How much do I need to spend to get a preamp that sounds better than no preamp?
Hello all. I'm using an Audible Illusions L1 preamp and I think my system sounds better when I remove it from the signal path. Oppo BD105 directly to SMC Audio DNA1 Gold power amp. I have read that there is level of quality you need to hit before there will be an improvement in sound. I can't seem to find what that level is. Any ideas? Thanks in advance, Ben
The best active buffer with or without gain, is going to generate distortions and noise, no matter how good it is.
Nelson Pass back that up when hes says:
" A “passive preamp” - just an input selector and a volume control.
What could be better? Hardly any noise or distortion added by these simple passive parts. No feedback, no worrying about what type of capacitors – just musical perfection.
And on his hybrid Passive/Active preamp:
" The only component in the signal path is wire and switch contacts. At positions below 3 o’clock, the volume control functions as a precision passive attenuator using discrete resistor ladders. Above 3 o’clock, active gain is added to the output signal in 2 decibel increments, for a maximum of 10 dB. As a result, you SUFFER the effects of active circuitry only when additional gain is necessary."
Honashagen, With the L1, initially you need to set the gain control half way up (12 o clock) as recommended by the mfg and go from there. Also if you want to increase dynamics, the McCormack is not that bass heavy, certainly not Krell-like. You have two pairs of outputs on the L1, why not use one pair for an active subwoofer, just make sure it is a musical sub with tight and tuneful bass.
You mentioned components you used to own like the Crown and how you remembered you liked the presentation a lot. Let me say this, each and every time I revisited older components that I used to be fond of, I left disappointed and it turned out that what I currently have was superior. If you were to sell the upgraded McCormack and AI preamp there would be an over wehlming response from buyers as these two components are not seen for sale lately.
I am not sure why I have decided to post on this thread but I figured maybe something I had to say might add some value. I really don’t care why someone might prefer added gain in their system and who might not. Go check out this thread and figure out it where I come from:
I will say this and let the rest of you go off on your tangents. For my digital set up I have had the best results with a source direct to amp (Resolution Audio Cantata to Music Reference RM-10 or RM-200) or the Lightspeed Attenuator in between numerous digital sources to those same two amplifiers, plus a few others. The Lightspeed is my favorite of a bunch of passive preamps I have owned (this includes The Truth - actually an active buffer, Slagle, and others). It’s been in my systems for about 8 years now. I have even used it successfully in analog set ups.
Now on that note I will say for analog the extra gain can be helpful, although if there is a way I would readily opt out. In addition to vinyl I play analog reel tape. For those sources I use an Atma-Sphere MP-3 active linestage with RIAA and IEC/CCIR 15IPS EQ. I also use a Beveridge RM 1 with RM 2 power supply, a DeHavilland tape head preamp (IEC/NAB EQ), and a Music Reference RIAA and IEC/CCIR 15 IPS phono/tape head preamp. In addition to the previously mentioned amps I have Atma-Sphere and Music Reference OTL amps that I use with both the analog and digital sources. I have a bunch of other stuff too since I biamp. Can’t wait until I get my direct drive amps for my ESLs. Game over as far as I’m concerned.
I am here to tell you it all works and sounds great in my system whether I am going fully balanced, fully single ended, or mixed. The biggest thing I am concerned with is the amp/speaker interface. My speakers are either ESLs (57s, Music Reference, Acoustat Model 2 - modified by Roger Modjeski) or Spendor 1/2e. With all I have to work with I have no issues finding the right match. My advice is obviously go with what you feel sounds best, but if it were me and all I listened to were digital, direct from source to amp or a passive between the two is the way I would go and I would take care to ensure there would be no impedance or cable artifacts coloring the sound (not really hard to do if you think about it).
Yes yes now your talking clio09
, I would like to do this myself on my Monoliths, have all the right tubes, tranny’s ect, but it’s dangerous to own such a amplification/speaker wire weapon. Like the 805 set monoblocks I built with 900v on the top cap, definable no beers and a good night sleep before doing any bench work on them, lethal.
Of course I do, don’t be ignorant, if you increase the gain of an active
stage you increase not just the signal what’s coming in but everything
else including noise, rf ,hum any tube or transistor noise is also
amplified when you add more gain to an active stage.
