Subwoofers

[Gourd]

What is the best sub for under 1200.? Thank you. Do subwoofers lead to
buyers remorse because it muddies the sound of your rock solid
British monitors, or are most people happy with the change? Are they
hard to configure with an amp without separate outputs? Many thanks in
advance...!

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:46:27 -0800, Gourd wrote
(in article >):

> What is the best sub for under 1200.? Thank you. Do subwoofers lead to
> buyers remorse because it muddies the sound of your rock solid
> British monitors, or are most people happy with the change? Are they
> hard to configure with an amp without separate outputs? Many thanks in
> advance...!

I don't think that subs muddy the sound at all and I use a pair with my
Martin Logan Vistas which are electrostatic hybrids, I notice no degradation,
just another octave of bass. I'm not going to recommend and specific makes or
models here because there are many good ones out there, but I am going to
recommend some things to look for when choosing.

* It's better to buy a pair of Subs rather than just a single mono sub. While
there is something to the fact that really low bass is non-directional, I
don't find that to be the issue.The issue is sharing the bass load between
the two channels. Placement is easier and room modes easier to control with a
stereo pair of subs.

* Buy self-powered subs rather than passive ones. Passive subs make setting
the crossover point difficult or impossible, and matching the level with your
full-range speakers also becomes problematic or impossible. With a passive
woofer, in parallel with your main speakers, pretty much what you have is
what you get.

* Vented subs with 200 watts each is generally sufficient for most purposes.
Some subs like the some of the compact Sunfires used lots of power because of
their small enclosures. These non-vented woofers are extremely inefficient
and NEED the power to overcome the acoustic suspension mode of operation
which, essentially, discards the speaker's backwave, rather than using it
like a vented reflex design would.

The Sunfire SDs-12 is worth a look because it has a passive radiator as well
as a 12" woofer powered by a 300 watt Class "D" amplifier and is flat to 28
Hz. Best of all, they retail for about $550 each, bringing in the pair at
$1100 - under your budget. I find them fast, articulate and well controlled.
However, this is not a recommendation. There are lots of similar products out
there. My mention of the Sunfire SDS-12 was merely an example of the kind of
product available for the money you have to spend. LISTEN before you buy, if
possible. But I can't reiterate this enough. To insure compatibility with
your main speakers , you must be able to adjust both the crossover frequency
and the level of whatever subwoofer you end up buying.

* Be prepared to experiment. Unless your amplifying system has a built-in
computer controlled room/speaker EQ system, or you have access to a
1/3-octave (or decade) spectrum analyzer, be prepared for a lot of trial and
error, Getting the balance just right is not trivial. You might have to move
the subs around a bit to avoid boominess and you'll have to play with both
the crossover frequency and the bass level to find the spot where it sounds
just right. Too many people just plop their new subs down wherever it's
convenient and then complain about bass that doesn't blend well, for some
reason, with their main speakers and THAT leads to "buyer's remorse". Your
patience in this matter will be rewarded, believe me.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:50:59 -0800, Gourd wrote
(in article >):

> Thanks for the reply. Yea, the Sunfires you mentioned sure do sound
> like a bargain. I guess they hook up between the amp and the regular
> speakers? I've never used subs before, so pardon my ignorance. I see
> what you mean about balancing the channels; using one sub could upset
> the soundstage enough to make you wish you'd gotten two! I wonder if
> you live in an apartment house, and how severe the sub sound is to
> adjoining apartments. That is the main thing that keeps me hanging
> back.

They can hook-up that way, but the BEST way to hook them up is with a
separate subwoofer output from your pre-amp or Integrated or receiver. If
your preamp doesn't have a separate pair of subwoofer output jacks, you can
use "Y" adapters to simultaneously run a pair of cables to your power amp and
a pair to your subwoofer input jacks on the subs themselves. Sometimes,
Integrated amps and receivers have right & left "pre-amp output jacks which
can be used to interface to a pair of subs. If you cannot connect them that
way then you have insert them either in parallel with or in series with
(depending upon the subs' design) your main speakers via speaker cable.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Feb 20, 11:50=A0am, Gourd > wrote:

> I've never used subs before, so pardon my ignorance. I see
> what you mean about balancing the channels; using one sub could upset
> the soundstage enough to make you wish you'd gotten two! I wonder if
> you live in an apartment house, and how severe the sub sound is to
> adjoining apartments. That is the main thing that keeps me hanging
> back.

I think that's largely nonsense, myself. My system's sub is in the
left corner a couple of feet from the left main and around 8 feet from
the right main. A bass fiddle or guitar placed in the right channel
always sounds like it is firmly over on the right from top to bottom
and there is no impression whatsoever that the subwoofer way over on
the left is making any sound at all. The best place for good deep
bass is often a long way away from the best spot for good mid-bass on
up.

There may be other reasons for using multiple subs, but I think stereo
imaging is not one of them. I've seen lots of claims that it does,
but no well done tests that support it that I know of.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:22:32 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article >):

> On Feb 20, 11:50=A0am, Gourd > wrote:
>
>> I've never used subs before, so pardon my ignorance. I see
>> what you mean about balancing the channels; using one sub could upset
>> the soundstage enough to make you wish you'd gotten two! I wonder if
>> you live in an apartment house, and how severe the sub sound is to
>> adjoining apartments. That is the main thing that keeps me hanging
>> back.
>
> I think that's largely nonsense, myself. My system's sub is in the
> left corner a couple of feet from the left main and around 8 feet from
> the right main. A bass fiddle or guitar placed in the right channel
> always sounds like it is firmly over on the right from top to bottom
> and there is no impression whatsoever that the subwoofer way over on
> the left is making any sound at all. The best place for good deep
> bass is often a long way away from the best spot for good mid-bass on
> up.
>
> There may be other reasons for using multiple subs, but I think stereo
> imaging is not one of them. I've seen lots of claims that it does,
> but no well done tests that support it that I know of.
>

No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is nonsense. wavelengths that
long have no directionality. However, using two subs, does make subwoofer
placement easier and less modal.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Audio Empire > wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:22:32 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> On Feb 20, 11:50=A0am, Gourd > wrote:
>>
>>> I've never used subs before, so pardon my ignorance. I see
>>> what you mean about balancing the channels; using one sub could upset
>>> the soundstage enough to make you wish you'd gotten two! I wonder if
>>> you live in an apartment house, and how severe the sub sound is to
>>> adjoining apartments. That is the main thing that keeps me hanging
>>> back.
>>
>> I think that's largely nonsense, myself. My system's sub is in the
>> left corner a couple of feet from the left main and around 8 feet from
>> the right main. A bass fiddle or guitar placed in the right channel
>> always sounds like it is firmly over on the right from top to bottom
>> and there is no impression whatsoever that the subwoofer way over on
>> the left is making any sound at all. The best place for good deep
>> bass is often a long way away from the best spot for good mid-bass on
>> up.
>>
>> There may be other reasons for using multiple subs, but I think stereo
>> imaging is not one of them. I've seen lots of claims that it does,
>> but no well done tests that support it that I know of.
>>
>
> No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is nonsense. wavelengths that
> long have no directionality. However, using two subs, does make subwoofer
> placement easier and less modal.
>

Does hookup with speakers that have biwire connections complicate matters,
and how?

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:18:48 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article >):

> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:22:32 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> On Feb 20, 11:50=A0am, Gourd > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've never used subs before, so pardon my ignorance. I see
>>>> what you mean about balancing the channels; using one sub could upset
>>>> the soundstage enough to make you wish you'd gotten two! I wonder if
>>>> you live in an apartment house, and how severe the sub sound is to
>>>> adjoining apartments. That is the main thing that keeps me hanging
>>>> back.
>>>
>>> I think that's largely nonsense, myself. My system's sub is in the
>>> left corner a couple of feet from the left main and around 8 feet from
>>> the right main. A bass fiddle or guitar placed in the right channel
>>> always sounds like it is firmly over on the right from top to bottom
>>> and there is no impression whatsoever that the subwoofer way over on
>>> the left is making any sound at all. The best place for good deep
>>> bass is often a long way away from the best spot for good mid-bass on
>>> up.
>>>
>>> There may be other reasons for using multiple subs, but I think stereo
>>> imaging is not one of them. I've seen lots of claims that it does,
>>> but no well done tests that support it that I know of.
>>>
>>
>> No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is nonsense. wavelengths
>> that
>> long have no directionality. However, using two subs, does make subwoofer
>> placement easier and less modal.
>>
>
> Does hookup with speakers that have biwire connections complicate matters,
> and how?

