Speaker recommendations for office?

[Powell]

Any speaker recommendations for office
environment? Needs good near field properties
and small size... $1500-$2500. Looked at
B&W N805 but it's micro-detail at low volume
levels is wanting/lacking. Would consider wall
mounted planar.

[Sarcastic Shill]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
> Any speaker recommendations for office
> environment? Needs good near field properties
> and small size... $1500-$2500. Looked at
> B&W N805 but it's micro-detail at low volume
> levels is wanting/lacking. Would consider wall
> mounted planar.
>
Try Jupiter audio.
These are excellent speakers of innovative design that received rave
reviews by participants of the audio newsgroup, rec.audio.opinion.

And they're a terrific buy at only $1350 a pair.

[George M. Middius]

Bobo said:

> Try Jupiter audio.
> These are excellent speakers of innovative design that received rave
> reviews by participants of the audio newsgroup, rec.audio.opinion.

You are becoming what you despise.

[Robert Morein]

"Sarcastic Shill" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Powell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Any speaker recommendations for office
> > environment? Needs good near field properties
> > and small size... $1500-$2500. Looked at
> > B&W N805 but it's micro-detail at low volume
> > levels is wanting/lacking. Would consider wall
> > mounted planar.
> >
> Try Jupiter audio.
> These are excellent speakers of innovative design that received rave
> reviews by participants of the audio newsgroup, rec.audio.opinion.
>
> And they're a terrific buy at only $1350 a pair.
>
Hey, that sounds like a great idea.
Anybody else try these?

[[email protected]]

In article >,
"Powell" > wrote:

> Any speaker recommendations for office
> environment? Needs good near field properties
> and small size... $1500-$2500. Looked at
> B&W N805 but it's micro-detail at low volume
> levels is wanting/lacking. Would consider wall
> mounted planar.
>
>
>
>

Von Schweikert VR 1's or if you have plenty of quality watts, the Totem
Model 1 Signatures(used in your price range). Both of those are about
the same size as the 805. Heck with everyone else in the office. Crank
em up once in a while. :^)

HTH.

Scott

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bobo said:
>
> > Try Jupiter audio.
> > These are excellent speakers of innovative design that received rave
> > reviews by participants of the audio newsgroup, rec.audio.opinion.
>
> You are becoming what you despise.
>
Once in a while? Please?

[Powell]

"Uptown Audio" wrote

> The JM Lab Electra 906 is very revealing and
> $2k. For half of that, the JM Lab Cobalt 806 is
> also a good choice with a little warmer sound
> but still good resolution and low level dynamics.
> Also the new Tannoy Sensys DC1 at $1k.
>
In the used market and for more money
do you have an opinion on original (1998)
Mini Utopia or older Wilson Audio Cub for
this application?

[ScottW]

"Powell" > wrote in message >...
> Any speaker recommendations for office
> environment? Needs good near field properties
> and small size... $1500-$2500. Looked at
> B&W N805 but it's micro-detail at low volume
> levels is wanting/lacking. Would consider wall
> mounted planar.

I thought the small Spendors (S3/5se) sounded really good with a small sub.
Should be able to put together a nice package in that price range.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Langis" > wrote in message
...
> (ScottW) wrote:
>
>
> These JM Labs are ruthlessly honest speakers, with only a mere
hint of
> sweetness - they aren't "forgiving" to poor recordings or
ancillery
> equipment at all. That's the way I like it... YMMV.

Yah, I got a ****load of great music poorly recorded. It's rare
the exceptional recording and great music find each other IMO.

ScottW

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> "Langis" > wrote in message
> ...
>
(ScottW) wrote:
>>
>>
>>These JM Labs are ruthlessly honest speakers, with only a mere
>
> hint of
>
>>sweetness - they aren't "forgiving" to poor recordings or
>
> ancillery
>
>>equipment at all. That's the way I like it... YMMV.
>
>
> Yah, I got a ****load of great music poorly recorded. It's rare
> the exceptional recording and great music find each other IMO.


