wldrns1
-
Posts
85 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by wldrns1
-
-
The signal you would measure is AC volts and it's music so it will be bouncing all over the place making it impossible to get an accurate reading. Chances are the tuner has pretty much similar output as a CD player so 2 pairs would be the ticket.
2 pairs it is. Thx Craig.
-
Most of the Scott integrated amps were rated for 1/2 volt signal from the source for the high level inputs...most CD players today have around 2 volts. This causes these amps to be much louder then designed at the lower settings of the volume control. This skews the loudness contour and also tends to end up with the user having to deal with channel imbalance at low listening levels. In some cases it can even over drive the preamp section creating distortion. 6db a inline attentuators remedy all of those problems. If your source has level controls you can attenuate it with those.
Yes Craig, CD player is biggest offender. Based on your comments, the attenuators would go inline from CD to amp, correct? Problem is not real bad IMO. This tweak looks like a good idea all-around. I can check the Sangean using a VOM at the output, set to VDC, correct? The specs don't say, unless you know. Maybe 2 attnu sets req'd? Thx, Joe
-
I have the 299b (nosvalves restored). I love it!!!
It has a little less power than the C or D but drove my Cornwalls to any level I wanted. Next step (big step) from the Scott would be VRD's.
I used some Harrison Lab attenuators between the Scott and my Havana Dac to get the volume control and sound quality where I wanted it.
http://www.parts-express.com/harrison-labs-6-db-rca-line-level-audio-attenuator-pair--266-242
muel: Very happy here but could you write about the attenuators? Craig mentioned these to me. Layman's terms please. Things like why decided to use them, what they accomplish etc. I understand attenuate means to reduce. Thx.
There are a couple of reasons for the attenuators. One could be if your source has a stronger signal than you would like going to the amp. The sound quality can suffer if it is too much or too little. I don't remember what Craig said was the ideal range. Another reason is because it can be hard to get the volume as soft as you might like. Because of the nature of the volume control, when the volume is turned down quite low the output isn't balanced and one channel will go silent before the other. By attenuating the source a little bit you can increase the volume control enough so that it is balanced. Yet another reason for the attenuators is if you use the loudness switch it will gradually kick in the right amount closer to the right volume level. The Scott is one amp where I usually keep the loudness switch on because I think it adds a little "magic" to the music!
Perfect! Low level volume behaves exactly as you describe. I keep the loudness switch on for the same reason also. Thx much.
-
Widrns
He said he found the remedy on his worse speaker was to install some foam weather stripping on the horn flange and remount tightlyMind telling me where is the horn flange? My squawker ringing too.
Thanks
Sure. You have to remove the squawker. It's the part of the squawker horn that butts up to the cabinet (screws go thru the flange to fasten squawker to the cabinet). Foam goes between flange and cabinet on this 'butting' surface. For mine, well worth doing. Thin foam is nice and neat/does the job. Took away pretty much ALL of the annoying sound they made. Let me know how you make out. Good luck.
See mustang guy's post a few replies above. I'm sure a premium product if that's what you're after. When I did mine, used thin adhesive backed weatherstripping foam...didn't know about mustang guy or would have done that. Nothing like the best!
-
Thank you Zim, corrected the post , I would use will belles , chorus 1 or 2`s or forte`s . just trying to see what is worth playing with . Liking the old american stuff . clean ones are hard to come by . just got my 500c back from Craig . Have not set it up yet . but will soon .
A 500C?? Nice! If you're collecting, a Scott 296 is rare for collecting's sake.
-
I have the 299b (nosvalves restored). I love it!!!
It has a little less power than the C or D but drove my Cornwalls to any level I wanted. Next step (big step) from the Scott would be VRD's.
I used some Harrison Lab attenuators between the Scott and my Havana Dac to get the volume control and sound quality where I wanted it.
http://www.parts-express.com/harrison-labs-6-db-rca-line-level-audio-attenuator-pair--266-242
muel: Very happy here but could you write about the attenuators? Craig mentioned these to me. Layman's terms please. Things like why decided to use them, what they accomplish etc. I understand attenuate means to reduce. Thx.
-
Hello gents , of all the scott amps is the 299c the one too have ?. I know you guys will steer me straight .
always have .I have a 299 gen2 (some call it an A but not labeled that way) rebuilt by Craig/NOSValve this fall. 17w per channel. Powering Heresy's (and using 2 self-powered subs-via amp center channel jack/RCA splitter) in a 12x18x8 family room. Using a free db App, the most I see Rock when cranked up is 83db. You have to stand close and be yelling for another person to hear you. Plenty. True party/bar volume if you need that. With 85db being the hearing damage risk level, I'm very satisfied with both the volume, SQ and fact of not being able to exceed the safety level. Even with the amp on 2, my wife says the volume is too much competition to sit and talk. I pretty much agree. Touchy lower but can be turned down more to acceptable. Unit was built in an era of mostly inefficient speakers so not a concern back then. What I do for super low volume is (abhorred by some) hook up my tablet with TuneIn etc via headphone jack to an A/B switch (A component tuner/B device) and use the tablet volume rocker to get VERY low if needed.
