or more when I used to use a hybrid Radford SC22 control preamp for many years with various SS amplifiers . Tube power amp the last ones I used were Quad mono blocks so long ago I have forgotten exactly when.

Post by hiredfox July 7, 2011 (87 of 98)
rammiepie said:


No women in her right mind (the wife factor) would EVER put up with my maze of room treatments and wires, etc.

What more is there to say?

Indeed and my wife has the perfect solution. She has confined me to a smallish 'spare' room which is exclusively for the pursuit of high fidelity music but is way off limits for our frequent visitors, except when we need extra space for cloaks at parties. No warm inviting living rooms for me. I suppose the open-plan house-style so common in the US does not lend itself so well to banishment.

As the UK rep of Absolute Sounds exclaimed when he saw my listening room: "This man IS a complete nut!"

Should we start a thread on the benefits of inelastic Egyptian cotton string?

I only disagree with Gerald on one point. Lining walls with the materials sold as acoustic foam is a very bad idea, such foam is crude, absorbing all frequencies to varying but uncontrollable degrees and is especially destructive of the important mid/upper-range; all life can be sucked from music.

Near wall reflections are important in creating atmosphere in what we call the natural acoustic of a recording. Most problems arise on secondary reflections from the rear wall and the best way I have found of dealing with these is via the Howard (of HFN) method. Basically follow the Hard opposite Soft principle and restrict absorbents to high level (i.e., 6-9" depth from ceiling).

Post by Disbeliever July 7, 2011 (88 of 98)
hiredfox said:

As the UK rep of Absolute Sounds exclaimed when he saw my listening room: "This man IS a complete nut!"

I only disagree with Gerald on one point. Lining walls with the materials sold as acoustic foam is a very bad idea, such foam is crude, absorbing all frequencies to varying but uncontrollable degrees and is especially destructive of the important mid/upper-range; all life can be sucked from music.

Near wall reflections are important in creating atmosphere in what we call the natural acoustic of a recording. Most problems arise on secondary reflections from the rear wall and the best way I have found of dealing with these is via the Howard (of HFN) method. Basically follow the Hard opposite Soft principle and restrict absorbents to high level (i.e., 6-9" depth from ceiling).

John, I am not advocating lining the entire walls with acoustic foam panels, there must be space inbetween, I have visted two dealer Dem rooms one in Swiss Cotttage and one in Enfield ,sound in both rooms is excellent, I took along my own amplifier . B & W's latest speakers are far too bright (as can be verified by reviews in Hi-Fi Choice & Hi-Fi World) acoustic foam in panels treatment does help to a limited extent,and is definately not a crude solution , life was not sucked out of the music , I could not live with any of the B & W's due to early listening fatigue. As for rear wall treatment a large wool rug is attached in my 26ft long listening room. Being fully carpeted , heavy drapes soft settee & arm chairs I require no other acoustic treatment. I am not sure as to what the exact implication is when you say the Absolute Sounds rep said 'This man IS a complete nut' I can only hazzard a guess. ha.

Post by rammiepie July 7, 2011 (89 of 98)
The beauty of additive room treatments (room tunes, Shakti Holograms) is their mobility factor. Once you incorporate fixed room treatments and should they NOT work out, you are stuck with an even larger expense to remove them and risk damage to the existing walls.

Even professional installers had a hit or miss situation when they redid Carnegie Hall and Lincoln Center in NYC.

My above tweaks really, really, really (really x3) work and I'd be happier if my petulant feline, Bridget Jones, would stop using them as scratching posts or to rub against to scratch her back.

And John, as far as being a complete NUT, who isn't these days?

Post by DdraigGoch July 14, 2011 (90 of 98)
flyingdutchman said:

I have never used a lens cleaner. The quickest and surest way to a damaged lens is using a lens cleaner. They are pure hokum.

I would use a soft-haired brush if I had a top-loading player. Have you had an instance of a lens being damaged by a lens cleaner?

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next

Closed