Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by glens

  1. All I was getting at is the stamped steel structure likely isn't going to get too excited anyway, and if it did, that little bit of stuck-on mass would largely go unnoticed, I should think. Hey, I may be wrong about that.
  2. I was rambling on about how such a unit might have DLNA "capability" but that it could well work better (in various ways) via its intrinsic methodology, if it has one. I could not determine by what I'd seen at their site just what communication system is being used. Is it Airplay with DLNA tacked on, the other way 'round, or are they both tacked on to something else? Does the unit function fully in the absence of the Internet (probably not the Airplay?), or if it fails in some way, how?
  3. I looked up the item and it reminds me of the Chromecast Audio unit. I've got a NAD amp with chromecast "built in." NAD claims it was the first such stereo integrated amp on the market. The wireless streaming board used was made by Librewireless and near as I can tell it's got the same system-on-a-chip as that used in the Chromecast audio proper. I've done some pokin' around in the system running on that board. There's the chromecast stuff along with a DLNA implementation by Libre. Interestingly, via DLNA (there're hints of gapless in the system but it's unimplemented in the amp) whatever the LRCK environment setting, the digital is resampled to that frequency whereas via the chromecast method the LRCK (I2S to the amp's DAC) seems to get adjusted accordingly. Beyond that, the chromecast rendition of the program content has a notably better sonic quality even when no resampling is being performed. Quite odd, and I'd surely rather not use the chromecast system since it doesn't work without providing and allowing it constant access to boxes within Google's network structure. This product looks nice but I wish they'd provide digital output, or at least a unit which only does.
  4. Are you moving these all around continually? I thought they were made of heavy paper...
  5. I've seen the name but am unfamiliar with them. I take it they're 2-channel amps and you're going to bridge the pair into two "mono" amps? The "the current does not increase into 8 ohms" isn't directly making sense to me, with my limited familiarity with the gear. I take it they're "current" amps instead of "voltage" for whatever that's worth. Each bridged amplifier channel sees the same load, plus whatever output impedance the "other" channel has, in the same way, so effectively the available current would just about double into any load as compared to that load each on each channel by itself; roughly the same as when the two singles are totalled together. But you can cut the input by whatever dB and have the same current for the same volume on the one load, but with greater headroom (and distortion, if you can live with it) bridged. If I'm gathering correctly what I think you inferred, that is, maybe. I probably shouldn't be doing this - recently got off work and have celebrated a bit already...
  6. The damping material on the exterior of the horns can't hurt, but that shown on the woofer, especially on the back of the magnet, well, I seriously doubt anything whatsoever was gained by that effort. The baskets may not be as pretty as machined castings (of lighter material) but they have all the strength required for the task at hand. Would likely gain more benefit (though still minuscule) by applying an absorptive-surface material to the insides of the basket webs. To minimize reflections, not ringing.
  7. Of the two I'd go the NR, though just now they're "sold out."
  8. More like 9/16 if set in. At 1125 fps that distance is one wavelength at 24 kHz. Likely have greater effective change between it and the tweeter, for better or worse, than between it and the woofer.
  9. I don't know what you are talking about, I never said anything was escaping. I said if you take the digital out from dac and connect to a headphone you will hear the music which you will. "digital out from a dac" means what?
  10. It's a differential pair. Voltage one direction across them for a 0 and the other direction across them for a 1, all or none. Nothing analog about it. The transport specific timing is pretty much immaterial, too, assuming a reasonable buffer is employed (which should be the case). The signal transfers in spurts. The signal traveling through the USB transport is neither in continuously-variable voltage levels nor is it "real time." Both of which qualities I would categorize as being defining traits of an analog signal.
  11. Bits are bits, and a USB cable either works or it doesn't. It's a balanced signal so induced noise will not be problematic so long as the cable is made to spec. https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/200233/how-does-the-usb-protocol-work gives a couple good-enough answers to the question asked therein. What? Really. What? An analog signal? Sorry, but that's plain wrong. It's just ones and zeros. What digital information is escaping in the output of a digital-to-analog converter? Bits are bits and the signal will be exactly the same through an interconnect which meets the required specification as through one which also does but is made much fancier and costlier. Exactly.