Since bi-wiring is bogus and ridiculous and something only someone who
doesn't understand how electricity works would employ, I have to say that no
it doesn't complicate much or anything (except make the path longer between
the two speaker sections and add more resistance to the midrange/treble
section of the speaker).

[Arny Krueger]

"Rockinghorse Winner" >
wrote in message

> Does hookup with speakers that have biwire connections
> complicate matters, and how?


Biwring is in general a useless complication. The fact that so many people
have reported dramatic improvements due to it is just an indictment of
sighted evaluations. Its a matter of hearing what you believe, not believing
what you hear. If you have biwring in place now, get rid of it before you
try to add a subwoofer.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:36:44 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
> wrote in message
>
>> Does hookup with speakers that have biwire connections
>> complicate matters, and how?
>
>
> Biwring is in general a useless complication. The fact that so many people
> have reported dramatic improvements due to it is just an indictment of
> sighted evaluations. Its a matter of hearing what you believe, not believing
> what you hear. If you have biwring in place now, get rid of it before you
> try to add a subwoofer.
>
>

Now here I can agree with you. I don't know how bi-wiring got started, but
I've rarely heard a more ridiculous proposition. Most "bi-wire-able" speakers
come from the factory with a short strap or "shorting bar" connecting the two
sections of the speaker together. This shorting-bar is generally only an inch
or so long and has so little resistance, that it likely cannot be measured in
an ordinary way (although I'm sure that there are instruments that COULD
measure it, none of us have one, I dare say!). So what does the gullible,
electronics illiterate audiophile do? He removes that essentially lossless
short link and runs another 8-20 ft of expensive speaker wire back to the
SAME pair of speaker terminals on his amplifier that the other expensive 8-20
ft of speaker cable is connected to thus adding a few tenths of an ohm to the
midrange and tweeter that wasn't there before! These unwashed must somehow
think that the mids and highs travel down the cable to midrange/tweeter and
that the bass travels the other cable to the woofer. It doesn't work that
way. All bi-wiring does is remove a lossless link between the two speaker
sections and replace it with a much longer and much more lossy one.

The real solution, "bi-amping", does work. That's where two runs of wire go
back to TWO different amplifiers, one for the woofer and one for the
midrange/tweeter. But even so, bi-amping offers few improvements UNLESS, one
can bypass the speaker's internal high-current, low impedance crossover with
a line-level passive or active crossover placed between the preamp and the
two power amps. When I had a pair of Magneplanar MG3-Bs, I used to bi-amp
them with a passive crossover that Magnepan built for me and I had a pair of
large solid-state Rockford-Hafler P3000 amps on the bass, and a pair of
VTL-140 tube monoblocks on the midrange/highs. This worked very well.

The ideal solution to the amp/speaker interface is to use self-powered
speakers with a pair of amps built into each, one amp for the bass, another
for the midrange /tweeter with a dedicated line-level crossover built-in as
well, before each amp. That would eliminate the need for speaker cable
altogether,

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
> wrote in message
>
>> Does hookup with speakers that have biwire connections
>> complicate matters, and how?
>
>
> Biwring is in general a useless complication. The fact that so many people
> have reported dramatic improvements due to it is just an indictment of
> sighted evaluations. Its a matter of hearing what you believe, not believing
> what you hear. If you have biwring in place now, get rid of it before you
> try to add a subwoofer.

If I short the bass and treble terminals together which terminal pair do
I connect the speaker wire to?

0 0 ----speaker wire to top (treble)
| |
0 0 ----Or to bottom (bass)?

Thanks.

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[KH]

On 2/22/2011 10:44 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:36:44 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in >):
>
>> "Rockinghorse >
>> wrote in message
>>
>>> Does hookup with speakers that have biwire connections
>>> complicate matters, and how?
>>
>>
>> Biwring is in general a useless complication. The fact that so many people
>> have reported dramatic improvements due to it is just an indictment of
>> sighted evaluations. Its a matter of hearing what you believe, not believing
>> what you hear. If you have biwring in place now, get rid of it before you
>> try to add a subwoofer.
>>
>>
>
> Now here I can agree with you. I don't know how bi-wiring got started,

Seems pretty obvious to me...$$$$$$$. Why buy 2 megabuck wires when you
can buy 4?

<snip>

> The ideal solution to the amp/speaker interface is to use self-powered
> speakers with a pair of amps built into each, one amp for the bass, another
> for the midrange /tweeter with a dedicated line-level crossover built-in as
> well, before each amp. That would eliminate the need for speaker cable
> altogether,

Meridian have done that pretty successfully for some time now (they have
some pretty impressive systems now if you haven't listened to them, but
big bucks), as have others. I think a lot of the resistance is cost -
you cannot go incremental with that approach, since speakers and
amplification have to be purchased at the same time (and likely with
only one markup opportunity from a dealer perspective).

Keith

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:59:24 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article >):

> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>> wrote in message
>>
>>> Does hookup with speakers that have biwire connections
>>> complicate matters, and how?
>>
>>
>> Biwring is in general a useless complication. The fact that so many people
>> have reported dramatic improvements due to it is just an indictment of
>> sighted evaluations. Its a matter of hearing what you believe, not
>> believing
>> what you hear. If you have biwring in place now, get rid of it before you
>> try to add a subwoofer.
>
> If I short the bass and treble terminals together which terminal pair do
> I connect the speaker wire to?
>
> 0 0 ----speaker wire to top (treble)
>>>
> 0 0 ----Or to bottom (bass)?
>
> Thanks.
>
> *R* *H*
>

It doesn't matter.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:56 -0800, KH wrote
(in article >):

> On 2/22/2011 10:44 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:36:44 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in >):
>>
>>> "Rockinghorse >
>>> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Does hookup with speakers that have biwire connections
>>>> complicate matters, and how?
>>>
>>>
>>> Biwring is in general a useless complication. The fact that so many people
>>> have reported dramatic improvements due to it is just an indictment of
>>> sighted evaluations. Its a matter of hearing what you believe, not
>>> believing
>>> what you hear. If you have biwring in place now, get rid of it before you
>>> try to add a subwoofer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Now here I can agree with you. I don't know how bi-wiring got started,
>
> Seems pretty obvious to me...$$$$$$$. Why buy 2 megabuck wires when you
> can buy 4?
>
> <snip>
>
>> The ideal solution to the amp/speaker interface is to use self-powered
>> speakers with a pair of amps built into each, one amp for the bass, another
>> for the midrange /tweeter with a dedicated line-level crossover built-in as
>> well, before each amp. That would eliminate the need for speaker cable
>> altogether,
>
> Meridian have done that pretty successfully for some time now (they have
> some pretty impressive systems now if you haven't listened to them, but
> big bucks), as have others. I think a lot of the resistance is cost -
> you cannot go incremental with that approach, since speakers and
> amplification have to be purchased at the same time (and likely with
> only one markup opportunity from a dealer perspective).
>
> Keith
>

Yet there are a number of so-called "near-field" monitors available in the
recording equipment world that do this fairly inexpensively and sound great.
My computer room has a pair of Behringer monitors that were less than
$500/pair which are bi-amped and self powered. They sound excellent!

[C. Leeds]

On 2/21/2011 7:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:


> No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is nonsense. wavelengths that
> long have no directionality.

No, low frequency stereo imaging in not nonsense, as jj would agree,
back when he used to participate in this group. The imaging has nothing
to do with "directionality," and everything to do with phase.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Feb 22, 5:29=A0pm, "C. Leeds" > wrote:
> On 2/21/2011 7:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
> > No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is nonsense. wavelengths=
that
> > long have no directionality.
>
> No, low frequency stereo imaging in not nonsense, as jj would agree,
> back when he used to participate in this group. The imaging has nothing
> to do with "directionality," and everything to do with phase.

All I know is that one sub in the corner works just great for me and
has no noticeable effect in my room with my ears.
And I notice that while you have made the claim, you provide no
evidence that I can see.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Ed Seedhouse > wrote:

> On Feb 22, 5:29Â*pm, "C. Leeds" > wrote:
>> On 2/21/2011 7:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> > No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is nonsense. wavelengths that
>> > long have no directionality.
>>
>> No, low frequency stereo imaging in not nonsense, as jj would agree,
>> back when he used to participate in this group. The imaging has nothing
>> to do with "directionality," and everything to do with phase.
>
> All I know is that one sub in the corner works just great for me and
> has no noticeable effect in my room with my ears.
> And I notice that while you have made the claim, you provide no
> evidence that I can see.

