In article ,
Tat Chan wrote:
James Harris wrote:

Nad C541i as transport,
Meridian 203 DAC,
Rotel RA-02 amp,
Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstand speakers



James, I am curious. The Meridian DAC is at least 12 years old. I would
have thought that the newer Burr Brown DACs in the NAD would measure
better and produce "better" sound than the older Philips DAC in the
Meridian (is it multibit or bitstream?)

I doubt that this is simply a matter of choice of DAC chip. Other
influences will include the PSU, buffering, differences in filtering, etc.

FWIW I remain a fan of the Meridian 263 and 563, (as well as the Quad 67)
despite them being 'out of favour' for a while for technical reasons.

Maybe they'll become popular again if SACD really takes hold. A situation
with a certain wry irony for Bob Stuart if it occurs... ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Mike Gilmour
wrote:



Replacing rectifiers with Schottky barrier ones that supposedly don't
generate reverse recovery transients from stored charge & minority
carrier injection - does that change the situation much even if you
don't use a regulator chip?

When designing/building amps myself I just used to shove small caps in
parallel with each bridge diode to eat the 'snap'...

However for me the main line of defence was a design that inherently had a
good amount of rail ripple/noise/interference rejection, and good earthing.
This means that even of HF rubbish gets through the PSU them amp will
largely ignore it.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Tat Chan wrote:

James, I am curious. The Meridian DAC is at least 12 years old. I
would have thought that the newer Burr Brown DACs in the NAD would
measure better and produce "better" sound than the older Philips DAC
in the Meridian (is it multibit or bitstream?)

As old as the 203 is, there's a good chance that a $39.95 Apex DVD player
has better-performing DACs. Seriously.

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Tat Chan wrote:

James Harris wrote:


Nad C541i as transport,
Meridian 203 DAC,
Rotel RA-02 amp,
Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstand speakers




James, I am curious. The Meridian DAC is at least 12 years old. I would
have thought that the newer Burr Brown DACs in the NAD would measure
better and produce "better" sound than the older Philips DAC in the
Meridian (is it multibit or bitstream?)


I doubt that this is simply a matter of choice of DAC chip. Other
influences will include the PSU, buffering, differences in filtering, etc.


well yes, but the NAD 541i is a one box solution and as such, shouldn't it have
much lower jitter levels compared to using a separate DAC and transport, even
with the well-engineered Meridian DAC?

And since the NAD player has HDCD playback capability, it must use a certain
digital filter that is highly regarded? (can't remember the name of it atm)

FWIW I remain a fan of the Meridian 263 and 563, (as well as the Quad 67)
despite them being 'out of favour' for a while for technical reasons.


what would the technical reasons be? Did they process/filter the digital data in
a "funny" way?


Maybe they'll become popular again if SACD really takes hold. A situation
with a certain wry irony for Bob Stuart if it occurs... ;-


and why would that be? (possibly related to my question above)

Arny Krueger wrote:

Tat Chan wrote:


James, I am curious. The Meridian DAC is at least 12 years old. I
would have thought that the newer Burr Brown DACs in the NAD would
measure better and produce "better" sound than the older Philips DAC
in the Meridian (is it multibit or bitstream?)


As old as the 203 is, there's a good chance that a $39.95 Apex DVD player
has better-performing DACs. Seriously.



OK, the DAC in the newer elcheapo DVD player might be better performing, but I
doubt the analogue output stage would be better than the Meridian's (granted, I
am moving the goalposts here, since I have now changed the point from DAC to
output stage)

Tat Chan wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Tat Chan wrote:

James, I am curious. The Meridian DAC is at least 12 years old. I
would have thought that the newer Burr Brown DACs in the NAD would
measure better and produce "better" sound than the older Philips DAC
in the Meridian (is it multibit or bitstream?)

As old as the 203 is, there's a good chance that a $39.95 Apex DVD
player has better-performing DACs. Seriously.

OK, the DAC in the newer elcheapo DVD player might be better
performing, but I doubt the analogue output stage would be better
than the Meridian's (granted, I am moving the goalposts here, since I
have now changed the point from DAC to output stage)

I wouldn't be too sure of that. For one thing, even solid state audio gear
doesn't last forever.