With your hi-fi I can believe that. Buy a real preamp.

[ScottW]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> With your hi-fi I can believe that. Buy a real preamp.

I am considering it. My Yamaha has an intermittent output and I
don't have the time to look into it.
I would like simple phono preamp with enough drive for my
passive attenuator.
I suppose I could put a source selection switch on the amp to
switch between the passive attenuator and a phono preamp with
volume control but I would rather not.

Got any recommendations?

ScottW

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>With your hi-fi I can believe that. Buy a real preamp.
>
>
> I am considering it. My Yamaha has an intermittent output and I
> don't have the time to look into it.
> I would like simple phono preamp with enough drive for my
> passive attenuator.


Passive preamps = passive sound quality. Always.

[Lionel]

trotsky wrote:
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> With your hi-fi I can believe that. Buy a real preamp.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am considering it. My Yamaha has an intermittent output and I
>> don't have the time to look into it.
>> I would like simple phono preamp with enough drive for my
>> passive attenuator.
>
>
>
> Passive preamps = passive sound quality. Always.
>
****ing guy = ****ing advices. Always.

[The Devil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:30:28 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>> I am considering it. My Yamaha has an intermittent output and I
>> don't have the time to look into it.
>> I would like simple phono preamp with enough drive for my
>> passive attenuator.
>
>
>Passive preamps = passive sound quality. Always.

Maybe in a week, after Greg has finished researching his next speaker
model, Madisound will teach him what a pot is.

--
td

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:30:28 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>> I am considering it. My Yamaha has an intermittent output and I
>>>don't have the time to look into it.
>>> I would like simple phono preamp with enough drive for my
>>>passive attenuator.
>>
>>
>>Passive preamps = passive sound quality. Always.
>
>
> Maybe in a week, after Greg has finished researching his next speaker
> model, Madisound will teach him what a pot is.


I'm pretty sure "Lionel" smokes the pot--is that what you meant? BTW,
Dev, did you ever get around to confronting Donald Trump about the Trump
Tower?

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:


> Passive preamps = passive sound quality. Always.
>

And he says I'm a troll.

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> trotsky wrote:
>
>
>> Passive preamps = passive sound quality. Always.
>>
>
> And he says I'm a troll.



Agreed.

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> trotsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> ScottW wrote:
>>
>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>> ...

>>>> With your hi-fi I can believe that. Buy a real preamp.

>>> I am considering it. My Yamaha has an intermittent output and I
>>> don't have the time to look into it.


On paper the Parasound PPH-110 looks good. Thing is, they don't specify its
gain in a meaningful way. Price seems reasonable enough. I'm sure it would
drive a line-level input on Scott's Yamaha.

The manufacturer's pedigree seems good.

http://www.parasound.com/products/specialty/pph100specs.html

http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productinfo.asp?sku=PARPPH100&InfoType=1&P
ageTitle=Specifications

>>> I would like simple phono preamp with enough drive for my
>>> passive attenuator.

It's not clear that the PPH-100 has enough output to drive a power amp
directly.

http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/PPH-100Brochure.pdf says that it has enough
gain to drive "line-drive preamps" which is a hopeful sign.

>> Passive preamps = passive sound quality. Always.

Isn't "passive sound" just another way of saying "sonically transparent"?

> ****ing guy = ****ing advices. Always.

Really. Only Singh would be so stupid as to come out against the most
distortion-free form of audio level control known to man.

My recollection of history is that his opinion of them REALLY went into the
commode when he heard that Pinkerton and I both favor them.

I suspect Singh's real problem with passive preamps is that they don't
facilitate driving power amps into gross clipping.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Really. Only Singh would be so stupid as to come out against the most
> distortion-free form of audio level control known to man.



Arny, you can't prove that distortion can be heard in a DBT. You're
making the ABX test sound like trash again.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Really. Only Singh would be so stupid as to come out against the most
>> distortion-free form of audio level control known to man.