  12. Does it conform to DLNA or is it something maybe proprietary only (akin to Chromecast)?
  13. Yeah, trade liberty for convenience!
  14. Yeah, headphones very first. Then do everything you can behind the equipment since it's easiest. At each point ascertain whether the anomaly has switched sides or gone away. Swap left-right the leads from your source going into the pre-amp, at the source. Same? Put 'em back, check again and if that removal / reinsertion didn't fix something, like what you're describing, which can happen to/in a low-level connection, then do the next available connection point in the chain, the other (downstream) end of the interconnect. Then the pre to power amp cable if one is used. Then the speaker wires at the amp output, then at the speakers. You'll be swapping polarity on the speaker wires so a change won't be to the other channel, obviously, and you'll only need to do the offending channel. But if that swap-and-back of amp output polarity "fixes the problem" then you'll want to also do the other channel as a precautionary measure. If in following the chain you find the noise repeatably switches sides, the upstream "whatever" is the culprit; or the interconnect itself. Up 'til now you've not needed to touch the speakers (they're heavy!) and hopefully you've found the culprit already. If not, you want to take a cardboard tube from a roll of paper towel and use it like stethoscope to determine exactly which driver (circuit) to concentrate on.
  15. First thing to go through is the internal wiring connections. Take them apart and put them back together again (screws and/or clips). If that doesn't clear it up, then swap midrange drivers between the cabinets (only after you've isolated the problem to that driver - if it's actually a different driver then swap those). You can isolate the output of a driver fairly well with a paper towel tube to your ear. If the problem follows the driver it's the driver. If it stays with the cabinet the problem is on that crossover board, or with the feed. Swap feeds from the amp to see where the problem stays/goes, also feeds to the amp/pre-amp, etc. Until you isolate the source. Then a plan of attack can be developed.
  16. https://hometheaterreview.com/denon-avr-x4500h-92-channel-av-receiver-reviewed/ (contains the interesting sentence "I had the opportunity to test out the AVR-X4500H's "Restorer" function, which aims to ameliorate some of the deleterious effects of lossy compression.") https://hometheaterreview.com/nad-t-777-v3-seven-channel-av-receiver-reviewed/, this one earlier, both reiviews by the same person. To be more fair in $ comparison: https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/speaker/surround-sound-speaker-systems-reviews/nad-t-758-v3-av-surround-sound-receiver-review/ I certainly understand the allure of more features and lower price. Sometimes, though, more long-term satisfaction can be had with the less attractive for whatever reason choice. As well, half again more $ now can save the $ now plus the $ a bit down the road when the initial money saved becomes less easy to live with over the long haul.
  17. What I don't understand is it seems like you're saying you're going to spend $ (at least 500?) for a full-blown receiver, and $ (as much again, or more?) on a 5-channel amp that claims so much power but doesn't provide even as much specification as Yamaha did for the one you first mentioned, which was itself suspect in that regard. I'd looked up your typo'd model receiver, and they listed their better specs better than did Yamaha. I read two reviews from one site, though I don't recall if I checked (meant to) whether it was the same reviewer specifically, one of that "typo"'d model and one of the NAD 777. I read the Denon review first and got a very favorable impression. Then I read the NAD review and the guy really gushed over the amplifiers. I use duckduckgo.com as a search engine, and both reviews were on their first pages. When I get back inside after my tobacco treat I'll look them up and post the links. I'm of the opinion that NAD is the poor (or at least frugal) man's high-end gear. The only nit I can pick after 40 years is the volume controls could've held a better balance through their ranges. But it's all digitally controlled now so that's a moot point, which leaves, oh, nothing. I "had to" recently replace my 1980 NAD 40 WPC integrated amp. I picked up a C338 full-warranty factory "refurbished" from Crutchfield for less than the C328 goes for. I soon after got Forte IIIs. The amp case has no ventilation and after a good long shower while running balls-out on the stereo, the case is hardly warmer than room temp. Their class D implementations are phenomenal, and I have the lesser of the two "hybrid digital" amplifier schemes they use.
  18. Sometimes a longer list of features means less if the amp sections ain't as good as something else with maybe a shorter list of features (and perhaps the features are better-implemented too). No matter how many or how few of the features ever / actually get used, the amps put the final say on everything. I've already said twice where I'd be looking, and I don't think it'll be on the shelf at Best Buy, but that's a guess.
  19. I guess it's not just any neighborhood you can do that in. (Wake up to find that stuff still in the driveway.) At first I thought that was couple of guitar cases leaning against the speakers, but thought they looked a little blocky. Turning my phone and looking closer revealed they aren't blocky at all; they're bricky... I look forward to a full report.
  20. Ought to find a couple reviews out there on the NAD gear before you place your order. Just sayin'
  21. That Denon unit looks to be a significant step up from your original choice.
  22. Power isn't additive like that. The most available to any speaker is only that from the amp it's connected to. You can't boost power by running one amp through another and you can't hook more that one amp to a speaker at a time.
  23. What means have been taken to isolate the magnetic field from the cartridge? I'd wager there's insufficient torque to maintain consistent speed across the platter if a cart with integral brush could be employed.
  • Create New...