Overall, the Scott SQ is wonderful thru-out volume range with most any genre.
A 299c would be nice but by itself, may be even more difficult to control for low volumes...don't know/just guessing. Speaker efficiency will determine. If a problem, consider using a device like I describe above. It's not a big deal. Any of the 299 series would be nice. I love the styling too.
-
BMG Music Service was the former RCA Music Service (before that the RCA Victor Record Club). Usually on CD the same as regular stock issues sonic wise.
Thanks to all. Pretty new here. No plans to 'load up' on CD's but see consensus is BMG isn't bootleg & is ok. Thx.
-
As far as BMG goes I have had several of there discs over the years and I personally could not tell a sound quality degrade over a like disc from another producer
That said most of those discs were rock classic rock and the original mastering was never intended for high quality listening, more mass production
If I were looking to fill gaps in a collection of classic rock as pictured (def leopard) I would have no problem with a BMG disc
I hope this is what you were asking
Yes it was. Just classic rock like you say for some missing. Like to blast it from time to time. Thanks.
-
I cant makes heads or tails of your thread post... but I agree, cd's can sound good. I don't think they can sound great... at least in comparrison to other lossless, albeit limit in choices, formats.
Currently I dont use dsd or other digital formats, other than those with physical discs... perhaps that should change with a server.
Simply asking if anyone knows anything about BMG and included a pic to show labeling BMG added. Some here seem to understand. Basically wondering if BMG is an outfit to stay away from. Apparently not. Thanks.
Schu...what's dsd? What do you mean "...perhaps that should change with a server."
-
See pic. A large local audio retailer has a lot of cd's & albums labeled this way. I don't get search results here. Google produces BMG. Any comments? Thinking of just doing Amazon to fill in some cd blanks if comments are 'stay away from BMG'.
Note the 'D' number of the BMG CD and the case back jacket. The darker insert booklet is from my original non BMG and adds in the upper right corner 0501 in red and BK03 in yellow below the AAD designation. ???.
Weighing frequency of use, my NAD 546 won't do FLAC, downloading FLAC $$$ (downloading seems to be the only way to obtain-I'm new) and looking for maybe a dozen titles, looks like buying CD's is the way to go for now. Good CD's do sound good. Have lots of good vinyl. Use DR for most to compare a title when there's a listing.
-
Thanks for sharing the tip. From now on, when I am going over speakers, that is one thing I will be sure to check for. I have always used the speaker gasket adhesive foam when restoring LaScalas, KPT's, KP's, and Heresy's. It works well. I never considered that I might have LaScalas that have no gasket. I very well may!
What a great fix that was. Still thrilled. Many thanks to Bob. What is this speaker gasket adhesive foam you mention? Not that it's needed, but next time I have them open, well, love to tinker.
-
I tried digital TOTL hearing aides about four years ago. Only 6 bands of equalization. I never did get used to the sound. Too dang digital sounding to me. No one makes analog adjustable hearing aides anymore, so I took them back. They were $6500 for the pair. The one thing I did like was the bluetooth. Made talking on the cell phone much easier. I have constant tinnitus in each ear but at different frequencies.
Mine were 5400.00 for 2. When I was tested they asked what I expected, my only REQUIREMENT was no/zero ambient noise. There is none.
The digital sound, well, better than saying what? huh?, you know. I was more irritated with the hearing loss than the digital nature of the sound. It is what it is. I glad these are as nice as they are. The sound bothers me once in a great while but it goes with the territory. For my (common) high end loss, these aides don't make loud thing louder, just give more up to the high end. Mine are Bluetooth but don't use that feature. If needed, I put the phone on speaker.
The first time I took a leak, it was WOW! LISTEN TO THAT! Faucet running/Frying/Same thing. Took a while to identify some things I haven't heard in a while.
Not a salesman here. Have to say, someone that needs glasses and doesn't have them knows their vision limits. Many simply won't keep trying. They forget about it. Not the same with hearing. Huh? What? Speak up! Turn it up! & on & on. I found the whole thing getting quite stressful...more so for me but bugged everyone else too. For me, would do it again in a heartbeat.
-
Just imagine someone so into tube amps that he attaches a mini tube amp to his hearing aid to get that warm, tubey sound! Probably would look like a dork….lol.
Or maybe there's a DAC for that?
-
What's the sampling rate of the hearing aides?
