[Jenn[_2_]]

All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other than
room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear changed
the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure cartridge
for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or DCM Timewindows
traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

Yours?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the
years. Other than room treatment or other space
improvements, what piece of gear changed the sound of
your system for the better to the largest degree?

Rane equalizer.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
Jenn wrote



All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the
years. Other than room treatment or other space
improvements, what piece of gear changed the sound of
your system for the better to the largest degree?





Rane equalizer.


Most likely due to collection of poorly recorded music and
sound along with, without a doubt, aggravation from an
unsuitable listening environment having unwavering and
uncorrectable room acoustic.

After treating the room and rearranging the space, have
you tried other things before that ? What would be your
advice to clients.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
. net
Arny Krueger wrote:
Jenn wrote



All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the
years. Other than room treatment or other space
improvements, what piece of gear changed the sound of
your system for the better to the largest degree?

Rane equalizer.

It is a MQ 302S.

Most likely due to collection of poorly recorded music and
sound along with, without a doubt, aggravation from an
unsuitable listening environment having unwavering and
uncorrectable room acoustic.

Just wild speculation on your part, Borglet. I couldn't be using the
equalizer to obtain improved levels of performance in a situation that most
would find to be good enough, now could I?

After treating the room and rearranging the space, have
you tried other things before that ?

A sentence that is absolute nonsense due to a looped time line. I'm going to
do some speculative decoding with it and take a wild guess at its meaning. I
think you are asking whether I tried other things before treating the room
and rearranging it. The answer is that the room has been rearranged,
redecorated, and rearranged many times. The speakers and electronics have
gone through several generations of changes.

What would be your advice to clients.

Fix room acoustics first, equalize as needed to address issues with music
sources, equipment, and finally the room.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Feb, 07:41, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message

. net

Arny Krueger wrote:
Jenn wrote

All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the
years. *Other than room treatment or other space
improvements, what piece of gear changed the sound of
your system for the better to the largest degree?
Rane equalizer.

It is a MQ 302S.

Most likely due to collection of poorly recorded music and
sound along with, without a doubt, aggravation from an
unsuitable listening environment having unwavering and
uncorrectable room acoustic.

Just wild speculation on your part, Borglet. *I couldn't be using the
equalizer to obtain improved levels of performance in a situation that most
would find to be good enough, now could I?


the equalizer is your best sounding piece because you
can use it to dial out any particular out of tune
singer in your church choir recordings.
Not that there's anything left after that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 27 Feb, 07:41, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in
message

. net

Arny Krueger wrote:
Jenn wrote

All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the
years. Other than room treatment or other space
improvements, what piece of gear changed the sound of
your system for the better to the largest degree?
Rane equalizer.

It is a MQ 302S.

Most likely due to collection of poorly recorded music
and sound along with, without a doubt, aggravation from
an unsuitable listening environment having unwavering
and uncorrectable room acoustic.

Just wild speculation on your part, Borglet. I couldn't
be using the equalizer to obtain improved levels of
performance in a situation that most would find to be
good enough, now could I?


the equalizer is your best sounding piece...

I never said any such thing, and this question is not even a reasonable
question in this context.

Audio systems are just that - systems. The various pieces all require each
other to make sound.

There is no best sounding piece of equipment in a system. You would have to
take each component out of the system to evaluate that, and then you would
be avoiding possible synergistic interactions.

Note the title of the thread, it is not the same as "what is your best
sounding component".

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:




Just wild speculation on your part, Borglet. I couldn't be using the
equalizer to obtain improved levels of performance in a situation
that most would find to be good enough, now could I?


the equalizer is your best sounding piece because you
can use it to dial out any particular out of tune
singer in your church choir recordings.
Not that there's anything left after that.


I have the feeling that since our system are good enough,
he feels it necessary to add rane equalizer in his because
it makes him feel special.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
Jenn wrote



All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the
years. Other than room treatment or other space
improvements, what piece of gear changed the sound of
your system for the better to the largest degree?


Rane equalizer.


It is a MQ 302S.

Most likely due to collection of poorly recorded music and
sound along with, without a doubt, aggravation from an
unsuitable listening environment having unwavering and
uncorrectable room acoustic.

Just wild speculation on your part, Borglet. I couldn't be using the
equalizer to obtain improved levels of performance in a situation
that most would find to be good enough, now could I?