> Arny, you can't prove that distortion can be heard in a DBT.

Anybody who wants to hear that distortion can be heard in a DBT need only
visit:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/index.htm

> You're making the ABX test sound like trash again.

I'll leave that for the individual listeners to decide for themselves.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
> > trotsky wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> ScottW wrote:
> >>
> >>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
>
> >>>> With your hi-fi I can believe that. Buy a real preamp.
>
> >>> I am considering it. My Yamaha has an intermittent output and I
> >>> don't have the time to look into it.
>
>
> On paper the Parasound PPH-110 looks good. Thing is, they don't specify its
> gain in a meaningful way. Price seems reasonable enough. I'm sure it would
> drive a line-level input on Scott's Yamaha.

Except the Yamaha has an intermittent main output and is coming out.
I want a phono preamp that can drive my passive attenuator into a
Krell KSA-150 power amp. Im fine with my CD into the passive and don't
need to add a preamp in that path.

If not that, then a pre-amp with phono and I'll add a source switch on
the Krell though this is not my preferred option.

ScottW

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Really. Only Singh would be so stupid as to come out against the most
>>>distortion-free form of audio level control known to man.
>>
>
>>Arny, you can't prove that distortion can be heard in a DBT.
>
>
> Anybody who wants to hear that distortion can be heard in a DBT need only
> visit:
>
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/index.htm


So you're saying two preamps that aren't broken can be heard to have
different sounds of their own? You are trashing ABX! This is a
breakthrough. When did you finally realize the ABX concept was a
complete scam?


>>You're making the ABX test sound like trash again.
>
>
> I'll leave that for the individual listeners to decide for themselves.


Not good enough. Which two preamps can you diffentiate between? Is
another loser leaves bet in order?

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message

>>
>>>trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>With your hi-fi I can believe that. Buy a real preamp.
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I am considering it. My Yamaha has an intermittent output and I
>>>>>don't have the time to look into it.
>>>>
>>
>>On paper the Parasound PPH-110 looks good. Thing is, they don't specify its
>>gain in a meaningful way. Price seems reasonable enough. I'm sure it would
>>drive a line-level input on Scott's Yamaha.
>
>
> Except the Yamaha has an intermittent main output and is coming out.
> I want a phono preamp that can drive my passive attenuator into a
> Krell KSA-150 power amp.


Okay, that sounds vomit worthy.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Really. Only Singh would be so stupid as to come out against the
>>>> most distortion-free form of audio level control known to man.
>>>
>>
>>> Arny, you can't prove that distortion can be heard in a DBT.
>>
>>
>> Anybody who wants to hear that distortion can be heard in a DBT need
>> only visit:

>> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/index.htm

> So you're saying two preamps that aren't broken can be heard to have
> different sounds of their own?

In my book any preamp that audibly colors sound is broken. You know that!

> You are trashing ABX!

How?

>This is a
> breakthrough. When did you finally realize the ABX concept was a
> complete scam?

With logical leaps like that Singh, you should take a stab at jumping the
Grand Canyon!

>>> You're making the ABX test sound like trash again.

>> I'll leave that for the individual listeners to decide for
>> themselves.

> Not good enough. Which two preamps can you diffentiate (sic) between?

Somehow I find that the Sun does not rise and set on preamp listening tests
that are positive for audible differences.

> Is another loser leaves bet in order?

You're a proven welcher on bets like those Singh. Why would anybody trust
you?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>
>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>
>>>>>> With your hi-fi I can believe that. Buy a real preamp.
>>
>>>>> I am considering it. My Yamaha has an intermittent output and I
>>>>> don't have the time to look into it.
>>
>>
>> On paper the Parasound PPH-110 looks good. Thing is, they don't
>> specify its gain in a meaningful way. Price seems reasonable enough.
>> I'm sure it would drive a line-level input on Scott's Yamaha.
>
> Except the Yamaha has an intermittent main output and is coming out.
> I want a phono preamp that can drive my passive attenuator into a
> Krell KSA-150 power amp. Im fine with my CD into the passive and don't
> need to add a preamp in that path.
>
> If not that, then a pre-amp with phono and I'll add a source switch on
> the Krell though this is not my preferred option.