"Woody" wrote in message ...

---snip---

Your hearing is done by a 'field' of very fine hairs inside your ear canal
that flex with the air movement that we call sound.

---snip---

An otherwise excellent post, but just to avoid unintentionally
misleading anyone, those hairs flex indirectly with the air movement
(localized variations in pressure) which we call sound. Those hairs
are in a fluid-filled chamber to which the vibrations of your eardrum
caused by sound are coupled through some little bitty bones. The air
doesn't move those hairs directly, and as far as I know they have
absolutely nothing to do with those "other ear hairs" that show up and
start growing like crabgrass somewhere in middle age.

"Fleetie" wrote in message ...
"Mike Gilmour" wrote
My hi-fi sounds great late night and during the early hours... single malt
may have a lot to do with it ;-)

Beer googles for the ears?


Martin

My ears google for free beer :-)

On 16 Apr 2004 12:15:06 -0700, (unitron) wrote:

"Fleetie" wrote in message ...
"Mike Gilmour" wrote
My hi-fi sounds great late night and during the early hours... single malt
may have a lot to do with it ;-)

Beer googles for the ears?


Martin

My ears google for free beer :-)

Perhaps he meant beerphones? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , Tat Chan
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


I doubt that this is simply a matter of choice of DAC chip. Other
influences will include the PSU, buffering, differences in filtering,
etc.


well yes, but the NAD 541i is a one box solution and as such, shouldn't
it have much lower jitter levels compared to using a separate DAC and
transport, even with the well-engineered Meridian DAC?

It will certainly help that the SPDIF transfer is avoided in a one-box
system. However the Meridian systems seem to have very good reclocking,
etc. In then end it would come down to how well each systems was actually
engineered.

In my case I use each DAC for multiple sources, so some sort of transfer is
involved. However if I was buying a new Cd player today it would probably
be a meridian one-box system. :-)

And since the NAD player has HDCD playback capability, it must use a
certain digital filter that is highly regarded? (can't remember the
name of it atm)

FWIW I remain a fan of the Meridian 263 and 563, (as well as the Quad
67) despite them being 'out of favour' for a while for technical
reasons.


what would the technical reasons be? Did they process/filter the digital
data in a "funny" way?

They use low-bit sigma-delta. Hence they tend to produce the same sort of
ultrasonic 'hash' as SACD. Can also, theoretically, suffer from some of the
same drawbacks as other low-bit methods. However in the end this comes down
to how good a job the engineers did.

Maybe they'll become popular again if SACD really takes hold. A
situation with a certain wry irony for Bob Stuart if it occurs... ;-


and why would that be? (possibly related to my question above)

Because Bob is what might be termed a 'critic' of the SACD system and he
would prefer LPCM as used in DVD-A to avoid the potential problems of SACD.
Yet he made a neat job of sigma-delta DACs of a similar type before moving
on to what he would now - I think - say were 'better'.

From his POV SACD is probably a 'step backwards' to a method he discarded
about 10 years ago. But at the time he made nice DACs that way...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

BTW, RIP Doub Self's "Amplifier Institute". A sad loss.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/ampins.htm

Cheers,

Mark

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:43:39 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In each case I tend to switch the speaker energisation and DAC power on in
the morning, and off at the end of the evening. I have a slight impression
that the speakers (and maybe the DACs) benefit from this.

The manual for the Quad '57 speakers recommends leaving them powered
all the time and not switching them off. Is the advice given for the
'63/988/989 different?

My Stax electrostatic headphones sound noticeably 'edgy' for the first
few minutes after switch-on. I have not investigated this in any
detail, but it seems reasonable that high-impedance capacitive systems
will need a little time to stabilise because there may be some fairly
long time constants associated with the biasing supply.

This would tie in with the instructions Quad provide for monitoring
the HT bias supplies of the '57 in which they specify the use of an
electrostatic volt meter because the input impedance of a standard
meter is sufficiently low to affect the reading. (Of course in those
days, the majority of meters were not electronic.)


--
Chris Isbell
Southampton
UK

In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:43:39 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In each case I tend to switch the speaker energisation and DAC power on
in the morning, and off at the end of the evening. I have a slight
impression that the speakers (and maybe the DACs) benefit from this.