Well yes, but you admitted below that the reasons you desire to
obtain improved performance using equalizer was decided upon
after you rearranged, redecorated, and rearranged your room
many times. Why would you imply that your situation would be good
enough for most when, in fact, you have to drastically rearranged
your room and still, utilize equalizer to improved your situation.


Exactly, how would most people find your situation good enough ?



After treating the room and rearranging the space, have
you tried other things before that ?

A sentence that is absolute nonsense due to a looped time line. I'm
going to do some speculative decoding with it and take a wild guess
at its meaning. I think you are asking whether I tried other things
before treating the room and rearranging it. [...]


I said, have you tried other things AFTER treating the room and space.



The answer is that the
room has been rearranged, redecorated, and rearranged many times. he
speakers and electronics have gone through several generations of
changes.


So yes, you arrange and rearrange your room and failing that --
you decided to utilize an equalizer.to ameliorate your poor listening
environment.


OR, did you wished to incorporate Rane equalizer into your system
firsthand and then, decided to rearrange the hell out of your room
in order to easily equalize your equalizer ?

????


What would be your advice to clients.

Fix room acoustics first, equalize as needed to address issues with
music sources, equipment, and finally the room.


Was you intention to use Rane equalizer to compensate for your
poorly designed listening environment or, to address issues you
have with your poorly recorded music sources ?

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
t
Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
Jenn wrote



All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the
years. Other than room treatment or other space
improvements, what piece of gear changed the sound of
your system for the better to the largest degree?


Rane equalizer.


It is a MQ 302S.

Most likely due to collection of poorly recorded music
and sound along with, without a doubt, aggravation from
an unsuitable listening environment having unwavering
and uncorrectable room acoustic.

Just wild speculation on your part, Borglet. I couldn't
be using the equalizer to obtain improved levels of
performance in a situation that most would find to be
good enough, now could I?

Well yes,

Thank you.

but you admitted below that the reasons you
desire to obtain improved performance using equalizer was
decided upon after you rearranged, redecorated, and rearranged your
room many times.

What's wrong with that?


Why would you imply that your situation
would be good enough for most when, in fact, you have to
drastically rearranged your room and still, utilize
equalizer to improved your situation.

Every approach has its limits. The more relevant approaches you apply to the
difficult proposition of properly reproducing music, the better the results,
no?

Exactly, how would most people find your situation good
enough ?

Obviously, it sounded good enough for most people, even picky people.

After treating the room and rearranging the space, have
you tried other things before that ?

A sentence that is absolute nonsense due to a looped
time line. I'm going to do some speculative decoding
with it and take a wild guess at its meaning. I think
you are asking whether I tried other things before
treating the room and rearranging it. [...]

I said, have you tried other things AFTER treating the
room and space.

What you said before that made the whole run-on into a big train wreck.


The answer is that the
room has been rearranged, redecorated, and rearranged
many times. he speakers and electronics have gone
through several generations of changes.

So yes, you arrange and rearrange your room and failing
that --

No, having obtained some but not yet enough success to satisfy me...

you decided to utilize an equalizer.to ameliorate your
poor listening environment.

Why would it necessarily be poor?

OR, did you wished to incorporate Rane equalizer into
your system firsthand and then, decided to rearrange the
hell out of your room in order to easily equalize your equalizer ?

No, the Rane is a fairly recent addition, but not the first equalizer to be
used in that system.

What would be your advice to clients.

Fix room acoustics first, equalize as needed to address
issues with music sources, equipment, and finally the
room.

Was you intention to use Rane equalizer to compensate for your poorly
designed listening environment or, to address
issues you have with your poorly recorded music sources ?

Who says that either is the reason why I added the Rane?

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other than
room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear changed
the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure cartridge
for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or DCM Timewindows
traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

Yours?

It seems to me there is no such thing as a one-size-fits all
system. So I switch speakers to suit my mood and the music
to which I am listening. I have access to JBL, a remarkable
pair of Kef K1 Monitors,Tannoy Golds and also B+W 801D.