Does the sub change at all the load one half of the amp output sees vs the
other?

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" > wrote in message

> On 2/21/2011 7:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>
>> No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is
>> nonsense. wavelengths that long have no directionality.
>
> No, low frequency stereo imaging in not nonsense, as jj
> would agree, back when he used to participate in this
> group. The imaging has nothing to do with
> "directionality," and everything to do with phase.

Contrary to the beliefs of some naive individuals, JJ is not the only
legitimate and reliable source of this kind of knowlege, and not all equally
credible sources agree with him on every detail.

The audible signficance of multichannel bass is still a controversy.

A leading proponent is David Griesinger of Lexicon fame.

http://www.davidgriesinger.com/aes99.pdf

While I can't point to organized resistance to his ideas, I am aware of
considerable personal criticism of at least some of his claims.

[Andrew Haley]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> "C. Leeds" > wrote in message
>
>> On 2/21/2011 7:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>
>>> No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is
>>> nonsense. wavelengths that long have no directionality.
>>
>> No, low frequency stereo imaging in not nonsense, as jj
>> would agree, back when he used to participate in this
>> group. The imaging has nothing to do with
>> "directionality," and everything to do with phase.
>
> Contrary to the beliefs of some naive individuals, JJ is not the
> only legitimate and reliable source of this kind of knowlege, and
> not all equally credible sources agree with him on every detail.
>
> The audible signficance of multichannel bass is still a controversy.

Floyd Toole sometimes advocates the use of multiple subwoofers in
order better to control standing waves, and thereby reduce the
variation between what is heard in different seats. This isn't
anything to do with the directionality of bass, but it's a good reason
to use two subwoofers.

Andrew.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:45:28 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article >):

> On Feb 22, 5:29=A0pm, "C. Leeds" > wrote:
>> On 2/21/2011 7:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>> No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is nonsense. wavelengths=
> that
>>> long have no directionality.
>>
>> No, low frequency stereo imaging in not nonsense, as jj would agree,
>> back when he used to participate in this group. The imaging has nothing
>> to do with "directionality," and everything to do with phase.
>
> All I know is that one sub in the corner works just great for me and
> has no noticeable effect in my room with my ears.
> And I notice that while you have made the claim, you provide no
> evidence that I can see.

Nor have I noticed it and I have TWO identical subs! All I notice is that the
bass sounds less modal as one moves around the room and it made placement of
the subs easier.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 21:17:07 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article >):

> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Ed Seedhouse > wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 5:29*pm, "C. Leeds" > wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2011 7:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>>> No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is nonsense. wavelengths
>>>> that
>>>> long have no directionality.
>>>
>>> No, low frequency stereo imaging in not nonsense, as jj would agree,
>>> back when he used to participate in this group. The imaging has nothing
>>> to do with "directionality," and everything to do with phase.
>>
>> All I know is that one sub in the corner works just great for me and
>> has no noticeable effect in my room with my ears.
>> And I notice that while you have made the claim, you provide no
>> evidence that I can see.
>
> Does the sub change at all the load one half of the amp output sees vs the
> other?
>
> *R* *H*
>

Most single-subs sum both right and left channels, and since most are self
-powered, they really don't present the amp with a speaker load at all, even
when wired in series with the main speakers. Unpowered subs, OTOH, usually
have TWO voice coils, one for the right channel and one for the left. the
speaker cone itself sums the two so they present an equal load to the amp on
both channels.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Audio Empire > wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 21:17:07 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> Ed Seedhouse > wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 22, 5:29Â*pm, "C. Leeds" > wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2011 7:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>>>> No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is nonsense. wavelengths
>>>>> that
>>>>> long have no directionality.
>>>>
>>>> No, low frequency stereo imaging in not nonsense, as jj would agree,
>>>> back when he used to participate in this group. The imaging has nothing
>>>> to do with "directionality," and everything to do with phase.
>>>
>>> All I know is that one sub in the corner works just great for me and
>>> has no noticeable effect in my room with my ears.
>>> And I notice that while you have made the claim, you provide no
>>> evidence that I can see.
>>
>> Does the sub change at all the load one half of the amp output sees vs the
>> other?
>>
>> *R* *H*
>>
>
> Most single-subs sum both right and left channels, and since most are self
> -powered, they really don't present the amp with a speaker load at all, even
> when wired in series with the main speakers. Unpowered subs, OTOH, usually
> have TWO voice coils, one for the right channel and one for the left. the
> speaker cone itself sums the two so they present an equal load to the amp on
> both channels.
>

Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to upgrade my CD player.
<sigh>

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:55:34 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article >):

> * It may have been the liquor talking, but=20
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>=20
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 21:17:07 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
>> (in article >):
>>=20
>>> * It may have been the liquor talking, but=20
>>> Ed Seedhouse > wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> On Feb 22, 5:29=C2=A0pm, "C. Leeds" > wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2011 7:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>>>>> No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is nonsense. wavele=
ngths=20
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> long have no directionality.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> No, low frequency stereo imaging in not nonsense, as jj would agree=
,
>>>>> back when he used to participate in this group. The imaging has not=
hing
>>>>> to do with "directionality," and everything to do with phase.
>>>>=20
>>>> All I know is that one sub in the corner works just great for me and
>>>> has no noticeable effect in my room with my ears.
>>>> And I notice that while you have made the claim, you provide no
>>>> evidence that I can see.
>>>=20
>>> Does the sub change at all the load one half of the amp output sees v=
s the
>>> other?
>>>=20
>>> *R* *H*
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Most single-subs sum both right and left channels, and since most are =
self=20
>> -powered, they really don't present the amp with a speaker load at all=
,=20
>> even=20
>> when wired in series with the main speakers. Unpowered subs, OTOH, usu=
ally=20
>> have TWO voice coils, one for the right channel and one for the left. =
the=20
>> speaker cone itself sums the two so they present an equal load to the =
amp=20
>> on=20
>> both channels.=20
>>=20
>=20
> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to upgrade my CD play=
er.
> <sigh>
>=20
> *R* *H*
>=20

Why? Has the one you already have stopped working? If not, you might be=20
disappointed in the "improvement" wrought by a new "upgraded" one. You mi=
ght=20
want to go on E-bay and try a new DAC on the old player (as long as it ha=
s a=20
digital out) like this one:=20

http://tinyurl.com/45kz8fu

It's cheap at less than $60 and will most likely give you the same=20
performance upgrade for your current CD player as would replacing it with=
a=20
whole new one. =20

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Audio Empire > wrote:

>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to upgrade my CD play=
> er.
>> <sigh>
>>=20
>> *R* *H*
>>=20
>
> Why? Has the one you already have stopped working? If not, you might be=20
> disappointed in the "improvement" wrought by a new "upgraded" one. You mi=
> ght=20
> want to go on E-bay and try a new DAC on the old player (as long as it ha=
> s a=20
> digital out) like this one:=20
>
> http://tinyurl.com/45kz8fu
>
> It's cheap at less than $60 and will most likely give you the same=20
> performance upgrade for your current CD player as would replacing it with=
> a=20
> whole new one. =20
>


Did you recommend this on personal knowledge? I have a 10 y.o. sony CA80ES
CD carousel player. It has kind of a laid back sound. I have been using it
for 10 years, and would like something with a bit more punch.

It has a optical digital output, so I guess I could mate it with any DAC
with a optical input, right?

The DAC is priced right. Is it any good? Many thanks!


*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:47:17 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article >):

> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to upgrade my CD play=
>> er.
>>> <sigh>
>>> =20
>>> *R* *H*
>>> =20
>>
>> Why? Has the one you already have stopped working? If not, you might be=20
>> disappointed in the "improvement" wrought by a new "upgraded" one. You mi=
>> ght=20
>> want to go on E-bay and try a new DAC on the old player (as long as it ha=
>> s a=20
>> digital out) like this one:=20
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/45kz8fu
>>
>> It's cheap at less than $60 and will most likely give you the same=20
>> performance upgrade for your current CD player as would replacing it with=
>> a=20
>> whole new one. =20
>>
>
>
> Did you recommend this on personal knowledge?

I know the DAC chip, but I just picked that one because it's reasonable. It's
not so much a recommendation as it is an example of what's out there.

I have a 10 y.o. sony CA80ES
> CD carousel player. It has kind of a laid back sound. I have been using it
> for 10 years, and would like something with a bit more punch.