The manual for the Quad '57 speakers recommends leaving them powered all
the time and not switching them off. Is the advice given for the
'63/988/989 different?

I don't have the 63 booklet to hand. My recollection is that it also
recommends leaving the mains 'on' all the time.

Looking at the blue one for the 988's I can't find a mention of this,
though.

Ideally, I'd leave them powered all the time. However I tend to be wary of
leaving items on overnight due to the very slight risk of fire.

My Stax electrostatic headphones sound noticeably 'edgy' for the first
few minutes after switch-on. I have not investigated this in any detail,
but it seems reasonable that high-impedance capacitive systems will need
a little time to stabilise because there may be some fairly long time
constants associated with the biasing supply.

My impression is that the speakers do improve over a few hours of being
'on'. However this may be my ears, of course, not the speakers. :-)

On one occasion I was away for a week and left the 63's unpowered. I cam
home and started listening to music. It was only after about ten minutes
that I realised that I'd set the volume about 6dB higher than usual, and
that the sound was 'not quite right'. I hadn't turned on the energisation.
:-)

This shows that they do sometimes keep a surprisingly high charge for a
long time.

IIRC the 57's would not hold charge like this, though.

I'm not sure, but suspect the problem may be that the charge distribution
(rather than amount) needs to 'settle' and this takes times as the
diaphragm is actually quite resistive. Also any moisture may need to be
'ionised away' by leakage. This might be a reason for allowing the speakers
to be powered for a long time.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Chris Isbell
writes
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:43:39 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In each case I tend to switch the speaker energisation and DAC power on in
the morning, and off at the end of the evening. I have a slight impression
that the speakers (and maybe the DACs) benefit from this.

The manual for the Quad '57 speakers recommends leaving them powered
all the time and not switching them off. Is the advice given for the
'63/988/989 different?

Leave mine on all the time, doesn't seem to harm them. Better than not
remembering to switch them on as other members of the tribe here use
them and would forget!....

--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
I'm not sure, but suspect the problem may be that the charge
distribution (rather than amount) needs to 'settle' and this takes times
as the diaphragm is actually quite resistive. Also any moisture may need
to be 'ionised away' by leakage. This might be a reason for allowing the
speakers to be powered for a long time.

I'd agree with the moisture thing - it's the same with condenser mics. But
because one particular type of speaker benefits from being left on (or
warmed up), it doesn't mean other things necessarily will.

--
*He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:22:19 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

On one occasion I was away for a week and left the 63's unpowered. I cam
home and started listening to music. It was only after about ten minutes
that I realised that I'd set the volume about 6dB higher than usual, and
that the sound was 'not quite right'. I hadn't turned on the energisation.
:-)

This shows that they do sometimes keep a surprisingly high charge for a
long time.

IIRC the 57's would not hold charge like this, though.


My experience is that they hold up for about ten minutes. (This is
based on the occasion when my better half unplugged one of them to do
some ironing. The reeducation programme appears to have been effective
and she has not repeated the offence. ;-)


--
Chris Isbell
Southampton
UK

Jim Lesurf wrote:

snip

thanks for all the info.


what would the technical reasons be? Did they process/filter the digital
data in a "funny" way?


They use low-bit sigma-delta. Hence they tend to produce the same sort of
ultrasonic 'hash' as SACD. Can also, theoretically, suffer from some of the
same drawbacks as other low-bit methods. However in the end this comes down
to how good a job the engineers did.



would the ultrasonic hash lead to a "pleasing" kind of distortion? On a
thread a few weeks back, it was pointed out the my Rotel 965BX CD player
was noisy, with a lot of ultrasonic noise. And, the Rotel was one of the
early bitstream CD players as well (I am under the impression that SACD
uses a conversion method similar to bitstream conversion from the early 90s)

And could the ultrasonic noise explain why some people have been
comparing SACD to vinyl?

Maybe they'll become popular again if SACD really takes hold. A
situation with a certain wry irony for Bob Stuart if it occurs... ;-


and why would that be? (possibly related to my question above)


Because Bob is what might be termed a 'critic' of the SACD system and he
would prefer LPCM as used in DVD-A to avoid the potential problems of SACD.

and he's responsible for the MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) format used
in DVD-A!