I agree with you that considerable improvement can be made
with wise changes in a vinyl rig. I have recently acquired a
turntable that I have dreamed of since I was a teenager -
the EMT 948, with the EMT 929 tone arm, and an
EMT cartridge type TSD15,or XSD15

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...T948/EMT06.jpg

This turntable is rather different in that it has built-in
balanced line electronics, which means that it can be
placed at distance from the main system. I cannot say
it is better or worse than my Garrard 401/SME/V15II
set up. But it is certainly different. The first vinyl pressing
I played on it was Samuel Barber: Adagio for Strings.
(Munchinger. Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra - Decca)

Regards

--
Iain
Aural perception is a skill that requires study and
careful development over a long period of time.
Few have it as a natural gift.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
...


http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...T948/EMT06.jpg

This turntable is rather different in that it has built-in
balanced line electronics, which means that it can be
placed at distance from the main system. I cannot say
it is better or worse than my Garrard 401/SME/V15II
set up. But it is certainly different. The first vinyl pressing
I played on it was Samuel Barber: Adagio for Strings.
(Munchinger. Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra - Decca)

One can easily build a small head amp to do the same thing with any
table, although certainly EMT had the right idea. Who needs preamps
any more?

The EMT solution is a good one. The card rack includes a
headphone amp, the two RIAA channels, with presets for
alignment and also the motor servo board. There is even a
spare slot which holds the extender board.

'Tis a wondrous machine:-)

Iain

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Feb, 12:00, Jenn wrote:
All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. *Other than
room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear changed
the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure cartridge
for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or DCM Timewindows
traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

Yours?

a VPI record cleaning machine.
my best sounding piece of equipment!

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 26 Feb, 12:00, Jenn wrote:
All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. *Other than
room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear changed
the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure cartridge
for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or DCM Timewindows
traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

Yours?

a VPI record cleaning machine.
my best sounding piece of equipment!

Good point!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 26, 3:04*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

a VPI record cleaning machine.
*my best sounding piece of equipment!

Which one do you have? I'm looking at a 16.5 right now, but the
convenience of a 17 might be worth it. Have you compared them to Nitty
Gritty?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Jenn wrote:



All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other than
room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear changed
the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure
cartridge for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or DCM
Timewindows traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

Yours?

Down-firing 15" subw powered with a matching out-board 400w
amp.

Velodyne.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"JBorg, Jr." wrote:

Jenn wrote:



All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other than
room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear changed
the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure
cartridge for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or DCM
Timewindows traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

Yours?

Down-firing 15" subw powered with a matching out-board 400w
amp.

Velodyne.


I see that there is a pair of Maggie MG3 with a Janis W-3 sub for sale
at seems to be an excellent price. I've heard that it can be difficult
to match Maggies with a woofer, but I'm sorely tempted by this.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Jenn wrote:
JBorg, Jr.wrote:
Jenn wrote:



All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other
than room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear
changed the sound of your system for the better to the largest
degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure
cartridge for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or
DCM Timewindows traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

Yours?

Down-firing 15" subw powered with a matching out-board 400w
amp.

Velodyne.


I see that there is a pair of Maggie MG3 with a Janis W-3 sub for sale
at seems to be an excellent price. I've heard that it can be
difficult to match Maggies with a woofer, but I'm sorely tempted by
this.


I don't have a first-hand listening experience with maggies which are
magneplanar and flat panels. But I have a hybred electrostat which
also has flat panels that are paired with a pea-sized 8" impotent woofer
subjacent to the stators that produces no palpable thrust below and
beyond the sultry bottom region.

As with flat panels, more often than not, musically integrating the
subwoofer with the main panel speakers is difficult. The initial settings
I made had a distracting discontinuity in the musical fabric. Selecting
hi-pass/low-pass filter at crossover points correctly is tricky. I spend
hours after hours adjusting the freq. points. In my case, it's tiny chips
labeled 30hz, 35hz, 40hz, .... up to 55hz, which I plugged inside the
amps circuit board. Coincidently, I also have to rearrange the movable
articles in the listening room. I never really got the optimum setting
but the improvement were already there.

The dynamic range and extension were greatly increased particularly
at the bottom end. Much to my desire.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"JBorg, Jr." wrote:

Jenn wrote:
JBorg, Jr.wrote:
Jenn wrote:



All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other
than room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear
changed the sound of your system for the better to the largest
degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure
cartridge for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or
DCM Timewindows traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

Yours?

Down-firing 15" subw powered with a matching out-board 400w
amp.

Velodyne.


I see that there is a pair of Maggie MG3 with a Janis W-3 sub for sale
at seems to be an excellent price. I've heard that it can be
difficult to match Maggies with a woofer, but I'm sorely tempted by
this.


I don't have a first-hand listening experience with maggies which are
magneplanar and flat panels. But I have a hybred electrostat which
also has flat panels that are paired with a pea-sized 8" impotent woofer
subjacent to the stators that produces no palpable thrust below and
beyond the sultry bottom region.

