NewBuyer;216448 Wrote:
I have seen most sources/amps falling in those actual spec ranges too.
However the usual advice (pretty sure about this) to someone assembling
their audio sytem, is to aim for load input impedance to be at least 10
times the source output impedance, for line level
Back to the original topic: I did a comparison of a SB2 and Arcam CD33
($2500) in my main system (Arcam C31 pre, P1 monoblocks, with PMC FB1+
speakers). In the end I couldn't tell the difference between the
sources. This was not a scientific test, mind you, but I level matched
and really couldn't
In my opinion yes, the SB3 can sound fantastic as an analog source. I've
not (yet) tried a Transporter, but I have tried many different source
combos (and too many DAC's to comfortably list anymore), and I've been
quite shocked at how good the stock SB3 analog-output sounds with a
proper
Pat Farrell;216207 Wrote:
cliveb wrote:
An SB3 feeding $5000 speakers will almost certainly sound better than
a
Transporter feeding $3000 speakers.
I'm not sure that this is true in general. It depends on which 5K
speakers vs which 3K speakers. And it really depends somewhat on the
PhilNYC;216216 Wrote:
This is HIGHLY dependent on the technical specs of the components
involved...specifically, the input sensitivity of the amplifier and the
output voltage of the source. A high input sensitivity amplifier will
need a high output voltage from the source. If these are not
opaqueice wrote:
I certainly agree that you can hear quite clearly when an amp clips,
and different amps clip under different circumstances.
This is rather a big proviso.
Sure, most amps will sound very similar under certain operating conditions.
But, and it's a big but, not all amps will
Analogies are never that great, but hopefully you will concentrate on
the point I'm trying to make, rather than just trying to pick holes in
the analogy.
The reason that source quality is more important than speaker quality,
even though the latter is much more obvious and easier to hear, is akin
Patrick Dixon wrote:
Analogies are never that great, but hopefully you will concentrate on
the point I'm trying to make, rather than just trying to pick holes in
the analogy.
The reason that source quality is more important than speaker quality,
even though the latter is much more obvious
haunyack;216236 Wrote:
Hi Phil,
Not to hijack this thread, but can you (or somebody else) please
elaborate on this?
My BK amp balanced input sensitivity is listed at 2.8v with input
impedance listed at 33.2 k ohms.
Is this a good match for the Transporter direct using XLR?
There
cliveb;216278 Wrote:
I presume this was a typo and you meant to say that that a *low* input
sensitivity amplifier will need a high output voltage from the source?
I know it's counter-intuitive, but I meant high (not low). The input
sensitivity spec is listed as the voltage required to make
Patrick Dixon;216309 Wrote:
I don't think the source first principle has ever been discredited; if
anything has, it is just the numerical percentage split of your budget
source first advocates used to say you should allocate to each
component.
Quantitatively there is simply no debate -
opaqueice;216333 Wrote:
Personally bumps in the frequency response bother me a lot - I often
hear them quite clearly, and they bug me because they sound very
unnatural. Differences in sources I almost never notice.
You will have significant differences in 'frequency response' between
one
cliveb wrote:
If you're saying that there are plenty of 3k speakers that are as good
as many 5k speakers, then you have a fair point. I was trying to make a
more abstract point, in the sense that for a given budget you're better
off dovoting the lion's share to the transducers - they are after
Patrick Dixon;216334 Wrote:
You will have significant differences in 'frequency response' between
one recording and the next, so you are correct, the frequency response
aspect is completely subjective.
I wonder, can you tell one person's voice from another? For example,
on TV advertising
PhilNYC;216332 Wrote:
I know it's counter-intuitive, but I meant high (not low). The input
sensitivity spec is listed as the voltage required to make the amp
produce it's maximum output...which means that the higher the input
sensitivity, the more power is needed to drive the amp.
I guess
PhilNYC;216331 Wrote:
The Transporter's max output level via balanced is 3vrms, so that is a
relatively good match to your Bryston.
Thanks Phil.
err..it's a BK ;-)
.
--
haunyack
Transporter - BK Reference 200.2 - Vandersteen 3A Signature.
RWA (Analog) SB3 - Rotel RB 1070 - BW Matrix
cliveb;216357 Wrote:
I guess this must be another case of the Americans and British being
divided by a common language. In my book, high input sensitivity means
that a low voltage is required (eg. an input sensitivity of 100mV is
higher than one of 500mV). Presumably you'd say it was the
PhilNYC;216381 Wrote:
I'm just going by what manufacturers use when they list an amp's input
sensitivity in the technical specifications. The higher the number
they list, the higher the voltage they like at the input...
I guess this is rather tedious semantics, but if something is highly
PhilNYC;216331 Wrote:
The Transporter's max output level via balanced is 3vrms, so that is a
relatively good match to your Bryston. The ouput impedance of the TP
is 100ohms...the general rule is that you want your amp's input
impedance to be in the ballpark of 100x+ the output impedance of
Phil Leigh;216386 Wrote:
I guess this is rather tedious semantics, but if something is highly
sensitive that means it takes little to send it over the edge...