I doubt seriously if you could go wrong at this price, and I'm sure it's
better than what's in your 10-year-old Sony. But be advised that CD players,
while they've gotten more refined sounding in the ensuing 10 years, the
improvement is not radical and wouldn't be no matter how much you spend.

>
> It has a optical digital output, so I guess I could mate it with any DAC
> with a optical input, right?

Absolutely.
>
> The DAC is priced right. Is it any good? Many thanks!

It's fine. The DAC chip is a current Texas Instrument/Burr-Brown PCM-1793
which is a 8X oversampling 24-bit/192 KHz Digital-to-analog converter with
good performance

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Audio Empire > wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:47:17 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to upgrade my CD play=
>>> er.
>>>> <sigh>
>>>> =20
>>>> *R* *H*
>>>> =20
>>>
>>> Why? Has the one you already have stopped working? If not, you might be=20
>>> disappointed in the "improvement" wrought by a new "upgraded" one. You mi=
>>> ght=20
>>> want to go on E-bay and try a new DAC on the old player (as long as it ha=
>>> s a=20
>>> digital out) like this one:=20
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/45kz8fu
>>>
>>> It's cheap at less than $60 and will most likely give you the same=20
>>> performance upgrade for your current CD player as would replacing it with=
>>> a=20
>>> whole new one. =20
>>>
>>
>>
>> Did you recommend this on personal knowledge?
>
> I know the DAC chip, but I just picked that one because it's reasonable. It's
> not so much a recommendation as it is an example of what's out there.
>
> I have a 10 y.o. sony CA80ES
>> CD carousel player. It has kind of a laid back sound. I have been using it
>> for 10 years, and would like something with a bit more punch.
>
> I doubt seriously if you could go wrong at this price, and I'm sure it's
> better than what's in your 10-year-old Sony. But be advised that CD players,
> while they've gotten more refined sounding in the ensuing 10 years, the
> improvement is not radical and wouldn't be no matter how much you spend.
>
>>
>> It has a optical digital output, so I guess I could mate it with any DAC
>> with a optical input, right?
>
> Absolutely.
>>
>> The DAC is priced right. Is it any good? Many thanks!
>
> It's fine. The DAC chip is a current Texas Instrument/Burr-Brown PCM-1793
> which is a 8X oversampling 24-bit/192 KHz Digital-to-analog converter with
> good performance

I think I'll get it. I have heard good things about the Burr Brown, and I
like the fact that it's oversampling. That's a lot of good stuff for 60
bucks! Do you recommend a particular brand of optical cable?

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "C. Leeds" > wrote in message
>
>> On 2/21/2011 7:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is
>>> nonsense. wavelengths that long have no directionality.
>>
>> No, low frequency stereo imaging in not nonsense, as jj
>> would agree, back when he used to participate in this
>> group. The imaging has nothing to do with
>> "directionality," and everything to do with phase.
>
> Contrary to the beliefs of some naive individuals, JJ is not the only
> legitimate and reliable source of this kind of knowlege, and not all
> equally
> credible sources agree with him on every detail.
>
> The audible signficance of multichannel bass is still a controversy.
>
> A leading proponent is David Griesinger of Lexicon fame.
>
> http://www.davidgriesinger.com/aes99.pdf
>
> While I can't point to organized resistance to his ideas, I am aware of
> considerable personal criticism of at least some of his claims.
>

I can only tell you from the personal experience of running five full-range
Thiels (3.5's and 2 2's) that multichannel bass is at a whole other level
than a single subwoofer. Smooth, powerful, relatively few nodes.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:30:25 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article >):

> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:47:17 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
>>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to upgrade my CD play=
>>>> er.
>>>>> <sigh>
>>>>> =20
>>>>> *R* *H*
>>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>> Why? Has the one you already have stopped working? If not, you might be=20
>>>> disappointed in the "improvement" wrought by a new "upgraded" one. You mi=
>>>> ght=20
>>>> want to go on E-bay and try a new DAC on the old player (as long as it ha=
>>>> s a=20
>>>> digital out) like this one:=20
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/45kz8fu
>>>>
>>>> It's cheap at less than $60 and will most likely give you the same=20
>>>> performance upgrade for your current CD player as would replacing it with=
>>>> a=20
>>>> whole new one. =20
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you recommend this on personal knowledge?
>>
>> I know the DAC chip, but I just picked that one because it's reasonable.
>> It's
>> not so much a recommendation as it is an example of what's out there.
>>
>> I have a 10 y.o. sony CA80ES
>>> CD carousel player. It has kind of a laid back sound. I have been using
>>> it
>>> for 10 years, and would like something with a bit more punch.
>>
>> I doubt seriously if you could go wrong at this price, and I'm sure it's
>> better than what's in your 10-year-old Sony. But be advised that CD
>> players,
>> while they've gotten more refined sounding in the ensuing 10 years, the
>> improvement is not radical and wouldn't be no matter how much you spend.
>>
>>>
>>> It has a optical digital output, so I guess I could mate it with any DAC
>>> with a optical input, right?
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> The DAC is priced right. Is it any good? Many thanks!
>>
>> It's fine. The DAC chip is a current Texas Instrument/Burr-Brown PCM-1793
>> which is a 8X oversampling 24-bit/192 KHz Digital-to-analog converter with
>> good performance
>
> I think I'll get it. I have heard good things about the Burr Brown, and I
> like the fact that it's oversampling. That's a lot of good stuff for 60
> bucks! Do you recommend a particular brand of optical cable?
>
> *R* *H*
>

Try these. They're very well made. Some companies like Audio Advisor sell
this very cable for more than 10X this company's prices:

http://tinyurl.com/68dqpvn

I use 'em myself and have been very pleased with both the build quality and
the performance.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rockinghorse Winner" >
wrote in message

> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
> upgrade my CD player.

Upgrade or replace?

If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken. Tacking a DAC onto a
broken CD player is like a house built on shifting sand. If the player
breaks the rest of the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good money
thrown after bad.

The most economical and effective way to proceed is to simply buy a new
optical player and take advantage of the continuing improvement in
price/performance.

CD players are the horse-drawn buggies of digital audio. DVD players are the
Model T Ford. The real action is in Blu Ray players which can be very good
at playing just about any kind of media that you have or are likely to get
in the near future including music files on the computers in your home
network.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
> wrote in message
>
>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
>> upgrade my CD player.
>
> Upgrade or replace?
>
> If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken. Tacking a DAC onto a
> broken CD player is like a house built on shifting sand. If the player
> breaks the rest of the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good money
> thrown after bad.
>
> The most economical and effective way to proceed is to simply buy a new
> optical player and take advantage of the continuing improvement in
> price/performance.
>
> CD players are the horse-drawn buggies of digital audio. DVD players are the
> Model T Ford. The real action is in Blu Ray players which can be very good
> at playing just about any kind of media that you have or are likely to get
> in the near future including music files on the computers in your home
> network.

No the player works just fine. I'm just tired of the sound. :)

I don't know about the blu ray or Universal players, though they certainly
are tempting, like some of the Oppo players available for a few hundred
dollars. How good are the CD players in these machines vs dedicated CD
players?

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:52:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
> wrote in message
>
>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
>> upgrade my CD player.
>
> Upgrade or replace?
>
> If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken. Tacking a DAC onto a
> broken CD player is like a house built on shifting sand. If the player
> breaks the rest of the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good money
> thrown after bad.