Except in your rush to judgement Scotty, you missed the part where I wrote
this:

http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/PPH-100Brochure.pdf says that it has enough
gain to drive "line-drive preamps" which is a hopeful sign.

[ScottW]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Okay, that sounds vomit worthy.
>

What was it you said recently? Something about commenting on
equipment you haven't heard I believe.
You are the single most hypocritical person I have ever
encountered.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scottieborg said:

> You are the single most hypocritical person I have ever
> encountered.

That's not true. The best Gregipus can attain is a tie.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scottieborg said:
>
> > You are the single most hypocritical person I have ever
> > encountered.
>
> That's not true. The best Gregipus can attain is a tie.

I continue to give Greg the benefit of the doubt by granting
him "person" classification. But in the open class, you may be
correct.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scottie said:

> > > You are the single most hypocritical person I have ever
> > > encountered.
> >
> > That's not true. The best Gregipus can attain is a tie.
>
> I continue to give Greg the benefit of the doubt by granting
> him "person" classification. But in the open class, you may be
> correct.

Congratulations on confronting the truth head-on.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/PPH-100Brochure.pdf says that it
has enough
> gain to drive "line-drive preamps" which is a hopeful sign.
>
>
Not to me. Gain and drive aren't related. And having enough
gain to drive the high impedance input of an active preamp isn't
what I need.

ScottW

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Okay, that sounds vomit worthy.
>>
>
>
> What was it you said recently? Something about commenting on
> equipment you haven't heard I believe.


I've heard KSA-150s, and I have heard numerous passive preamps. Thus,
you're lying.


> You are the single most hypocritical person I have ever
> encountered.


Oh sure, your "I don't know a goddamned thing about audio but please
don't tell me that fact" stance doesn't count, right?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:qXXhb.19127$gi2.17294@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/PPH-100Brochure.pdf says that it has
>> enough gain to drive "line-drive preamps" which is a hopeful sign.
>>
>>
> Not to me. Gain and drive aren't related.

The typical "line-drive preamp" has low or zero gain.

>A nd having enough
> gain to drive the high impedance input of an active preamp isn't
> what I need.

Presumably you want to drive the input of a power amp, which is high
compared to the output impedance and load driving capabilities of a phono
preamp or passive controller.

[ScottW]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Okay, that sounds vomit worthy.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What was it you said recently? Something about commenting
on
> > equipment you haven't heard I believe.
>
>
> I've heard KSA-150s, and I have heard numerous passive preamps.
Thus,
> you're lying.

All passive preamps sound alike I suppose. What is driving the
passive or the load has no bearing on the results at all I
suppose.

Tell us you don't think the sound of an amp can be at all
influenced by the load it drives.

For you to think you can carve out the pieces of a system whose
component performances are interactive is stupid beyond belief.

However, if you use benign load speakers, high input impedance
active preamps to drive high impedance amps you might have a
point. Each block of a type is interchangeable without
imparting anything on the next block.
Sort of like "Stereo by Lego".

Who else around here advocates that sort of system design? Let
me think...... Oh yeah. Howard.
Nice one Singh. I think you should change your company name to
something a little more representative of your system philosophy.
Stereo by Lego, owned and operated by the worlds former
preeminent audio display man.


>
>
> > You are the single most hypocritical person I have ever
> > encountered.
>
> Oh sure, your "I don't know a goddamned thing about audio but
please
> don't tell me that fact" stance doesn't count, right?
>
Wrong. However your stance, "I know everything about audio
including the right personal preferences so don't tell me what
you like" is about as hypocritical as it gets.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:qXXhb.19127$gi2.17294@fed1read01
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/PPH-100Brochure.pdf says that
it has
> >> enough gain to drive "line-drive preamps" which is a hopeful
sign.
> >>
> >>
> > Not to me. Gain and drive aren't related.
>
> The typical "line-drive preamp" has low or zero gain.