As with flat panels, more often than not, musically integrating the
subwoofer with the main panel speakers is difficult. The initial settings
I made had a distracting discontinuity in the musical fabric. Selecting
hi-pass/low-pass filter at crossover points correctly is tricky. I spend
hours after hours adjusting the freq. points. In my case, it's tiny chips
labeled 30hz, 35hz, 40hz, .... up to 55hz, which I plugged inside the
amps circuit board. Coincidently, I also have to rearrange the movable
articles in the listening room. I never really got the optimum setting
but the improvement were already there.

The dynamic range and extension were greatly increased particularly
at the bottom end. Much to my desire.

Thanks. Does anyone here have thoughts about integrating Maggies with a
good woofer (like I've heard the Janis is)?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message


Thanks. Does anyone here have thoughts about integrating
Maggies with a good woofer (like I've heard the Janis is)?

It is very difficult to integrate speakers that have vastly differing
directivities.

The maggies are bipolar radiators in their bass range.

A bipolar subwoofer seems to be the better choice:

http://www.pinnaclespeakers.com/products.html

[JimC]

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"JBorg, Jr." wrote:


Jenn wrote:

JBorg, Jr.wrote:

Jenn wrote:



All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other
than room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear
changed the sound of your system for the better to the largest
degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure
cartridge for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or
DCM Timewindows traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

Yours?

Down-firing 15" subw powered with a matching out-board 400w
amp.

Velodyne.


I see that there is a pair of Maggie MG3 with a Janis W-3 sub for sale
at seems to be an excellent price. I've heard that it can be
difficult to match Maggies with a woofer, but I'm sorely tempted by
this.


I don't have a first-hand listening experience with maggies which are
magneplanar and flat panels. But I have a hybred electrostat which
also has flat panels that are paired with a pea-sized 8" impotent woofer
subjacent to the stators that produces no palpable thrust below and
beyond the sultry bottom region.

As with flat panels, more often than not, musically integrating the
subwoofer with the main panel speakers is difficult. The initial settings
I made had a distracting discontinuity in the musical fabric. Selecting
hi-pass/low-pass filter at crossover points correctly is tricky. I spend
hours after hours adjusting the freq. points. In my case, it's tiny chips
labeled 30hz, 35hz, 40hz, .... up to 55hz, which I plugged inside the
amps circuit board. Coincidently, I also have to rearrange the movable
articles in the listening room. I never really got the optimum setting
but the improvement were already there.

The dynamic range and extension were greatly increased particularly
at the bottom end. Much to my desire.


Thanks. Does anyone here have thoughts about integrating Maggies with a
good woofer (like I've heard the Janis is)?


I think that the problems some people have when trying to integrate
Maggies (or other speakers) with a sub arise because they are trying to
use the sub as a woofer rather than a subwoofer. In other words, they
have the crossover point on the sub set too high, so that the sub and
the woofers in the main speakers are reproducing the same material over
too much of the frequency range. I have Maggie 3.6's and a large
Velodyne woofer, which some say doesn't work because the Velodyne is too
slow for the Maggies, and can't "keep up with them." But if the Velodyne
crossover is set at a point below the lower, rolled off lower frequency
response of the Maggies, the system works very well.

The Maggies have great bass response in the mid bass frequencies, but
they can't reproduce lower bass (below 40 Hz or so) at anywhere near a
realistic level. The sub does make a significant difference.

Jim

[WindsorFox-{SS}-]

Jenn wrote:
All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other than
room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear changed
the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure cartridge
for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or DCM Timewindows
traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

Yours?

So far speakers and next in line an amp. I don't even have a TT set
up as of yet, but I'm making a place for it. if I thought I could get
the control box repaired I would use the Micro Seiki table I have,
otherwise it will be an old Phillips.

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

[Bassplayer12]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other than
room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear changed
the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure cartridge
for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or DCM Timewindows
traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

Yours?

1. Good quality interconnects.
2. Replacing my Denon power amp (POA-2200) with an old Bryston 4B.
My speakers are JBL XPL-200's and need more juice than the Denon could
deliver.