In article , Tat Chan
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

snip

thanks for all the info.


what would the technical reasons be? Did they process/filter the
digital data in a "funny" way?


They use low-bit sigma-delta. Hence they tend to produce the same sort
of ultrasonic 'hash' as SACD. Can also, theoretically, suffer from
some of the same drawbacks as other low-bit methods. However in the
end this comes down to how good a job the engineers did.



would the ultrasonic hash lead to a "pleasing" kind of distortion?

Short answer: "Pass" :-)

Longer answer: "I suppose it might do in some circumstances. Indeed, I
wrote an article that Hi Fi News published a few months ago that included
this speculation as a possibility springing from the nonlinear nature of
human hearing." :-)

On a thread a few weeks back, it was pointed out the my Rotel 965BX CD
player was noisy, with a lot of ultrasonic noise. And, the Rotel was one
of the early bitstream CD players as well (I am under the impression
that SACD uses a conversion method similar to bitstream conversion from
the early 90s)

And could the ultrasonic noise explain why some people have been
comparing SACD to vinyl?

Again, I refer you to my above-mentioned article. :-)

Since I am in "plug" mode... There will be a follow-on article in a few
months. Book your issue of HFN early to avoid dissapointment. ;-

FWIW once the next item appears in the magazine, I am hoping to put a
longer account of the background, etc, on one of my websites.


Because Bob is what might be termed a 'critic' of the SACD system and
he would prefer LPCM as used in DVD-A to avoid the potential problems
of SACD.

and he's responsible for the MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) format used
in DVD-A!

Yes. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
snip

Nad C541i as transport,
Meridian 203 DAC,
Rotel RA-02 amp,
Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstand speakers



James, I am curious. The Meridian DAC is at least 12 years old. I would
have thought that the newer Burr Brown DACs in the NAD would measure
better and produce "better" sound than the older Philips DAC in the
Meridian (is it multibit or bitstream?)

Well, since you asked I tried going back to the direct link from the CD player to the amp.
I soon went back to the DAC. The reason? I wouldn't like to say the DAC is "better" but is
a sound I prefer.

The DAC gives greater bass weight and authority and also opens out the voices. They sound
more clear and distinct with the DAC than with the Nad CD player alone.

I would still like more reach in the bass, though. That may be to do with my speakers more
than the electronics.

--
Cheers,
James

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Tat Chan
wrote:


would the ultrasonic hash lead to a "pleasing" kind of distortion?


Short answer: "Pass" :-)

Longer answer: "I suppose it might do in some circumstances. Indeed, I
wrote an article that Hi Fi News published a few months ago that included
this speculation as a possibility springing from the nonlinear nature of
human hearing." :-)


UK magazines take a few months to reach Oz. With any luck, the newsagent will
have that copy in stock.


Since I am in "plug" mode... There will be a follow-on article in a few
months. Book your issue of HFN early to avoid dissapointment. ;-

FWIW once the next item appears in the magazine, I am hoping to put a
longer account of the background, etc, on one of my websites.


looking forward to it.

James Harris wrote:

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
snip


James, I am curious. The Meridian DAC is at least 12 years old. I would
have thought that the newer Burr Brown DACs in the NAD would measure
better and produce "better" sound than the older Philips DAC in the
Meridian (is it multibit or bitstream?)


Well, since you asked I tried going back to the direct link from the CD player to the amp.
I soon went back to the DAC. The reason? I wouldn't like to say the DAC is "better" but is
a sound I prefer.

The DAC gives greater bass weight and authority and also opens out the voices. They sound
more clear and distinct with the DAC than with the Nad CD player alone.


Interesting. I was thinking of getting a 203 DAC, as the shop I bought my
speakers from have one for sale, but the £160 they are charging seems a bit steep.

I would still like more reach in the bass, though. That may be to do with my speakers more
than the electronics.

well, your floorstanders will produce more bass than my bookshelves!

"Tat Chan" wrote in message news:c636ei$79kno$1@ID-
snip

Interesting. I was thinking of getting a 203 DAC, as the shop I bought my
speakers from have one for sale, but the £160 they are charging seems a bit steep.