My Yamaha C-60 has some gain as it is capable of 10V on the
primary output.
It still has a bit of trouble driving the Quads to decent sound
levels through the passive (turned to min attenuation).
I doubt I will find a phono stage with more drive. I guess I'll
have to bypass the passive.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:3H5ib.20916$gi2.7452@fed1read01

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:qXXhb.19127$gi2.17294@fed1read01

>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...

>>>> http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/PPH-100Brochure.pdf says that it has
>>>> enough gain to drive "line-drive preamps" which is a hopeful sign.

>>> Not to me. Gain and drive aren't related.

>> The typical "line-drive preamp" has low or zero gain.

> My Yamaha C-60 has some gain as it is capable of 10V on the
> primary output.

I have never heard of a C-60 being characterized as a "line-drive preamp".

> It still has a bit of trouble driving the Quads to decent sound
> levels through the passive (turned to min attenuation).

Try adding a power amp.

> I doubt I will find a phono stage with more drive. I guess I'll
> have to bypass the passive.

Passive what?

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:3H5ib.20916$gi2.7452@fed1read01
>
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>news:qXXhb.19127$gi2.17294@fed1read01
>>
>
>>>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>
>>>>>http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/PPH-100Brochure.pdf says that it has
>>>>>enough gain to drive "line-drive preamps" which is a hopeful sign.
>>>>
>
>>>> Not to me. Gain and drive aren't related.
>>>
>
>>>The typical "line-drive preamp" has low or zero gain.
>>
>
>> My Yamaha C-60 has some gain as it is capable of 10V on the
>>primary output.
>
>
> I have never heard of a C-60 being characterized as a "line-drive preamp".


I think that's what occurs when you give it the baseball bat treatment
it deserves.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

You convinced me you aren't really interested in the topic and
just want to argue about semantics. Enjoy yourself.

ScottW

[MiNE 109]

In article <tMfib.23083$gi2.16392@fed1read01>,
"ScottW" > wrote:


<phono preamp stuff>

How much output do you think you need from the phono stage? My ARC PH3
brochure says it can do .5 V and is intended for an "active line-level
stereo preamplifier" and defines "typical line preamplifiers" as
"having 12 to 18 dB of gain". Obviously ARC doesn't intend for it to
drive a passive preamp, and it might be too pricey, but it does provide
a point of comparison.

Does anyone remember a Stereophile phono stage comparison in which the
reviewer ran the stages direct to an amp and "matched levels" by
swapping cartridges?

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:tMfib.23083$gi2.16392@fed1read01

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

> You convinced me you aren't really interested in the topic and
> just want to argue about semantics.

How wrong can you be?

I'm very interested in this topic because I've got vinyl, I've got vinyl
playback equipment, and I'm a long-time user and advocate of passive
controllers.

> Enjoy yourself.

Obviously you feel cornered by a factual discussion, Scotty.

Hey look over there! Cake!

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...

> >> The typical "line-drive preamp" has low or zero gain.
>
> > My Yamaha C-60 has some gain as it is capable of 10V on the
> > primary output.
>
> I have never heard of a C-60 being characterized as a "line-drive preamp".

Please define the constraints of "line-drive preamp" so we don't
have to argue about semantics. If you ignore the phono section,
would the C-60 then be classed as "line-drive".

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:tMfib.23083$gi2.16392@fed1read01
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > You convinced me you aren't really interested in the topic and
> > just want to argue about semantics.
>
> How wrong can you be?
>
> I'm very interested in this topic because I've got vinyl, I've got vinyl
> playback equipment, and I'm a long-time user and advocate of passive
> controllers.
>
> > Enjoy yourself.
>
> Obviously you feel cornered by a factual discussion, Scotty.
>
> Hey look over there! Cake!

