4tay
-
Posts
289 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by 4tay
-
-
Mine XOs had the tiny, printed circuit board as well, but I decided to build my own; just ditch the board.
As far as the burn-in time goes on new components, I feel that 100 hours is a landmark where most of the burning-in has been done; probably 85%. In my experience, improvements may be heard up to +/- 250 hours, but they are much smaller than the initial 100 hours.
While I buy mechanical devices have a burn in of a number of hours, (drivers for example) electronics...not so much.
Capacitors form in seconds. Resistors heat once...and don't change value or properties. An inductor is basically a coil of wire. Perhaps ears are getting used to the sound vs the electronics actually changing. I am a skeptic because I just haven't seen any charactaristic differences in electronic components past a minute or two. I have seen no proof or credible supporting theory.
I believe that 100 hours is an audiophile myth, and arbitrary with nothing scientific to support it. I am an electronics break-in agnostic at this point. YMMV.
-
Just an fyi: I am going to objectively compare the performance of the X5 to my etys, my bose and my Grado Rs-1's (with grados headphone amp). The bose are about the same price, where the grado setup is roughly $750.
-
I like macbook. I still use firefox when safari doesn't want to play well with others. Firefox is legal on a mac since it's not microsoft based. [
] -
Looks like a great project! I have not replaced coils myself in a while, I'd like to think that's next on the ajenda. I don't have the luxury of the xover board in the FII, I have a tiny circuit card in mine. Might be worth making a new board.
Where did the specification of 100 hours for burn in come from?
-
I thought it was already implied that I had already decided to get a DAC. I originally asked what would make more sense to buy first (as will eventually buy both). You didn't really touch on the amp aspect. Would you spend 500 dollars on a 2 channel, maybe multi channel amp or 500 dollars on a DAC? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't spend it on a DAC at this point
Not if I was budget limited. But a used $500 tube dac will sound pretty impressive.
-
I'll take that as another vote for an amp.
However...I feel you are being a little skeptical on outboard DACs. They wouldn't be popular and be producing ones that cost such an outrageous amount of money if it was "just a chip" that made the sound different. From my own research and a few opinions here and there, I am still on route to find a decent DAC and see for myself. I think spending 500 on a DAC and 500 on a Transport would make a better player then 1000 dollar "all in one box".
I say a DAC is a chip---because too many people are worried what kind of DAC is used. "OMFG! It uses a Mjolnir thunder DAC!!!" Ok great. Now what about the analog section? And why is it a $8 crystal DAC can sound as good as another player that uses a $18.00 DAC chip?
An old Sony 1-bit DAC with a great analog section will sound as good as any dac assembly today. It's not just the chip people need to worry about, it's the whole player or DAC device.
Yes, some outboard DAC's are better than some one-box players, but make no assumptions unless you have heard them---you can't always go by price, or by the fact it's a separate.
That's also why I mentioned a hot rodded Jolida or Ah Tjoeb tube cdp. They have amazing musicality and won't run 2-3 grand or more to own.
But either way, it seems you already pre-decided you were going the DAC route and basically found opinions supporting your desire to do so. Posting about it was just going through the paces to an inevitability. Nothing wrong with that route, because listening--not cost or configuration is the key.
-
"It's just a chip."
Too much emphasis is placed on the DAC. The Digital to Analog Converter is just a chip... it costs $5- $20 retail. The early DAC's (Like the sony I pointed out) worked perfectly. The problem is, in Japan they had a tendency to produce a product based on just math and theory. They made something that ON PAPER looked like it was going to do the job. It did, but in a sterile kind of way.
Like many early products,they had to figure out how to tweak the other parts of the DAC that come after the chip has help convert those 1's and zeros to more than just analog voltages. California Audio labs tried to help this with a vacuum tube stage in the tempest cdp.
I like to use Bel Canto because they were among the early external DAC's that were ear-tuned as well as theory built. Rather than just a cold schematic dictating what parts went where, they actually did a lot of listening tests and found that one box or two box, the analog section was most often ignored--like an afterthought.
The ripple effect was, to produce cdp's/outboard DAC that were not just lifeless digital conversion tools, but more able to produce analog-like music. It's been many years since I have heard a nails-on-a chalkboard cd player, or one of those arid, lifeless models as well.