[willbill]

Jenn wrote:

All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other than
room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear changed
the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure cartridge
for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or DCM Timewindows
traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.


in order of improvement/amazement:

#1 by far: moving from solid state back
to a "miserable"/lowly Dyna 70 tube amp

#2: moving from LS3/5a speakers to
original Quads

#3: getting a Linn turntable


bill

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
willbill wrote:

Jenn wrote:

All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other than
room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear changed
the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure cartridge
for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or DCM Timewindows
traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.


in order of improvement/amazement:

#1 by far: moving from solid state back
to a "miserable"/lowly Dyna 70 tube amp

#2: moving from LS3/5a speakers to
original Quads

#3: getting a Linn turntable


bill

Interesting, thanks

[willbill]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
willbill wrote:

Jenn wrote:

All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other than
room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear changed
the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure cartridge
for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or DCM Timewindows
traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.

in order of improvement/amazement:

#1 by far: moving from solid state back
to a "miserable"/lowly Dyna 70 tube amp

#2: moving from LS3/5a speakers to
original Quads

#3: getting a Linn turntable


bill

Interesting, thanks


fwiw, there is one more that's close:

#4: getting an OPPO player, in order
to play multichannel SACD discs

bill

[JimC]

willbill wrote:
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
willbill wrote:


Jenn wrote:


All of us have swapped gear in our systems over the years. Other
than room treatment or other space improvements, what piece of gear
changed the sound of your system for the better to the largest degree?

For me it was either changing a Micro Seiki TT/arm with Shure
cartridge for the Oracle/Alphason/Dynavector combo in the 80s, or
DCM Timewindows traded for Maggie MG IC speakers, also in the 80s.


in order of improvement/amazement:

#1 by far: moving from solid state back
to a "miserable"/lowly Dyna 70 tube amp

#2: moving from LS3/5a speakers to
original Quads

#3: getting a Linn turntable


bill


Interesting, thanks



fwiw, there is one more that's close:

#4: getting an OPPO player, in order
to play multichannel SACD discs

bill

Bill, what Oppo player did you get, and how is it connected to your
system? I read Kal's review of the Oppo 980 used with the Integra 9.8 in
the January Stereophile and am thinking of getting an equivalent
combination. Apparently, the fact that SACD is sent from the Oppo to the
Integra via HDMI 1.3 cable in SACD or PCM mode and processed in the
Integra without the usual A-D-A conversion. As understood, this resulted
in bettter SACD audio and more flexible MC processing.

Jim

[willbill]

JimC wrote:

willbill wrote:

fwiw, there is one more that's close:

#4: getting an OPPO player, in order
to play multichannel SACD discs

bill


Bill, what Oppo player did you get,


OPPO DV-981HD


and how is it connected to your system?


i run HDMI straight to my 32" flat screen,
with the HDMI *sound* turned *off* (an option
with my OPPO unit in it's setup menu; also
worth a note is that i constantly have to go
into setup to switch back and forth from
absolute L/R (when i'm listening to a CD)
vs. 5.1 (for either SACD or a DVD video)

for the audio, i'm currently running both
Toslink (fiber - 1 cable), as well as analog
RCA interconnect cables (6 of them: 5.1)

fwiw, i have tried using the HDMI for sound
(into my mid-level Denon AVR), and it sounds
the same as the Toslink cable

it's better with the 6 clunky analog RCA cables,
although i can also add that more than half the
time i funnel the sound thru the Toslink cable,
especially if it's a movie with Dolby PL surround,
or mono sound

for cleaning up cable clutter, there's nothing
as good as HDMI cable


I read Kal's review of the Oppo 980


Kal takes serious (excited!) exception
with my preference for 5.1 analog cables

www.oppodigital.com shows 3 current units

all 3 have gotten very good reviews on their
sound capability with SACD discs and in general

i can add that my one unit (so far) seems to
be very robust (in comparison to a cheap $45
Toshiba DVD player that wouldn't play as many
types of discs and got very flakey after only
4 to 6 months of moderate usage


used with the Integra 9.8 in
the January Stereophile and am thinking of getting an equivalent
combination. Apparently, the fact that SACD is sent from the Oppo to the
Integra via HDMI 1.3 cable in SACD or PCM mode and processed in the
Integra without the usual A-D-A conversion. As understood, this resulted
in bettter SACD audio and more flexible MC processing.


it's my sincere belief that if you really want the best
sound, then 5.1 RCA analog cables are the way to go

Kal (and likely others (many?)) are sure to take exception

fortunately, this is an unmoderated newsgroup (shields up!)

bill

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Signal wrote:



Mods? Ear syringing.


Better yet, ear lavage using lukewarm water
dabbled with peroxide.


BeEn tHeRe! tHan ThAt! LoL!