Can you define "line drive preamp" and explain why the C-60 is not.

BTW, I bypassed my passive and there is no change. The C-60 is just a
little short on gain (in the phono-line path) to drive the Krell/Quad
combo.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...


> Can you define "line drive preamp" and explain why the C-60 is not.

My inital studies suggested that "line drive preamp" denoted a kind of
preamp that is mainly a line driver as opposed to a entity that added gain
to the system. After studying the topic a bit more, I conclude that "line
drive preamp" is just marketing-speak.

> BTW, I bypassed my passive and there is no change. The C-60 is just a
> little short on gain (in the phono-line path) to drive the Krell/Quad
> combo.

It very much looks like it's going to take more than just a phono preamp
stage to do what you need. In short - look seriously at picking up another
full-function preamp.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> om
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >...
>
>
> > Can you define "line drive preamp" and explain why the C-60
is not.
>
> My inital studies suggested that "line drive preamp" denoted a
kind of
> preamp that is mainly a line driver as opposed to a entity that
added gain
> to the system. After studying the topic a bit more, I conclude
that "line
> drive preamp" is just marketing-speak.

Don't it suck being befuddled by the marketeers.
I conclude it can be anything that only has line level inputs.
No phono stage.
>
> > BTW, I bypassed my passive and there is no change. The C-60
is just a
> > little short on gain (in the phono-line path) to drive the
Krell/Quad
> > combo.
>
> It very much looks like it's going to take more than just a
phono preamp
> stage to do what you need. In short - look seriously at picking
up another
> full-function preamp.

Yup, with a little more output. I got hold of a C-50 manual
but can't seem to find a C-60 spec anywhere.
Any idea if the gain and max output of these are the same? I
guess yes but would be nice to be sure. This is one clear case
where a spec can help reduce the trials to candidates with
potential.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:hhkjb.28016$gi2.6290@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> om
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>
>>
>>> Can you define "line drive preamp" and explain why the C-60 is not.
>>
>> My inital studies suggested that "line drive preamp" denoted a kind
>> of preamp that is mainly a line driver as opposed to a entity that
>> added gain to the system. After studying the topic a bit more, I
>> conclude that "line drive preamp" is just marketing-speak.
>
> Don't it suck being befuddled by the marketeers.
> I conclude it can be anything that only has line level inputs.
> No phono stage.
>>
>>> BTW, I bypassed my passive and there is no change. The C-60 is
>>> just a little short on gain (in the phono-line path) to drive the
>>> Krell/Quad combo.
>>
>> It very much looks like it's going to take more than just a phono
>> preamp stage to do what you need. In short - look seriously at
>> picking up another full-function preamp.
>
> Yup, with a little more output. I got hold of a C-50 manual
> but can't seem to find a C-60 spec anywhere.
> Any idea if the gain and max output of these are the same? I
> guess yes but would be nice to be sure. This is one clear case
> where a spec can help reduce the trials to candidates with
> potential.


It's been virtually impossible to find any technical info on either of these
preamps.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 06:46:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>news:hhkjb.28016$gi2.6290@fed1read01
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> om
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> >...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can you define "line drive preamp" and explain why the C-60 is not.
>>>
>>> My inital studies suggested that "line drive preamp" denoted a kind
>>> of preamp that is mainly a line driver as opposed to a entity that
>>> added gain to the system. After studying the topic a bit more, I
>>> conclude that "line drive preamp" is just marketing-speak.
>>
>> Don't it suck being befuddled by the marketeers.
>> I conclude it can be anything that only has line level inputs.
>> No phono stage.
>>>
>>>> BTW, I bypassed my passive and there is no change. The C-60 is
>>>> just a little short on gain (in the phono-line path) to drive the
>>>> Krell/Quad combo.
>>>
>>> It very much looks like it's going to take more than just a phono
>>> preamp stage to do what you need. In short - look seriously at
>>> picking up another full-function preamp.
>>
>> Yup, with a little more output. I got hold of a C-50 manual
>> but can't seem to find a C-60 spec anywhere.
>> Any idea if the gain and max output of these are the same? I
>> guess yes but would be nice to be sure. This is one clear case
>> where a spec can help reduce the trials to candidates with
>> potential.
>
>
>It's been virtually impossible to find any technical info on either of these
>preamps.