So high sensitivity means it takes LESS volts to drive it...low
sensitivity means it takes it takes a lot - exactly the same as low
NewBuyer;216436 Wrote:
Phil, you mean 10X+, not 100X+, right? That's the rule of thumb as I've
always seen it...
I've always known it to be 100x. Most amps that I've seen have an
input impedance between 10K-200Kohms, and most preamps I've seen have
output impedance between 100ohms-200ohms.
PhilNYC;216445 Wrote:
I've always known it to be 100x. Most amps that I've seen have an input
impedance between 10K-200Kohms, and most preamps I've seen have output
impedance between 100ohms-200ohms.
The usual advice (pretty sure about this) is to aim for load input
impedance to be at least
Guys,
Bearing in mind this is an audiophile forum...
I've noticed there are several people here running incredible rigs,
using an SB3 as a front end.
No offense, but an SB3 is not the last word in sound quality. It is
very good, but the idea of putting it in front of dollar/pound
five-figures
No doubt about it, Transporter SQ is a step up from the SB3. It was
clear as a bell on even my 'mid fi' kit (Arcam Solo and BW CM-2
speakers).
--
amcluesent
amcluesent's Profile:
amcluesent;216097 Wrote:
No doubt about it, Transporter SQ is a step up from the SB3. It was
clear as a bell on even my 'mid fi' kit (Arcam Solo and BW CM-2
speakers).
Of course, if you run your SB3 with external DAC, who knows?
No doubt the SB3 is not high-end or anything like it but
darrenyeats;216092 Wrote:
I have a relatively modest system and I can't do serious listening with
my SB3, because I know my CD transport/DAC sounds better and I want the
best to hand. If I can hear the difference in my old and modest set up
then I shudder to think of the musical joy some
opaqueice;216118 Wrote:
How about on a $50,000 system?
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35068
None of us could tell the difference between the SB3 and the TP blind.
On the other hand, it was very easy sighted.
opaqueice,
The point of my post was that the SB3 is not high
darrenyeats;216164 Wrote:
opaqueice,
The point of my post was that the SB3 is not high end. Those with high
end rigs should demand more, and the Transporter and SB+ are available
for audition. I will do that when I'm ready in the context of a wider
upgrade.
Then why was it impossible for
Darren,
Are you talking about the SB analogue or digital?
As a digital transport it takes on pretty much anything IMHO.
The focus then shifts to the SPDIF chain and DAC, which can be
endlessly tweaked to taste.
However, I think that comparing ANY CD player to an SB is rather
pointless since
darrenyeats;216092 Wrote:
No offense, but an SB3 is not the last word in sound quality. It is very
good, but the idea of putting it in front of dollar/pound five-figures
of amps and speakers is silly.
An SB3 feeding $5000 speakers will almost certainly sound better than a
Transporter feeding
Guys,
Allow me to debate your comments a bit :-)
cliveb;216193 Wrote:
An SB3 feeding $5000 speakers will almost certainly sound better than a
Transporter feeding $3000 speakers.
Well, if you say so. I haven't tried it myself. All I can say is that
my 15 year old CDT/DAC sounds better than an
cliveb wrote:
An SB3 feeding $5000 speakers will almost certainly sound better than a
Transporter feeding $3000 speakers.
I'm not sure that this is true in general. It depends on which 5K
speakers vs which 3K speakers. And it really depends somewhat on the amp.
I don't see this as a
opaqueice;216167 Wrote:
That was not a level matched comparison. I could also tell the
difference - one was louder.
I remember not even having to do the A/B switch to identify the
Dodson...that just a few seconds of hearing whichever was playing was
good enough. And you were pretty good
cliveb;216193 Wrote:
And then I realised that it was possible to feed the SB2's output direct
into the active speakers, so I tried it. And you know what? It sounded
*better* than the CD player+preamp combo. Less is more.
This is HIGHLY dependent on the technical specs of the components
PhilNYC;216215 Wrote:
I remember not even having to do the A/B switch to identify the
Dodson...that just a few seconds of hearing whichever was playing was
good enough. And you were pretty good at mixing up the selector switch
and volume, so it wasn't predictable at all as to which you were
opaqueice wrote:
Different speakers sound REALLY different. Same goes for rooms and
room placement. But different amps and sources sound almost exactly,
if not exactly, the same. So IMO one should first optimize the
speakers, and only then look at the rest of the system.
Speakers require
Pat Farrell;216225 Wrote:
Speakers require different amps.
Lowther's http://www.lowtherloudspeakers.co.uk/ are extremely efficient
and can be happily driven by flea powered SET amps. The worse speakers
I
have owned where the original large Advents, which required 60W per
channel
PhilNYC;216216 Wrote:
This is HIGHLY dependent on the technical specs of the components
involved...specifically, the input sensitivity of the amplifier and the
output voltage of the source. A high input sensitivity amplifier will
need a high output voltage from the source. If these are not
38 matches
Mail list logo
