Jump to content

Ski Bum

Regulars
  • Posts

    1134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ski Bum

  1. Not exactly. It's true that a continuously clipping amp will dramatically increase the average power and thus also the likelihood of damaging a driver, but if the power delivered from the continuously clipping amp is below the driver's limits, it won't fail. (Those of us using flea watt amps aren't frying tweeters, and we clip our amps plenty enough.) Ultimately, it's the power (applied over a specific amount of time) that melts voice coils and kills drivers, whether that comes from a continuously clipping amp or not. Re-read the quoted material from DJK again, it's spot on. HERE is another reputable source saying much the same.
  2. That's the problem. Some folks in this distinctly postmodern age find him charming, many even believe in his nonsense. They even want to attribute to him qualifications he's never earned. He has no engineering credentials at all. He's just a typical phony baloney Boulderite, liar (see the OP), charlatan, huckster, relying on every trope in the audiophool religious belief system to sell magic wires and other overpriced, low-value kit to suckers. His business ethics are those of PT Barnum (it's a moral imperative to separate fools from their money). He could make his living selling any number of questionable new-agey BS with the rest of the Boulder nincompoops, he just happened to gravitate to audio.
  3. No, he's not. His CV is somewhere on his site, and it's all marketing and sales, zero engineering. He's the epitome of the modern snake oil huckster. The only thing he engineers is steaming piles of poo.
  4. Get with the program. All opinions are equally valid, however ridiculous./s
  5. @ODS123, I'm as much of a no-BS crotchety reductionist as anyone when it comes to audio kit, but even I have a soft spot for SE amps. Despite the lack of comity in this thread, I think you shouldn't rule them out on principle. If you need some down to earth reasons to give them a try, read this: http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Amplifier_distortion.htm
  6. I like that Outlaw integrated on your list, good power and bass management (which won't matter if the Mrs. won't allow a sub), but unsure if it will have the eq capability you want. If that loudness control is essential, then one of the Yamaha networking receivers/integrateds would be the ticket. R-N803d for $499 at A4L right now. None of the NAD, Rotel, or Emo kit has the eq you want.
  7. That's just your ears insensitivity to low frequencies at low volumes, described by the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness contours. Adding some bass via tone controls is A-ok to address it. [edit: I see your Denon has a "loudness" button on it, how old school! That would work better than the tone controls to restore tonal balance at low listening levels. Give it a try. Also realize that your speakers are more sensitive than average, so there is a chance that the Denon's loudness control will be more pronounced than it would on less sensitive speakers. If that's the case, you may require less eq than the loudness control applies, and a more modest adjustment using the tone controls rather than engaging the loudness button may be warranted. There is nothing wrong with using your tone controls or loudness eq to get more pleasing or natural sounding results, regardless of what the golden eared "tone controls are bad, m'kay" crowd will tell you.]
  8. Don't worry about replacing the jumper between speaker terminals. Think in terms of room acoustics. The biggest difference between your old speakers (the Atoms were well regarded) and your new Klipsch is the dispersion pattern in the upper registers, and that in turn means they'll interact with your room in rather different ways. As you play with placement and orientation you will notice the differences in how they interact with your room, so I suggest you start there. For example, due to the comparably narrow pattern the Klipsch throw, you can get away with placement in closer proximity to walls and/or corners (which reinforces the lower registers and produces a warmer tonal balance), and be sure to at least try extreme toe-in/crossfire orientation (which keeps you from spraying side walls with high frequency hard first reflections, while preserving tonally correct late reflections, and coincidentally expands and stabilizes the "sweet spot"). Your new Klipsch will give you the chance to mitigate your room's influence in ways that the Atoms simply couldn't. When you mitigate the room's influence, you hear deeper into your recordings. So play around with it, and enjoy the music while you do. And keep in mind they're new to you, so give it some time. It's not the speakers that are breaking in (highly unlikely) as much as you becoming acclimated to them.
  9. It very well might. NAD from back in the day really emphasized dynamic power reserves, so if it's more than what the Simaudio can bring to the table... Even with fairly sensitive speakers, the dynamic power demands for music is often overlooked. Given the OP's present gear, I think power is likely the issue, as you don't want solid state amps to clip, ever. That Simaudio amp is only 50w w/ a switching supply, so it has no wiggle room whatsoever. His old NAD probably brings more clean dynamic watts than Moon amp. He should give it a try. Agreed regarding lower power tube amps, where dynamic peaks are clipped far more benignly and recovery from clipping conditions generally more ear-friendly.
  10. Feels underpowered, eh? Tell us more about your room size and listening distance. That's a nice integrated, but it's not exactly a deep breather. I have forte II in a large room over here, and (as evidenced by losing bass and increasing stridency) I've noticed the following: -I can bring a 50w integrated and a 60w ATI power amp to their limits (the ATI can get marginally louder) -the next step up in my amp quiver is good for ~200w, and it's clean and effortless to the ear well beyond any reasonable listening levels. It's really not much more in terms of decibels, but it's more than enough to not audibly clip when blasting it, even with some bass eq boost. So if your room size and listening distance is at all similar to mine, I could see you very easily exceeding capacity of the Simaudio amp. If, on the other hand, your room is more modest in size, you should probably assess things further before throwing money at amps. And if it seems more juice is the solution, don't limit yourself to NAD, as there are better values to be found (Monoprice, Outlaw, etc.).