There is simply nothing governing the quality of these pricey little gems.....ie. Have they ever fitted a custom pair for someone with "good"ears to see if they can stand it?
So what if they can correct to a target freq curve? There's a lot more to it than that. Not to mention the patient's eardrum has a front-row seat to the amp inside each one.
Sampling Rate? No idea. Aides: Phonak Audeo Q-70. One in each ear (my choice) & symmetrical loss. Care to research?
FYI: Low end aides tend to sit in the drawer unused. I went for upper but not best quality and glad I did. Side note:these aides have soft rubber perforated domes that fit in the ear canal. Uncorrected frequencies simply pass thru so I'm sure I hear a natural/digital blend.
I don't know if someone with good ears could stand it...ie, there would be no correction and as a result, I'd have say there would be no effect. With MY correction, of course they couldn't stand it.
My objective is to get a close approximation to what others with non-deficient hearing hear. If my niece says 'about right/NOT scratchy' and I hear 'about right/scratchy', that will be as good as it gets and accomplishes this mission. I can easily live with that. I will say, never considered the impact of these devices on the sound aspects of tube power vs digital. I do hear a difference but thinking of your statement, not as much as unassisted hearing. Good point.
I'm not aware of any alternative besides turning the music off...not doing that. Turning music up without aides isn't the answer either. One's deficiency is still present and attempts to compensate can be extremely annoying for others. I cannot be the only person with this issue! Understand I am not complaining, just exploring a small improvement mostly for the benefit of others, since I tend to be the 'DJ'. I would be interested to know what others doing. This has nothing to do with trying to 'fix' my sound system. With regards to being able to hear the everyday spectrum of sounds regardless of source or the fact of being digitally produced, I couldn't be happier.
If you're aware of a better approach, please say so. My ears are open. Rock on.
(Sorry Admin, looks like this may be getting Off Topic
) -
Well this is great since I was beginning to think you had a screw loose
Glad you saw this...just one screw loose as you see. This resolution was a surprise for sure.
As you and Bob suggested, I was testing for what I originally said was an excessive brightness which seemed to be more one speaker than the other. Didn't know how to see if it's amp, speakers or what. Decided the resonance bugged me more and wasn't consistent with all the swapping I did so went after that instead. Done! It's about time! Brightness is still there but is equal/problem was partly due to placement. However...
I'm going to need time to get a better handle on the rest of this brightness thing. Like many people my age (59) I wear hearing aides. They are high end. Not a lost cause, just enjoying having some help. Other like it too! Anyway, I'm straight sloped from -10db @ 200cps down to -60db @ 8k. Substantial but no problem for the aides. I expect and can deal with some minor anomalies from them. I do wonder if I'm hearing the same character and volume of high frequency sounds hence the 'excessive' brightness. I can live with a little less than perfect with what I hear if that's the case using aides but what are others hearing?
My 22 year old niece agreed to help me with this. I'll just do a simple 'not enough/too much/about right/scratchy sounding?' etc with amp treble controls. She's a good judge of basic sound. Before we do this, I'll have my audiologist add 3 modes that decrease the -60db @ 8k compensation in 2db increments each mode. I'll simply toggle modes until we are as close as possible to what each hears. That will be as good as it gets/ok. Aides can have 16 modes so no big deal. I have 2 modes now. My niece can hear the mode-switching confirmation tone in a quiet room from 10' away. I'll never hear exactly like I used to but I'll tell you, plenty good and natural enough. Couldn't be happier.
I see you've been wondering...so that's the rest of the story.
-
I had emails going to both BobC & CraigO. I couldn't get a handle on a annoying sound that was almost always present in my speakers since new in '82. Being willing to wade into finer audio, I'm now using refurbed Scott 299 , recapped my HSM's and bought a new NAD 546 cd player. Still 'that' sound. Even tried to EQ it away but I was impacting things I wanted to hear. I asked each expert to offer troubleshooting tips to isolate what I was hearing. After doing what they suggested, I still couldn't exactly pin it down. No real pattern. Weird!
I have read and been advised of the 'forward' nature of Klipsch speakers. I didn't think this forwardness had anything to do with it. That's what drew me to them years ago.
I describing in as much detail as I could to Bob. I could only say when listening there seemed to be an immediate, non-lasting, resonant quality which was quite annoying. He related a story to me about some speakers he looked at & initially couldn't figure out either. One was worse than the other. Of course, he got to the bottom of it and suggested my problem may be much the same. He told me what to look at. He was right!
After checking mounting screw tightness, I then removed my squawkers to find each was mounted directly to the inside of the enclosure. No gasket. He said he found the remedy on his worse speaker was to install some foam weather stripping on the horn flange and remount tightly. I did that. That sound was gone. Unbelievable. He said some speakers were built with gaskets, some were not. I also found one mounting hole stripped. I replace that original #8 screw with a same length #10.