He didn't say that his current CD player sounds bad. He said it sounded a
little soft for his taste. If the transport is working correctly, then an
outboard DAC is a very reasonable way to "upgrade" it. Besides, with the
proliferation of Internet streaming appliances such as the Logitech
Squeezebox Touch and high-res downloads, an outboard DAC is not a bad
accessory to have. The one I pointed out is cheap (not much more than a tank
of California gasoline) and will do 24/192. Certainly, with its TI/Burr-Brown
D-to-A chip, it's probably a decent performer, and if it doesn't fix his CD
player's sound to suit him. it's still going to be a useful addition to his
audio rig. I can't imagine why you'd try to talk someone out of buying such a
cheap, useful device.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 03:18:46 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "C. Leeds" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On 2/21/2011 7:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> No, stereo imaging of frequencies below 100 Hz is
>>>> nonsense. wavelengths that long have no directionality.
>>>
>>> No, low frequency stereo imaging in not nonsense, as jj
>>> would agree, back when he used to participate in this
>>> group. The imaging has nothing to do with
>>> "directionality," and everything to do with phase.
>>
>> Contrary to the beliefs of some naive individuals, JJ is not the only
>> legitimate and reliable source of this kind of knowlege, and not all
>> equally
>> credible sources agree with him on every detail.
>>
>> The audible signficance of multichannel bass is still a controversy.
>>
>> A leading proponent is David Griesinger of Lexicon fame.
>>
>> http://www.davidgriesinger.com/aes99.pdf
>>
>> While I can't point to organized resistance to his ideas, I am aware of
>> considerable personal criticism of at least some of his claims.
>>
>
> I can only tell you from the personal experience of running five full-range
> Thiels (3.5's and 2 2's) that multichannel bass is at a whole other level
> than a single subwoofer. Smooth, powerful, relatively few nodes.
>
>

I agree with you. It's simply not about "stereo bass" per-se. It's about
smooth, well integrated bass and two seem to do a better job than one. At the
very least, two subs "share the load" and probably have less distortion than
one sub carrying all the system's low bass.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rockinghorse Winner" >
wrote in message
> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>> wrote in message
>>
>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
>>> upgrade my CD player.
>>
>> Upgrade or replace?
>>
>> If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken.
>> Tacking a DAC onto a broken CD player is like a house
>> built on shifting sand. If the player breaks the rest of
>> the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good
>> money thrown after bad.
>>
>> The most economical and effective way to proceed is to
>> simply buy a new optical player and take advantage of
>> the continuing improvement in price/performance.
>>
>> CD players are the horse-drawn buggies of digital audio.
>> DVD players are the Model T Ford. The real action is in
>> Blu Ray players which can be very good at playing just
>> about any kind of media that you have or are likely to
>> get in the near future including music files on the
>> computers in your home network.

> No the player works just fine. I'm just tired of the
> sound. :)

Then you are barking up the wrong tree. Changing CD players is about as
unlikely to change sound as changing cables or bi-wiring.

> I don't know about the blu ray or Universal players,
> though they certainly are tempting, like some of the Oppo
> players available for a few hundred dollars. How good are
> the CD players in these machines vs dedicated CD players?

The sound is great which is to say about the same as a good CD player.

The worst thing about DVD and Blu Ray players is that they may easiest to
use when a video device is attached for drilling menus, etc.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:31:43 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article >):

> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>> wrote in message
>>
>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
>>> upgrade my CD player.
>>
>> Upgrade or replace?
>>
>> If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken. Tacking a DAC onto a
>> broken CD player is like a house built on shifting sand. If the player
>> breaks the rest of the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good
>> money
>> thrown after bad.
>>
>> The most economical and effective way to proceed is to simply buy a new
>> optical player and take advantage of the continuing improvement in
>> price/performance.
>>
>> CD players are the horse-drawn buggies of digital audio. DVD players are
>> the
>> Model T Ford. The real action is in Blu Ray players which can be very good
>> at playing just about any kind of media that you have or are likely to get
>> in the near future including music files on the computers in your home
>> network.
>
> No the player works just fine. I'm just tired of the sound. :)
>
> I don't know about the blu ray or Universal players, though they certainly
> are tempting, like some of the Oppo players available for a few hundred
> dollars. How good are the CD players in these machines vs dedicated CD
> players?
>
> *R* *H*
>

Every Oppo I've heard has sounded, well, poor.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Audio Empire > wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:52:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>> wrote in message
>>
>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
>>> upgrade my CD player.
>>
>> Upgrade or replace?
>>
>> If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken. Tacking a DAC onto a
>> broken CD player is like a house built on shifting sand. If the player
>> breaks the rest of the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good money
>> thrown after bad.
>
> He didn't say that his current CD player sounds bad. He said it sounded a
> little soft for his taste. If the transport is working correctly, then an
> outboard DAC is a very reasonable way to "upgrade" it. Besides, with the
> proliferation of Internet streaming appliances such as the Logitech
> Squeezebox Touch and high-res downloads, an outboard DAC is not a bad
> accessory to have. The one I pointed out is cheap (not much more than a tank
> of California gasoline) and will do 24/192. Certainly, with its TI/Burr-Brown
> D-to-A chip, it's probably a decent performer, and if it doesn't fix his CD
> player's sound to suit him. it's still going to be a useful addition to his
> audio rig. I can't imagine why you'd try to talk someone out of buying such a
> cheap, useful device.

I've emailed some of the buyers of this kit on ebay, and they all said it
was a very good purchase and were happy with it. Some were using it to
stream their itune songs through and some were using it to 'upgrade' their
CD players. They all said it was an improvement.

One guy from Germany wrote that the tariff on Hong Kong kit like this raises
the price to 4X what it is on ebay, and still thought it was a good
purchase!

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Audio Empire > wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:31:43 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>>> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
>>>> upgrade my CD player.
>>>
>>> Upgrade or replace?
>>>
>>> If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken. Tacking a DAC onto a
>>> broken CD player is like a house built on shifting sand. If the player
>>> breaks the rest of the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good
>>> money
>>> thrown after bad.
>>>
>>> The most economical and effective way to proceed is to simply buy a new
>>> optical player and take advantage of the continuing improvement in
>>> price/performance.
>>>
>>> CD players are the horse-drawn buggies of digital audio. DVD players are
>>> the
>>> Model T Ford. The real action is in Blu Ray players which can be very good
>>> at playing just about any kind of media that you have or are likely to get
>>> in the near future including music files on the computers in your home
>>> network.
>>
>> No the player works just fine. I'm just tired of the sound. :)
>>
>> I don't know about the blu ray or Universal players, though they certainly
>> are tempting, like some of the Oppo players available for a few hundred
>> dollars. How good are the CD players in these machines vs dedicated CD
>> players?
>>
>> *R* *H*
>>
>
> Every Oppo I've heard has sounded, well, poor.
>

You see, that's what I'm afraid of. Although i don't know why I'd think a
DAC from HK would sound any better! I can't pass up the opportunity to hear
what a modern Burr Brown DAC sounds like for such nominal cost.

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Andrew Barss]

Audio Empire > wrote:


Besides, with the
: proliferation of Internet streaming appliances such as the Logitech
: Squeezebox Touch and high-res downloads, an outboard DAC is not a bad
: accessory to have. The one I pointed out is cheap (not much more than a tank
: of California gasoline) and will do 24/192. Certainly, with its TI/Burr-Brown
: D-to-A chip, it's probably a decent performer, and if it doesn't fix his CD
: player's sound to suit him. it's still going to be a useful addition to his
: audio rig. I can't imagine why you'd try to talk someone out of buying such a
: cheap, useful device.

Doesn't the Squeezebox already have a Burr-Brown DAC inside it?

-- Andy Barss

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:52:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>> wrote in message
>>
>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
>>> upgrade my CD player.
>>
>> Upgrade or replace?
>>
>> If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken.
>> Tacking a DAC onto a broken CD player is like a house
>> built on shifting sand. If the player breaks the rest of
>> the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good
>> money thrown after bad.

> He didn't say that his current CD player sounds bad. He
> said it sounded a little soft for his taste.

Ah, the mythology of good players that sound bad rides again!


> If the transport is working correctly, then an outboard DAC is a
> very reasonable way to "upgrade" it.

Ah, the mythology of good DACs that sound bad is back to haunt us.

> Besides, with the
> proliferation of Internet streaming appliances such as
> the Logitech Squeezebox Touch and high-res downloads, an
> outboard DAC is not a bad accessory to have.

What is wrong with the DAC in the Squeezebox?

> The one I pointed out is cheap (not much more than a tank of
> California gasoline) and will do 24/192. Certainly, with
> its TI/Burr-Brown D-to-A chip, it's probably a decent
> performer, and if it doesn't fix his CD player's sound to
> suit him. it's still going to be a useful addition to his
> audio rig. I can't imagine why you'd try to talk someone
> out of buying such a cheap, useful device.

Why build inventory of DACs when all it takes is one to do the job?

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:12:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:52:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>>> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
>>>> upgrade my CD player.
>>>
>>> Upgrade or replace?
>>>
>>> If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken.
>>> Tacking a DAC onto a broken CD player is like a house
>>> built on shifting sand. If the player breaks the rest of
>>> the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good
>>> money thrown after bad.
>
>> He didn't say that his current CD player sounds bad. He
>> said it sounded a little soft for his taste.
>
> Ah, the mythology of good players that sound bad rides again!