  11. Even the "amps sound the same" claim comes with a bunch of qualifiers, which @ODS123 at least touched on. By ignoring those conditions, all you're doing is engaging in a straw man fallacy in some stubborn attempt to win an argument. Someone please bring an ABX device to Hope, put your own golden ears and cherished beliefs to a real test. A single completed pass is worth a thousand arm-chair quarterbacks.
  12. Unable to determine if that Yaquin thingie has a built in phono pre in a cursory search. It may have an input labeled phono, but no grounding wire or specification for mm or mc or anything phono pre related, so I suspect you will need an outboard phono pre. (The phono pre provides more than just gain, they also provide RIAA equalization. If you try your tt directly into the yaqin and it sounds anemic with very low output you'll know your answer.)
  13. Nope. Have you contributed anything to this thread that hasn't been some misguided logical fallacy or petty insult? Try harder.
  14. Of course you're the arbiter of what you like, but like it or not, your perceptions are just as mutable as anybody else's. Do you want them based on illusory improvements, or genuinely audible improvements? ABX is a tool to separate the wheat from the chaff, and help inform you how to best spend your hard earned ducats, either on worthy upgrades vs. expensive placebos of transient efficacy. The illusory gains only work until they don't, after all.
  15. Wow, there is a lot of misunderstanding on display in this thread. I see two branches of science being thrown under the bus by the subjectivist contingent. They seem to deny the realities of the more reductive science of electrical engineering, and apparently have no understanding at all of the science of human perception. Y'alls really should study the subject further, as there is a hundred years or so of solid peer reviewed research dating back to the Bell Labs days on the subject. ABX and double blind testing are valid methods employed in the science of human perception and/or to assess claims of audible differences in gear. They are NOT "how we listen" at all.
  16. Shakey, you may want to re-read the Richard Clark material again, more closely this time. You clearly have a misunderstanding of everything in the amp challenge link, which you then use to promote a subjectivist/postmodern approach that Clark clearly did not.
  17. You're shifting the burden of proof. It's those who claim to hear audible improvements from aftermarket A/C cords, etc. that need to support their claims, not the other way around. But since you asked so nicely (ha!), I have participated in a carefully level matched comparison to a wickedly expensive Pass Labs amp against my NADs (both an old 2100 and a slightly newer C372), and neither myself nor anyone else could identify a difference, much less choose a preference. I also have amps by ATI and Yamaha. And I have a soft spot for SE types, and have both SEP and an ACA in the quiver. Those DO sound different, and have corresponding differences in various measurements (e.g. amount and type of distortion, higher output impedance, etc.)
  18. That's because postmodern relativism has become more common than reason and logic. You have an opinion about A/C cords without any empirical support whatsoever? Well that's somehow become just as "valid" as a reductive explanation with empirical support, at least in modern audiophilia. It's good for commerce, after all. To the beginners: modern audio nuttery offers an insightful glimpse into the prevailing epistemological framework that gullible shoppers adopt. Don't make yourself an easy mark for the sheisters.
  19. Enjoying music is subjective. Listening to music is, or at least should be, an emotional experience. The reproduction of recorded music, on the other hand, is a wholly reductive affair. It's a fact. PWK would tell you as much. I can't help but notice the subjectivist contingent hold on to their unsubstantiated beliefs with stubborn ferocity, the epitome of being close-minded.
  20. You're more the optimist than I. Sure, there is more information at our fingertips, but instead of being a driver of informed change it has obscured facts and truth in a sea of irrelevancy/misinformation, and we're left with sectarian groups choosing their own truth based on tribal affiliation. Truly post-modern times we live in. Twain's insights into human nature and politics are as true today as they ever were.
  21. I'll reluctantly agree to this, but I would disagree about it costing an arm and a leg. The OP has such a near-field-ish arrangement that he may be a candidate for single ended amplification, which brings out all that micro detail and somehow manages to throw a more compelling and realistic image than more conventional amps. I've been comparing some SE tubes and a recently built ACA (ss se by NP, kit) lately, and they both do that kooky single ended thing pretty well (although the tubes sound a bit more "wet", in production parlance, e.g. they seem to bring out more ambience and spacial aspects). Maynard has several threads on this very topic the OP may wish to explore.
  22. Scoundrels and low-lifes. Or so said the venerable Mark Twain about a hundred years ago. The more things change...
  23. Have you assessed your acoustic situation using REW or similar? As a general rule, you should first identify issues before implementing solutions. A couple things to consider. Yes, all rooms have modal response issues, but some rooms are worse than others. Bass traps can help, but they have to be HUGE to be of any benefit whatsoever, and even then they tend to only work on mid-bass modal response. Adding a sub would be just as effective if not more so for modal smoothing, and far less cumbersome than bass traps large enough for the job.
  24. That's a pretty near-field orientation, which could limit what your fortes can pull off. Big three ways just don't lend themselves to extreme near-field arrangements. As for absorption behind the speakers, those sort of panels are only good at higher frequencies, at which fortes are highly directional. You would be better off using the panels at primary first reflection points rather than behind the speakers. Or, try that extreme toe-in orientation, as it will eliminate any early hard reflections yet preserve tonally correct later reflections. You also may be able to more widely space the speakers as well, which will help-and don't worry if that means the fortes are closer to the corners. Fortes love corners.
  25. Imaging is what you're after? Maybe try what is suggested HERE. Worth a shot, absolutely free to try it out.
×
×
  • Create New...