He might try contacting the lister of this eBay auction. Perhaps the
guy would be kind enough to look it up for him:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3052970518&category=39783

[dave weil]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:19:55 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 06:46:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>>news:hhkjb.28016$gi2.6290@fed1read01
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> om
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> >...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can you define "line drive preamp" and explain why the C-60 is not.
>>>>
>>>> My inital studies suggested that "line drive preamp" denoted a kind
>>>> of preamp that is mainly a line driver as opposed to a entity that
>>>> added gain to the system. After studying the topic a bit more, I
>>>> conclude that "line drive preamp" is just marketing-speak.
>>>
>>> Don't it suck being befuddled by the marketeers.
>>> I conclude it can be anything that only has line level inputs.
>>> No phono stage.
>>>>
>>>>> BTW, I bypassed my passive and there is no change. The C-60 is
>>>>> just a little short on gain (in the phono-line path) to drive the
>>>>> Krell/Quad combo.
>>>>
>>>> It very much looks like it's going to take more than just a phono
>>>> preamp stage to do what you need. In short - look seriously at
>>>> picking up another full-function preamp.
>>>
>>> Yup, with a little more output. I got hold of a C-50 manual
>>> but can't seem to find a C-60 spec anywhere.
>>> Any idea if the gain and max output of these are the same? I
>>> guess yes but would be nice to be sure. This is one clear case
>>> where a spec can help reduce the trials to candidates with
>>> potential.
>>
>>
>>It's been virtually impossible to find any technical info on either of these
>>preamps.
>
>He might try contacting the lister of this eBay auction. Perhaps the
>guy would be kind enough to look it up for him:
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3052970518&category=39783

*Or*, you can just go here:

http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/av/english/SepA/C-60.pdf

<chuckle>

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:hhkjb.28016$gi2.6290@fed1read01
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> om
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> >...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can you define "line drive preamp" and explain why the C-60 is
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> My inital studies suggested that "line drive preamp" denoted a kind
>>> of preamp that is mainly a line driver as opposed to a entity that
>>> added gain to the system. After studying the topic a bit more, I
>>> conclude that "line drive preamp" is just marketing-speak.
>>
>> Don't it suck being befuddled by the marketeers.
>> I conclude it can be anything that only has line level inputs.
>> No phono stage.
>>>
>>>> BTW, I bypassed my passive and there is no change. The C-60 is
>>>> just a little short on gain (in the phono-line path) to drive the
>>>> Krell/Quad combo.
>>>
>>> It very much looks like it's going to take more than just a phono
>>> preamp stage to do what you need. In short - look seriously at
>>> picking up another full-function preamp.
>>
>> Yup, with a little more output. I got hold of a C-50 manual
>> but can't seem to find a C-60 spec anywhere.

>> Any idea if the gain and max output of these are the same? I
>> guess yes but would be nice to be sure. This is one clear case
>> where a spec can help reduce the trials to candidates with
>> potential.
>
>
> It's been virtually impossible to find any technical info on either
> of these preamps.

Following up on Weil's helpful suggestion:

http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/av/english/SepA/C-50.pdf

versus

http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/av/english/SepA/C-60.pdf


However, I see no difference in terms of specified gain.

The high level side has the normal 20 dB of gain, and the MC phono preamp
has a fairly typical 35 dB of gain.

If your system is down on gain, the power amp and/or speakers seem to be the
likely culprit(s)

[ScottW]

dave weil > wrote in message >...
>
> http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/av/english/SepA/C-60.pdf
>
> <chuckle>

Thanks Dave, I couldn't get there via the Yamaha US page.


ScottW