As someone pointed out---even the Sony PS/3 has better audio performance than many high end devices did years ago Want a cdp for a grand that REALLY sound musical? Get a modded Ah Tjoeb!, or a hotrodded Jolida CDP and save a lot of money over spendy DACS and gimmicks. You will get intimate musicality, and it's about listenability, not the crystal, Burr-brown or whatever dac they use. That, and a separate amp/pre amp. "It's just a chip."
-
I remember in Okinawa you could get the much vaunted Yamaha NS-1000M's for 1/2 of US MSRP. Those had a beryllium midrange/tweet and were very good.
There a still quite few fans of the NS-1000s and much rarer NS-10000s in England. I've seen references to them in Hi-Fi World. I think one of the writers has a pair and readers sometimes write in for advice about theirs.Be is expensive and extremely dangerous to work with due to the toxicity of any ingested particles. Be drivers seem to have vanished for a while until some American high end companies started using them in the 00's. IIRC it was Focal (JM labs) of France that started making a Be tweet again. The NS-1000X (Trying to remember exactly) were well over $10K the last I saw them new.
-
Here is a great pre-SACD example of a SUPERB one-box cdp. The Sony XA7ES. It's DAC was one-bit. It was stunningly revealing, and musically smooth. I felt no need at all to pay more. It STILL sounds great.
-
In '77 I seem to remember them in the $1500 to $1600 each range, I didn't have the money so I settled at the time for a pair of Yamaha NSXXXX speakers at about $600 a pair. They were stolen in shipping when I left the Army.
I remember in Okinawa you could get the much vaunted Yamaha NS-1000M's for 1/2 of US MSRP. Those had a beryllium midrange/tweet and were very good.
-
They couldn't possibly be happy for the fact they actually get to use them for intended purposes.
-
4tay, I've been meaning to welcome you to the forum! Great Photoshop skills, good stuff! So, you're out here in the Bay Area? I'm up in Whine Country.
Thanks for the welcome. I am glad someone appreciates my visual aids. I USED to live in whine country*, about 47 miles from Pixar and Mythbusters. I currently reside in hi-fi hell, in the nether region between Wasington, Idaho, Oregon and a bunch of nothing.
Reading your tale... (no kidding) I felt my dangly bits cringe and want to retract back inside. That's scary stuff!
* Incidentally, I really like Stags Leap. I was totally unaware that it won in France (1976), beating everyone as depicted in the movie "Bottle shock." Alan Rickman is great as usual.
-
One time I bridged my amps and was running 1600 watts into my speakers. They blew. No party...... No beer. Just retarded sometimes, I guess.
In my case, it's usually lack of sleep. If it's a busy workweek, and I get a couple nights of 2-3 hours my motor skills and concentration go south. That's when screw ups happen.
-
buggar - so why would the tube be doing this. only asking as these were new tubes(matched). or maybe the tube just decided to do it !
Bad filiment, possibly small loss of vacuum. Could have been damaged in shipping? Definately a bad tube.
-
Ok folks, now you've done it. I have read everything I could on the X5's. The acclaim is pretty universal, and the descriptions have been excellent in most cases.
Normally, I have been using a set of $145 Bose around-the-ear headsets because they isolate from the outside world. They are not *that* easy to drive and with the average MP3 player, the bass is bloated. They sound a lot better with a higher output device--the creative xfi doesn't do too badly. The Bose aren't *THAT* bad, but as I pointed out, they cannot match the described performance of the X5's.
That being said, I purchased a pair of X5's based upon testimony of musicality and accuracy. I didn't want to drop $500-$1400 on some cans, and I really prefer something easy to tote around. Dr Thump and others are 100% correct that a lot of dynamic headphones simply don't resolve kick drum, and a lot of bass if not boomy or muddy is simply inarticulate. That is, unless you are willing to drop a mint on a set. And under $500 a pair, I can think fo few headphones of any kind that can be referred to as transparent on top--or with the same descriptors as the X5.
I am really looking forward to these headseats, and relief from portable audio mediocrity.