I paid £150 (IIRC) for the unit second hand but I did get a chance to try it out for a
couple of weeks before parting with my cash. Your local shop may let you try the unit for
a few days before deciding.

"James Harris" no.email.please wrote in message
.. .
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
snip
My hi-fi sounds great sometimes and not others.
snip
Maybe you could give us the specifics on your system.

Nad C541i as transport,
Meridian 203 DAC,
Rotel RA-02 amp,
Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstand speakers

Chord Optichord digital link,
Audioquest Python interconnects,
Atlas 2.0 speaker cable,
Atacama Equinox rack

The dealer advised a 30 to 60 minute warmup before each listening session - which is a
pain and I'm not convinced that the improved sound quality follows such a warmup. The
improvement seems random - and unexpected. Maybe mains problems? The sonic difference to
the bass is quite clear. Forgive the adjectives but when it's not working well the sound
is OK but 'thin' and lacks energy. When it works well the bass is rich and the sound
fuller and more musical at the same volume. It even sounds good with the volume lower.

The Audioquest Pythons were the last addition. I wasn't happy with the system - it
didn't
have the clarity - until they were added to replace Atlas Voyagers. Does the kit list
above give any clues as to why the sound would change? (BTW, thanks too for your
suggestions on test CDs.)

A followup on this. I have since been kindly lent a Quad 405 power amp. With this the
system does NOT need a warm up. As before the kit is left on all the time.

--
James

"James Harris" no.email.please wrote in message
.. .

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
snip

Nad C541i as transport,
Meridian 203 DAC,
Rotel RA-02 amp,
Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstand speakers



James, I am curious. The Meridian DAC is at least 12 years old. I would
have thought that the newer Burr Brown DACs in the NAD would measure
better and produce "better" sound than the older Philips DAC in the
Meridian (is it multibit or bitstream?)

Well, since you asked I tried going back to the direct link from the CD player to the
amp.
I soon went back to the DAC. The reason? I wouldn't like to say the DAC is "better" but
is
a sound I prefer.

The DAC gives greater bass weight and authority and also opens out the voices. They
sound
more clear and distinct with the DAC than with the Nad CD player alone.

I would still like more reach in the bass, though. That may be to do with my speakers
more
than the electronics.

Have since added a borrowed Quad 405 power amp. While this has removed the warm-up time
needed before I still would like greater reach in the bass - and probably a little less of
it! I think then that this must be to do with my Dynaudio speakers. The cones in them are
probably too small to reach as far down as I would like. Oh well. The neighbours can
breathe a sigh of relief....

--
James

"James Harris" no.email.please wrote
Have since added a borrowed Quad 405 power amp. While this has removed the warm-up time
needed before I still would like greater reach in the bass - and probably a little less of
it! I think then that this must be to do with my Dynaudio speakers. The cones in them are
probably too small to reach as far down as I would like. Oh well. The neighbours can
breathe a sigh of relief....

If you have Dynaudios, stop damn complaining! :-) Which ones?

*Envy*


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

James, any comment about the Atacama Equinox rack? Is it the Av, HiFi, or XL
Pro? I am about to buy one of these, are you happy with it?

--



"James Harris" no.email.please a écrit dans le message de
...

"James Harris" no.email.please wrote in message
.. .
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
snip
My hi-fi sounds great sometimes and not others.
snip
Maybe you could give us the specifics on your system.

Nad C541i as transport,
Meridian 203 DAC,
Rotel RA-02 amp,
Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstand speakers

Chord Optichord digital link,
Audioquest Python interconnects,
Atlas 2.0 speaker cable,
Atacama Equinox rack

The dealer advised a 30 to 60 minute warmup before each listening
session - which is a
pain and I'm not convinced that the improved sound quality follows such
a warmup. The
improvement seems random - and unexpected. Maybe mains problems? The
sonic difference to
the bass is quite clear. Forgive the adjectives but when it's not
working well the sound
is OK but 'thin' and lacks energy. When it works well the bass is rich
and the sound
fuller and more musical at the same volume. It even sounds good with the
volume lower.