TASTES, Mr. Kruger. Some people like different things in the way their
systems sound. One person might prefer "soft" while another might prefer that
their system sound a bit "brighter". Just because one player sounds soft and
another sounds bright doesn't mean that either one of them is defective,
however.
>
>
>> If the transport is working correctly, then an outboard DAC is a
>> very reasonable way to "upgrade" it.
>
> Ah, the mythology of good DACs that sound bad is back to haunt us.

Who said anything about something sounding bad? You might like the taste of
brussels sprouts, and I might not. Does the fact that brussels sprouts aren't
to my taste make them "bad"? Clearly not if you and many others like them.
IOW, you seem to be confusing the phrase "not to my taste" with "defective"
or "bad". All the OP said was that his current player was not to his taste
sonically.

>> Besides, with the
>> proliferation of Internet streaming appliances such as
>> the Logitech Squeezebox Touch and high-res downloads, an
>> outboard DAC is not a bad accessory to have.
>
> What is wrong with the DAC in the Squeezebox?

It doesn't sound as good as my out-board DAC, that's what's wrong with it.

>> The one I pointed out is cheap (not much more than a tank of
>> California gasoline) and will do 24/192. Certainly, with
>> its TI/Burr-Brown D-to-A chip, it's probably a decent
>> performer, and if it doesn't fix his CD player's sound to
>> suit him. it's still going to be a useful addition to his
>> audio rig. I can't imagine why you'd try to talk someone
>> out of buying such a cheap, useful device.
>
> Why build inventory of DACs when all it takes is one to do the job?

What happens if that one DAC (A) doesn't coincide with the listener's tastes,
and (B) doesn't allow access by outside sources such as music servers? Then
he's surely going to need another.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:12:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:52:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>>>> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
>>>>> upgrade my CD player.
>>>>
>>>> Upgrade or replace?
>>>>
>>>> If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken.
>>>> Tacking a DAC onto a broken CD player is like a house
>>>> built on shifting sand. If the player breaks the rest
>>>> of the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good
>>>> money thrown after bad.
>>
>>> He didn't say that his current CD player sounds bad. He
>>> said it sounded a little soft for his taste.
>>
>> Ah, the mythology of good players that sound bad rides
>> again!
>
> TASTES, Mr. Kruger.

Taste presumes relevant differences.

Let's say that you met someone who would walk up to a case of bottled water
and carefully inspectes each (identical) bottle, and then pick one claiming
that it tasted better than the rest.

Let's say that someone would only drink a given brand of bottled water in a
certain size?

Most of us would say that someone is acting pretty strange - sort of like
Mr. Monk the detective on TV.

> Some people like different things in the way their systems sound.

The key parameter here is the easily disproven idea that all CD players have
a characteristic sound.


> One person might prefer
> "soft" while another might prefer that their system sound
> a bit "brighter". Just because one player sounds soft and
> another sounds bright doesn't mean that either one of
> them is defective, however.

If they sound different than at least one has failed to be sonically
transparent. Any CD player that fails to be sonically transparent is either
broken now or started out that way.

>>> If the transport is working correctly, then an outboard
>>> DAC is a very reasonable way to "upgrade" it.

>> Ah, the mythology of good DACs that sound bad is back to
>> haunt us.

> Who said anything about something sounding bad?

Any DAC that fails to be sonically transparent is either broken now or
started out that way.

>You might
> like the taste of brussels sprouts, and I might not.

That presumes that good DACs sound can possibly sound different from each
other. They can't. The mission of a DAC is to be sonically transparent.

We all know that good vegetables can taste different, even bussels sprouts
from the same plant depending how ripe they are when they are picked.

Completely different thing.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Audio Empire > wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:12:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:52:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>>>> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
>>>>> upgrade my CD player.
>>>>
>>>> Upgrade or replace?
>>>>
>>>> If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken.
>>>> Tacking a DAC onto a broken CD player is like a house
>>>> built on shifting sand. If the player breaks the rest of
>>>> the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good
>>>> money thrown after bad.
>>
>>> He didn't say that his current CD player sounds bad. He
>>> said it sounded a little soft for his taste.
>>
>> Ah, the mythology of good players that sound bad rides again!
>
> TASTES, Mr. Kruger. Some people like different things in the way their
> systems sound. One person might prefer "soft" while another might prefer that
> their system sound a bit "brighter". Just because one player sounds soft and
> another sounds bright doesn't mean that either one of them is defective,
> however.
>>
>>
>>> If the transport is working correctly, then an outboard DAC is a
>>> very reasonable way to "upgrade" it.
>>
>> Ah, the mythology of good DACs that sound bad is back to haunt us.
>
> Who said anything about something sounding bad? You might like the taste of
> brussels sprouts, and I might not. Does the fact that brussels sprouts aren't
> to my taste make them "bad"? Clearly not if you and many others like them.
> IOW, you seem to be confusing the phrase "not to my taste" with "defective"
> or "bad". All the OP said was that his current player was not to his taste
> sonically.
>
>>> Besides, with the
>>> proliferation of Internet streaming appliances such as
>>> the Logitech Squeezebox Touch and high-res downloads, an
>>> outboard DAC is not a bad accessory to have.
>>
>> What is wrong with the DAC in the Squeezebox?
>
> It doesn't sound as good as my out-board DAC, that's what's wrong with it.

Also, it doesn't have an optical input, which makes it impossible to run my
CD transport into it. Now, the V-DAC by MF is supposed to be good, but it's
5X the price of the ebay device.

I know that the preamp is prolly pretty crummy in the Hong Kong device, so I
may save my money for a V-DAC. I'm still deciding what to do.


>
>>> The one I pointed out is cheap (not much more than a tank of
>>> California gasoline) and will do 24/192. Certainly, with
>>> its TI/Burr-Brown D-to-A chip, it's probably a decent
>>> performer, and if it doesn't fix his CD player's sound to
>>> suit him. it's still going to be a useful addition to his
>>> audio rig. I can't imagine why you'd try to talk someone
>>> out of buying such a cheap, useful device.
>>
>> Why build inventory of DACs when all it takes is one to do the job?
>
> What happens if that one DAC (A) doesn't coincide with the listener's tastes,
> and (B) doesn't allow access by outside sources such as music servers? Then
> he's surely going to need another.
>
>
>

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:12:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:52:40 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh, ok. I would like a nice sub, but first I need to
>>>>>> upgrade my CD player.
>>>>>
>>>>> Upgrade or replace?
>>>>>
>>>>> If it sounds bad, then its almost certainly broken.
>>>>> Tacking a DAC onto a broken CD player is like a house
>>>>> built on shifting sand. If the player breaks the rest
>>>>> of the way, then the money invested in the DAC is good
>>>>> money thrown after bad.
>>>
>>>> He didn't say that his current CD player sounds bad. He
>>>> said it sounded a little soft for his taste.
>>>
>>> Ah, the mythology of good players that sound bad rides
>>> again!
>>
>> TASTES, Mr. Kruger.
>
> Taste presumes relevant differences.
>
> Let's say that you met someone who would walk up to a case of bottled water
> and carefully inspectes each (identical) bottle, and then pick one claiming
> that it tasted better than the rest.
>
> Let's say that someone would only drink a given brand of bottled water in a
> certain size?
>
> Most of us would say that someone is acting pretty strange - sort of like
> Mr. Monk the detective on TV.
>
>> Some people like different things in the way their systems sound.
>
> The key parameter here is the easily disproven idea that all CD players have
> a characteristic sound.
>
>
>> One person might prefer
>> "soft" while another might prefer that their system sound
>> a bit "brighter". Just because one player sounds soft and
>> another sounds bright doesn't mean that either one of
>> them is defective, however.
>
> If they sound different than at least one has failed to be sonically
> transparent. Any CD player that fails to be sonically transparent is either
> broken now or started out that way.

I'm not one to try on different speaker cables searching for the right one,
because there are math-based reasons why this is futile.

However, a CD player contains so many different components and varying
circuits in both the digital and analog sections, that it would be
unreasonable to suppose that there would NOT be differences in the analog
signal that comes out of them.

