[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