-
Having a power amp in a box separate from the pre amp has always made a bigger difference for me. For a while in the 80's, counterpoint used copper shielding on components to block stray EM/RF/Noise between components. IMO, many integrated amps just aren't properly sheilded between the power output stages, and the sensitive, low level input stages. All else being equal, the same pre-amp stage has always sounded cleaner to me separated from the power amp.
A CDP or DVD OTOH, does not have a power amp section that generates as much stray hash as a power amp. There are far too many great sounding one-box cd/dvd players for me to subscribe to the external dac all the time. I think the improvement with an external dac is more due to the superior dac and circuitry, rather than just physical separation from the transport.
It is not likely that a sub $1,200 CDP will have a DAC equal or better than an outboard dedicated DAC like Bel Canto etc. etc. When you get into the $2k-$3K CDP range, it's quite a big "*IF* and "WHICH DAC* will make any actual improvement, vs just sound different. I know on paper, some 90's one-box were supposed to sound great. But because the analog section was so cheap, an external DAC improved the sound with better parts.
-
Does the tube fade out or cause an audible thump on occasion?
-
I don't know if I agree with you. Both styles really do the same thing, any difference would be pretty minor...at least with what I have noticed. Any low frequency will "fill", and they should be close as far as SPL goes, comparing apples to apples and not different companies.
I know if I agree with me because I have owned both types (for years) and it's true. The HSu and SVS tube subs just don't have the same effect (very noticable, and they don't do the same thing). Again, make mine a TC sounds or Velodyne...box sub, period.
Note that SVS and HSU's best stuff...box subs. The turbo equipped v3 is a much better sub than the 1220.
-
I took a pair of the raw birch and applied a Red Mahogany stain made by Cabot. I finished them with shellac and three coats of beeswax. They match the woodwork in my living room so the wife is happy. Here is a link to the project so you can see the finish.
http://community.klipsch.com/forums/p/124427/1257822.aspx#1257822
Herb
Beautiful! That is exactly what I am talking about! [Y] That is so much nicer and more classy than paint! [
] -
Excuse my ignorance but what do you mean by full range. I use the RF 83s for HT. I use my La Scalas for 2-channel. Thanks for the quick input.
When running a system with a sub there are two ways to run the system
1. Fullrange: the main speakers run normally, the subwoofer runs as well, hopefully blended to support the main speakers cleanly where the main speakers bass starts to roll off. (like 40hz for example)
2. Cut off: the main speakers are electronically cut off at a certain point (like 80hz) and the subwoofer runs the bass from 80hz down.
I prefer method 1: I like to let the mains do what they were designed to.
-
A very rare photograph of Nikola Tesla's tube amp. It was deemed impractical because of the loud noises created by continually cranking it.
-
To add to this particular thread it should be noted that during these decades the 'horn' speaker was truly considered passe or perhaps eccentric. They were not selling well and their prices reflected that. These were the neotech time of ribbon, etc. There was no internet to discourse any issues. It was product hype in a cage marketing match and Klipsch was then as it is now, not huge on marketing. But time tested the devices and we still have our horns at whatever prices they demand.
Funny you should mention passe. I have heard a couple pairs of high end speakers equipped with the "diamond" tweeter that's been touted as evoloution. They made me say "Bah, I like Klipsch/horns better."
-
Cylindrical subs (I had that very model) have a different type of bass. The bass "fills" but doesn't have the same air-moving impact as a front firing box sub. I prefer the box subs.
-
You guys are kind of telling me what I wanted to hear - I do like the raw look but thought they would look real nice in gloss black with that TV between them. My friend had me curious about the cappachino stain but for the most part I was not interested in staining the wood, it was between gloss black and just leaving them the way they are, and leaving them is easy and foolproof
I hate to cover up a nice woodgrain with paint...I lost my joy for black paint a number of years ago. The natural finish looks good as is, it can be enhanced with tung oil or a clear poly to give it a gloss. The closest thing I'd ever do to paint on something like those would be a transparent stain. But no paint...ever. Nice speakers, I wish I had some.
]
]
Forte I Crossover Upgrade
in Technical/Restorations
Posted
And luckily they aren't in a double blind a/b/x to shatter the myth once and for all. (that's because I REALLY doubt that anyone has ever scientifically done this with a control, blind study etc.) I think this might make for a good episode of mythbusters!