>
>>>> If the transport is working correctly, then an outboard
>>>> DAC is a very reasonable way to "upgrade" it.
>
>>> Ah, the mythology of good DACs that sound bad is back to
>>> haunt us.
>
>> Who said anything about something sounding bad?
>
> Any DAC that fails to be sonically transparent is either broken now or
> started out that way.
>
>>You might
>> like the taste of brussels sprouts, and I might not.
>
> That presumes that good DACs sound can possibly sound different from each
> other. They can't. The mission of a DAC is to be sonically transparent.
>
> We all know that good vegetables can taste different, even bussels sprouts
> from the same plant depending how ripe they are when they are picked.
>
> Completely different thing.
>
>
>
>
>

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Arny Krueger]

"Rockinghorse Winner" >
wrote in message
> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message

>>> One person might prefer "soft" while another might prefer that their
>>> system
>>> sound a bit "brighter". Just because one player sounds soft
>>> and another sounds bright doesn't mean that either one
>>> of > them is defective, however.

>> If they sound different than at least one has failed to
>> be sonically transparent. Any CD player that fails to be
>> sonically transparent is either broken now or started
>> out that way.
>
> I'm not one to try on different speaker cables searching
> for the right one, because there are math-based reasons
> why this is futile.
>
> However, a CD player contains so many different
> components and varying circuits in both the digital and
> analog sections, that it would be unreasonable to suppose
> that there would NOT be differences in the analog signal
> that comes out of them.

You can suppose what you want, but you're talking to someone who has
actually done the corresponding hands-on homework.

Masters, Ian G 'Do All CD Players Sound the Same?' Stereo review, Jan 1986,
pg 50-57.

So have others:

http://www.matrixhifi.com/pruebasciegas.htm

Pholmann, Ken C. '6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?' Stereo
Review, Dec 1988, pg 76-84.

Phollmann, Ken C. 'The New CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?' Stereo
Review, Oct 1990, pg 60-67.

CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 75, Jun/Jul 1999.

CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 74, Apr/May 1999

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:08:36 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article >):

>>
>> If they sound different than at least one has failed to be sonically
>> transparent. Any CD player that fails to be sonically transparent is either
>> broken now or started out that way.
>
> I'm not one to try on different speaker cables searching for the right one,
> because there are math-based reasons why this is futile.
>
> However, a CD player contains so many different components and varying
> circuits in both the digital and analog sections, that it would be
> unreasonable to suppose that there would NOT be differences in the analog
> signal that comes out of them.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Double-blind listening tests for
cables merely confirm what physics tells us MUST be the outcome of such
tests. Therefore both the math and the listening tests back each other up by
finding that that there is no reason why two interconnects or two speaker
cables SHOULD sound any different, and the DBTs show that no differences
exist.

In more complex active electronic components such as amplifiers, preamps,
DACs CD players, phono stages, etc., there is no electronic theory that
predicts how these devices should sound beyond a certain point (obviously an
amplifier of amplifier stage with 5% THD is going to sound different from one
which has less than 1%, and that is predictable and demonstrable). That's
because there many paths to analog design and different quality and type
components are going to yield different results. For instance, if you build
two identical amplifiers, but one was made with carbon composition resistors
and then other one was built with metal film resistors, the amps should sound
the same - but they won't. The one made with the metal film resistors will be
significantly quieter than the amp made with carbon comp resistors and this
difference will give the amps away in a double-blind test every time.

What DBTs show with amps and other analog devices (such as DACs) is that
while modern units do show differences, they aren't great. In fact, I have
never been party to a DBT of modern amps, preamps of DACs where I couldn't
happily live with any of them, the differences are so trivial that they will
literally fade from memory after just a few minutes with any one of them. The
days when components sounded wildly different are long gone. Even fairly
cheap amps sound neutral enough to not cause most people to object to them on
sonic grounds.

I have a pair of identical Crown IC-150 preamps. One I bought new back in the
late 1970's and one I purchased at an electronics flea market 10 years later.
The flea market Crown I have left stock , but the one I bought new, I have
continually upgraded as op-amp technology has improved. This is kind of an
ongoing experiment to me. I don't actually employ either pre-amp in my stereo
system, but I do connect them up whenever I upgrade my original one. I invite
my audiophile buddies over for an impromptu DBT.

The IC-150 is ideal for this kind of test because it only has a single IC (1
for each channel) in it. The phono stage is discrete and the National
LM-301A used in the original unit was a mini-DIP package that has a single
Op-amp in it. This pinout has been kept by the industry and so every time
there was a breakthrough in op-amp technology, It was a simple matter to
just plug-n-play the latest and the greatest. Since I kept the other IC-150
stock with it's ancient, wheezing, LM301A intact, the differences were easy
to hear. In the late 1980's, National came out with a line of Bipolar/FET
hybrid op-amps. The difference between that op-amp and the original LM301 was
probably the greatest, but even the latest LM49710 MA (which has vanishingly
low distortion and noise) was a big improvement. Anybody who doesn't think
that advances in op-amp technology make a difference between two otherwise
identical components, should hear my two Crowns. The original one sounds
awful. It's strident, dirty, and very unpleasant sounding with a very soft
top end. The modified IC-150 with the LM49710s (which I also put in my DAC)
sounds clean and extended with noticeably more top end and a much cleaner
midrange. It's easy to hear the difference in a DBT. Nobody has ever mistook
the stock unit for the upgraded one.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Audio Empire > wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:08:36 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
> (in article >):
>
>>>
>>> If they sound different than at least one has failed to be sonically
>>> transparent. Any CD player that fails to be sonically transparent is either
>>> broken now or started out that way.
>>
>> I'm not one to try on different speaker cables searching for the right one,
>> because there are math-based reasons why this is futile.
>>
>> However, a CD player contains so many different components and varying
>> circuits in both the digital and analog sections, that it would be
>> unreasonable to suppose that there would NOT be differences in the analog
>> signal that comes out of them.
>
> You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Double-blind listening tests for
> cables merely confirm what physics tells us MUST be the outcome of such
> tests. Therefore both the math and the listening tests back each other up by
> finding that that there is no reason why two interconnects or two speaker
> cables SHOULD sound any different, and the DBTs show that no differences
> exist.
>
> In more complex active electronic components such as amplifiers, preamps,
> DACs CD players, phono stages, etc., there is no electronic theory that
> predicts how these devices should sound beyond a certain point (obviously an
> amplifier of amplifier stage with 5% THD is going to sound different from one
> which has less than 1%, and that is predictable and demonstrable). That's
> because there many paths to analog design and different quality and type
> components are going to yield different results. For instance, if you build
> two identical amplifiers, but one was made with carbon composition resistors
> and then other one was built with metal film resistors, the amps should sound
> the same - but they won't. The one made with the metal film resistors will be
> significantly quieter than the amp made with carbon comp resistors and this
> difference will give the amps away in a double-blind test every time.
>
> What DBTs show with amps and other analog devices (such as DACs) is that
> while modern units do show differences, they aren't great. In fact, I have
> never been party to a DBT of modern amps, preamps of DACs where I couldn't
> happily live with any of them, the differences are so trivial that they will
> literally fade from memory after just a few minutes with any one of them. The
> days when components sounded wildly different are long gone. Even fairly
> cheap amps sound neutral enough to not cause most people to object to them on
> sonic grounds.
>
> I have a pair of identical Crown IC-150 preamps. One I bought new back in the
> late 1970's and one I purchased at an electronics flea market 10 years later.
> The flea market Crown I have left stock , but the one I bought new, I have
> continually upgraded as op-amp technology has improved. This is kind of an
> ongoing experiment to me. I don't actually employ either pre-amp in my stereo
> system, but I do connect them up whenever I upgrade my original one. I invite
> my audiophile buddies over for an impromptu DBT.
>
> The IC-150 is ideal for this kind of test because it only has a single IC (1
> for each channel) in it. The phono stage is discrete and the National
> LM-301A used in the original unit was a mini-DIP package that has a single
> Op-amp in it. This pinout has been kept by the industry and so every time
> there was a breakthrough in op-amp technology, It was a simple matter to
> just plug-n-play the latest and the greatest. Since I kept the other IC-150
> stock with it's ancient, wheezing, LM301A intact, the differences were easy
> to hear. In the late 1980's, National came out with a line of Bipolar/FET
> hybrid op-amps. The difference between that op-amp and the original LM301 was
> probably the greatest, but even the latest LM49710 MA (which has vanishingly
> low distortion and noise) was a big improvement. Anybody who doesn't think
> that advances in op-amp technology make a difference between two otherwise
> identical components, should hear my two Crowns. The original one sounds
> awful. It's strident, dirty, and very unpleasant sounding with a very soft
> top end. The modified IC-150 with the LM49710s (which I also put in my DAC)
> sounds clean and extended with noticeably more top end and a much cleaner
> midrange. It's easy to hear the difference in a DBT. Nobody has ever mistook
> the stock unit for the upgraded one.
>


OK, but your timeline seems to say that by the late '80's these op amps had
improved greatly since the 70's. However, I have owned a mass market
reciever from the mid 90's that I paid about $300 for (not a cheapo amp).
The difference between it and my current tube amp is profound.