The Audioquest Pythons were the last addition. I wasn't happy with the
system - it
didn't
have the clarity - until they were added to replace Atlas Voyagers. Does
the kit list
above give any clues as to why the sound would change? (BTW, thanks too
for your
suggestions on test CDs.)

A followup on this. I have since been kindly lent a Quad 405 power amp.
With this the
system does NOT need a warm up. As before the kit is left on all the time.

--
James

"Fleetie" wrote in message
news:_DLpc.359$nB5.344@newsfe1-win...
"James Harris" no.email.please wrote
Have since added a borrowed Quad 405 power amp. While this has removed the warm-up
time
needed before I still would like greater reach in the bass - and probably a little
less of
it! I think then that this must be to do with my Dynaudio speakers. The cones in them
are
probably too small to reach as far down as I would like. Oh well. The neighbours can
breathe a sigh of relief....

If you have Dynaudios, stop damn complaining! :-) Which ones?

*Envy*

Hi Martin. Good to hear a strong positive about the Dynaudios. Since you asked, Audience
62s. Floorstanders. I went for these after also hearing the standmounted 42s (IIRC).
Amazingly for such a small box the 42s' bass was 'big' enough. There was just a different
quality of the bass from the floorstanders - as if the cones were moving in a more open
space which, in fact, they we-) There was a more graceful quality - a more effortless
sound in the bass from the larger enclosure. I didn't plan to spend so much on speakers
but it wasn't too much more than Audience 42s plus good quality stands.

I did audition the comparable Mission floorstanders at the same time but - to my
surprise - didn't like the sound. The Missions were not cheaper versions. In fact they
were a bit more expensive - and, IIRC, were SE variants. Sorry I can't be sure about the
model number.

--
James

"Frédéric Mathieu" wrote in message
...
James, any comment about the Atacama Equinox rack? Is it the Av, HiFi, or XL
Pro? I am about to buy one of these, are you happy with it?

I bought the Equinox audio rack. I guess it would be the HiFi one you mention. I can't
really comment on this compared with other racks as I didn't try any others. I do find the
rack to be solid with my base unit plus two extra shelves - four in total. The triangular
design (of the pillars and feet) is convenient. Watch out, though, for its depth. It
sticks out further in to my room than I would like. There is certainly plenty of room for
deep units!

Compared with the old wooden rack and stacked components I had before placing the amp in
space on its own shelf even improved the sound from the tuner. No, really! The sound just
seemed to open out and breathe more freely. I still find this hard to believe. One day
I'll go back to stacked units just to convince myself.......

--
HTH,
James

"James Harris" no.email.please wrote in message
...

Have since added a borrowed Quad 405 power amp. While this has removed the
warm-up time
needed before I still would like greater reach in the bass - and probably
a little less of
it! I think then that this must be to do with my Dynaudio speakers. The
cones in them are
probably too small to reach as far down as I would like. Oh well. The
neighbours can
breathe a sigh of relief....


If you want decent bass a 405 will not give it to you.

This ancient amplifier is both bandwidth and current limited and has a
rather nasty protection circuit in it.

The 405-2 was a bit better and the various modified 405's a lot better.

In standard form it is probably unable to drive your Dynaudios properly.


cheers,

James Harris wrote:


"Frédéric Mathieu" wrote in message
.. .
James, any comment about the Atacama Equinox rack? Is it the Av, HiFi, or
XL
Pro? I am about to buy one of these, are you happy with it?

I bought the Equinox audio rack. I guess it would be the HiFi one you
mention. I can't
really comment on this compared with other racks as I didn't try any others.
I do find the
rack to be solid with my base unit plus two extra shelves - four in total.
The triangular
design (of the pillars and feet) is convenient. Watch out, though, for its
depth. It
sticks out further in to my room than I would like. There is certainly plenty
of room for
deep units!

Compared with the old wooden rack and stacked components I had before placing
the amp in
space on its own shelf even improved the sound from the tuner. No, really!
The sound just
seemed to open out and breathe more freely. I still find this hard to
believe. One day
I'll go back to stacked units just to convince myself.......

--
HTH,
James










OSAO!! (No need to prove it).

Always nice to see audio related threads.


Bruce J. Richman