If you're curious about yours, tap on the squawker horn with a small hard object. If there is a non-ringing but distinct/hollow/resonant metallic sound, you might want to take a look inside. After Bob's fix, tapping on mine produces a dull, almost dead sound. So much smoother & nicer to listen to. Many, many thanks to Bob!
-
2
-
-
Where did you get that idea, if I might ask?This database refers to CD's only, correct?The DR Database is for any digital track/album, even ones ripped by people from their vinyl records on their own turntables using ADCs, such as this one.
There are a many digital file formats and media (physical media) formats that can be in the DR Database: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_audio_formats
I have (had) no idea. Seeing different formats that couldn't be vinyl so...figured I better ask. Understand better now. As for wiki, I'm sure there are pro/con opinions regarding their discussion...another topic for others on some other day. Here though, learning as I go.
-
This database refers to CD's only, correct? I see the word vinyl in individual listings like Dire Straits....'Brothers In Arms [VINYL]'.
Pretty basic I know but confusing. If not CD's only, then what other formats? I have Googled some of the file types to learn what I can. Maybe my terminology needs work as well!
-
whats your HSM's look like. he's a shot of mine
One of them. Other is identical in and out Serial 1501. Both new Crites caps. Inverted up in corners of 18 x 12 family room on long wall. DeanG says should be angled down a bit. I can hear the difference standing vs sitting but for now, not a concern. This one is serial 1344.
-
This is a recent purchase. May return based on replies here. Equipment is Heresy HSM's, Scott 299. Working on TT-yet to use. Don't know a lot about DAC's xcept for what they are. Would members suggest an external over the 546's Wolfson 24/192 internal? No need for the USB on the 546. Satisfied with IHeart and TuneIn via tablet headphone jack....just soft background. I DO need a CD player. Trying to get a handle on this to comply with return policy. Thanks.
I think the Sabre ESS 9018 32 bit has the legs on most anything that Wolfson has put out and is considered pretty much state of the art. that being said most 24/192's are fairly good and have differences in texture that are fairly small. what is also important is the phase jitter reduction based on clock timing. most companies don't publish that figure but give you a range... Pico timing was standard just a year ago... now Femto timing is standard for medium to better end goods. if your company isn't stating a measurement, it probably isn't that great.
of course you never know how good something sounds even though specs look great on paper, but on paper is the good place to start.
did you want to add DSD functionality?
my personal preference is to separate the mechanism from the DAC, external, but that does require a monetary investment to achieve.
Schu. What's DSD functionality?
-
-
This is a recent purchase. May return based on replies here. Equipment is Heresy HSM's, Scott 299. Working on TT-yet to use. Don't know a lot about DAC's xcept for what they are. Would members suggest an external over the 546's Wolfson 24/192 internal? No need for the USB on the 546. Satisfied with IHeart and TuneIn via tablet headphone jack....just soft background. I DO need a CD player. Trying to get a handle on this to comply with return policy. Thanks.
-
In decending order, the best sound quality is:
DTS Master audio at 24 x 96
Vinyl records, if they are good recordings GIGO
CDs with an external DAC or a decent DVD player with RCA out, the DSP tech has really come down in price.
After the above, less bits is less quality. And keep a mind to which DAC you are using, the 50 cent DAC in a phone is probably not as good as the one in a quality $35 DVD player, which is not as good as the one in a solid mid range $300-500 DAC etc.....
More bits equals better quality, ceteris paribus.
NO matter how expensive the gear, it can not fix a bad recording or over rated performer....
In the old days, a small reduction in THD cost a lot once you hit a certain low percentage. Maybe the same applies today to reducing THD. The BIG THING to me was weighing whether the difference was perceptible to the non super critical listener which I would say describes me...non super critical. I do appreciate good sound though.
Does the same THD story apply to DAC's? If yes, approximately what is the comparable bits rate to look for?
I know there's listener preference, application etc. FYI...I tend wade into the 'questionable benefit' area just a little.
always have .
)
Chomecast A/V Special Request
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
I have the original Chromecast. Using my Nexus 7, it doesn't appear possible to cast a YouTube video to the TV and use the 7 headphone jack to send synchronized audio to my 2ch system (wired 3.5mm/RCA). Non BT amp. Is there some other way to accomplish this? I realize audio from TV-to-amp is an option...don't want it that bad or that way. Also have an Apple SE (6 guts/5body) with Casting App, but I don't think 7 vs SE would matter. Using CC is not essential. Any method to achieve Video on TV, Audio thru stereo (not via TV audio out) is what I'm after. Sound quality is another discussion. For my infrequent needs, probably would be sufficient. Thanks!