True, I have not compared it with a high end SS amp, but I'm sure the high
end amp would sound just as improved over that crap receiver as mine does.

You can't tell ME that all amps sound the same! :)

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Arny Krueger]

"Rockinghorse Winner" >
wrote in message

> OK, but your timeline seems to say that by the late '80's
> these op amps had improved greatly since the 70's.
> However, I have owned a mass market reciever from the mid
> 90's that I paid about $300 for (not a cheapo amp). The
> difference between it and my current tube amp is
> profound.

Depending on the tube amp, proper bench measurements could probably explain
why.

> True, I have not compared it with a high end SS amp, but
> I'm sure the high end amp would sound just as improved
> over that crap receiver as mine does.

A mid-90s receiver would now be 16 years old and may be defective.

> You can't tell ME that all amps sound the same! :)

Nobody is telling you that all amps sound the same. It is just the good ones
that sound the same, and there is good reason to believe that neither of the
amps you are comparing are good amps.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
> wrote in message

>> You can't tell ME that all amps sound the same! :)
>
> Nobody is telling you that all amps sound the same. It is just the good ones
> that sound the same, and there is good reason to believe that neither of the
> amps you are comparing are good amps.
>
>

NOW you change your tune!

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:08:36 -0800, Rockinghorse Winner
> wrote (in article >):
>
>>>
>>> If they sound different than at least one has failed to
>>> be sonically transparent. Any CD player that fails to
>>> be sonically transparent is either broken now or
>>> started out that way.
>>
>> I'm not one to try on different speaker cables searching
>> for the right one, because there are math-based reasons
>> why this is futile.

>> However, a CD player contains so many different
>> components and varying circuits in both the digital and
>> analog sections, that it would be unreasonable to
>> suppose that there would NOT be differences in the
>> analog signal that comes out of them.

> You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Double-blind
> listening tests for cables merely confirm what physics
> tells us MUST be the outcome of such tests. Therefore
> both the math and the listening tests back each other up
> by finding that that there is no reason why two
> interconnects or two speaker cables SHOULD sound any
> different, and the DBTs show that no differences exist.

The same thing applies to complex electronics.

> In more complex active electronic components such as
> amplifiers, preamps, DACs CD players, phono stages, etc.,
> there is no electronic theory that predicts how these
> devices should sound beyond a certain point (obviously an
> amplifier of amplifier stage with 5% THD is going to
> sound different from one which has less than 1%, and that
> is predictable and demonstrable).

The reason why there is no *electronic theory* that predicts audibility is
because audibility is not based on electronics.

Audibility is based on the study of human beings and in some cases where
relevant, other mammals.

The study of audibility usually comes under a well-known area of scientific
study called Psychoacoustics. Note that this is hard science and not social
studies. The classic work in this field is Zwicker and Fastl's
"Psychoacoustics, Facts and Models", 1991, 1999. The models of audiblity
described in this work have translated into the development of perceptual
coders.

[bob]

On Feb 28, 7:52=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>
> > Nobody is telling you that all amps sound the same. It is just the good=
ones
> > that sound the same, and there is good reason to believe that neither o=
f the
> > amps you are comparing are good amps.
>
> NOW you change your tune!

Doesn't look like a change of tune at all. Looks like you need to be
reading more carefully.

The audibility of amps is well understood, to the point that you can
find it explained in college textbooks. Assuming two amps are both
capable of driving the load, and neither exhibits FR anomalies or
other obvious forms of distortion sufficient to be heard (which is
rare to unknown in modern SS designs), they cannot be distinguished by
ear alone. If you've got data demonstrating the contrary, please share
it. And please note, that's *data*.

bob

[VilliamRobat]

Let's say that you met someone who would walk up to a case of bottled water and carefully inspectes each (identical) bottle, and then pick one claiming
that it tasted better than the rest.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article ):

>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>> wrote in message

>>> You can't tell ME that all amps sound the same! :)

>> Nobody is telling you that all amps sound the same. It
>> is just the good ones that sound the same, and there is
>> good reason to believe that neither of the amps you are
>> comparing are good amps.

> NOW you change your tune!

Where have I said otherwise?

I admit that there is a sort of a self-defining truism here - which is that
all good amps sound the same (as a straight piece of wire with gain) and
that any amp that fails to do this is by definition, not good amplifier. It
is similarly true that all good converters sound the same (as a straight
piece of wire, this time no gain) and that any converter that fails to do
this is by definition, not good.

It is also true that the study of classical electronics (i.e., as I learned
it in the 1960s) gives no specific insights into audibility. However an
area of the joint studies of biology and physics oddly (oddly to me since
the Psycho- prefix implies psychology and no social science is actually
involved) known as Psychoacoustics, does.

Modern electronics texts do mention many of the findings of the science of
Psychoacooustics. So in 2010, the field of Electronics as it now it has
solid explanations about how electronics can be imperfect in terms of
theoretical and measured performance, but also be perfect as far as the ear
goes.

Psychacoustics came into its own as a science in the late 1980s. However,
even in the 1960s we heard mention of the word Masking and we were aware of
the findings of Fletcher and Munson. It turns out that due to Masking,
Fletcher and Munson turned out to be very optimistic about the sensitivity
of the human ear. However, even the findings of Fletcher and Munson which
have stood the test of time in their rightful context, show that it should
be fairly easy to build converters and amplfiiers that while measurably
flawed are sonically perfect.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article ):

>> "Rockinghorse Winner" >
>> wrote in message

>>> You can't tell ME that all amps sound the same! :)

>> Nobody is telling you that all amps sound the same. It
>> is just the good ones that sound the same, and there is
>> good reason to believe that neither of the amps you are
>> comparing are good amps.

> NOW you change your tune!

Where have I said otherwise?

I admit that there is a sort of a self-defining truism here - which is that
all good amps sound the same (as a straight piece of wire with gain) and
that any amp that fails to do this is by definition, not good amplifier. It
is similarly true that all good converters sound the same (as a straight
piece of wire, this time no gain) and that any converter that fails to do
this is by definition, not good.

It is also true that the study of classical electronics (i.e., as I learned
it in the 1960s) gives no specific insights into audibility. However an
area of the joint studies of biology and physics oddly (oddly to me since
the Psycho- prefix implies psychology and no social science is actually
involved) known as Psychoacoustics, does.

Modern electronics texts do mention many of the findings of the science of
Psychoacooustics. So in 2010, the field of Electronics as it now it has
solid explanations about how electronics can be imperfect in terms of
theoretical and measured performance, but also be perfect as far as the ear
goes.

Psychacoustics came into its own as a science in the late 1980s. However,
even in the 1960s we heard mention of the word Masking and we were aware of
the findings of Fletcher and Munson. It turns out that due to Masking,
Fletcher and Munson turned out to be very optimistic about the sensitivity
of the human ear. However, even the findings of Fletcher and Munson which
have stood the test of time in their rightful context, show that it should
be fairly easy to build converters and amplfiiers that while measurably
flawed are sonically perfect.

[RoySon]

It is similarly true that all good converters sound the same (as a straight
piece of wire, this time no gain) and that any converter that fails to do
this is by definition, not good.

[kevinh]

Earl Geddes has a paper on the use of multiple subwoofers that is at his site. He shows that with 3 subs you can get response similar to 4 as Toole recommends.

http://www.gedlee.com/Papers.htm


The powerpoint on small room acoustics is very good that along with the pdf on subwoofer placement should help the OP.

The bottom line is 3 $400 SW would be better than 1 $1200 SW. This has to do with the acoustics of small rooms.

Arnie makes a good point about electronics and that there is a good understanding of what will sound good and what will not sound good. If you find as design where the distortion components decline in a linear fashion as the volume declines, there are lower levels of high order harmonics than low level harmonics, then the amp will sound good.

Money spent on room acoustics and placing speakers in a room will provide far more ROI than the latest magic cables or expensive amps.

http://www.rpginc.com/residential/index.htm


Since many recordings have problems a good eq for program material will provide a good ROI. See the Burwin Bobcat if you want to want to improve your sound in a meaningful way.

http://www.burwenbobcat.com/BBTB_Home.html

Wish I had the $$ to get one of these