George, the only way this statement can be partially true is if a Baxandall-style volume control system is used. Since that employs opamps, the statement is thus false on account of the inclusion of the words 'tube or', although a Baxandall control usually employs some sort of RF filter at its input. So its not clear where you are going with this, but clearly it fails to address my prior post if that was your intention.
Oppo 105> Parasound P5 (the XLR circuit is separate from the RCAs) > 2 Emerald Physics 100.2SEs
I bought the P5 a couple years ago because
* it has true balanced I/Os * a separate bass management circuit for my SVS powered subs. * it was affordable
A few months back Paul McGowan did a YT video saying the best way to connect subs is not with interconnects, but piggybacking off your amp/s speaker binding posts. And boy, he was right. So, thought I needed a better preamp. The closest balanced pre I found without spending a King's ransom (even used) was a used W4S STP-E, with passive/active volume, but IMHO, it's butt ugly.
I decided to run the 105 direct to my amps. I cannot imagine a preamp bettering what I am enjoying now, but the passive Lightspeed is intriguing. I wouldn't buy one without trying one as I am so overjoyed using the 105 variable VC direct. Now, a couple things are the likely reason for my joy
1. my system is plugged into a CPT 1800 > 20 amp dedicated line 2. I added a couple aftermarket ebaye 105 mods; replaced the oem iec with a Furutek Rhodium + silver wires and replaced the oem power board with a Linear Power Module, the toroid is big enough to handle a lot of amps/preamps
So its not clear where you are going with this, but clearly it fails to address my prior post if that was your intention.
I’ve addressed everything that need to Ralph. Once again simply. "Any! active stage/s introduces noise hum and distortions, increase their gain and you increase those as well." So it’s best to use as "most" as you can from the "passive" Master volume (which has virtually no noise hum or distortions), and use as little as possible "gain" from the active stage. Couldn’t be simpler.
Nelson Pass: " A “passive preamp” - just an input selector and a volume control.
What could be better? Hardly any noise or distortion added by these simple passive parts. No feedback, no worrying about what type of capacitors – just musical perfection."
Any! active stage/s introduces noise hum and distortions, increase their gain and you increase those as well.
This statement is still false.
So it’s best to use as "most" as you can from the "passive" Master
volume (which has virtually no noise hum or distortions), and use as
little as possible "gain" from the active stage. Couldn’t be simpler.
Perhaps. At least it could make sense. The above comment does not. What were you trying to say?
Nelson Pass: " A “passive preamp” - just an input selector and a volume control.
What
could be better? Hardly any noise or distortion added by these simple
passive parts. No feedback, no worrying about what type of capacitors –
just musical perfection."
You cherry picked that one... What could be better? Nelson answers that:
Is impedance matching an issue? Passive volume controls do have to
make a trade-off between input impedance and output impedance. If the
input impedance is high, making the input to the volume control easy for
the source to drive, then the output impedance is also high, possibly
creating difficulty with the input impedance of the power amplifier. And
vice versa: If your amplifier prefers low source impedance, then your
signal source might have to look at low impedance in the volume control.
This suggests the possibility of using a high quality buffer in
conjunction with a volume control. A buffer is still an active circuit
using tubes or transistors, but it has no voltage gain – it only
interposes itself to make a low impedance into a high impedance, or vice
versa. If you put a buffer in front of a volume control, the control’s
low impedance looks like high impedance.
If you put a buffer after a volume control, it makes the output
impedance much lower. You can put buffers before and after a volume
control if you want.
He confirms what I have maintained- a buffer at the input and a buffer at the output of the control are both helpful.
Any one who is blind to the fact and doesn’t believe that an active stage has noise, distortions ect, and any increase in gain of that active stage also increases any noise ect coming into it and within it’s self. Your better to raise the passive master and let more of the source signal through, than to lower it and to raise the gain of the active stage and keep the master low, as your throwing away the sources signal level only to make it up again with added gain of the active stage. I’m over saying it, and so is Nelson
Quote NP: " Think of it this way: If you are running your volume control down around 9 o’clock, you are actually throwing away signal level so that a subsequent gain stage can make it back up.
And yet there are guys out there who don’t care for the result. “It sucks the life out of the music”, is a commonly heard refrain (really - I’m being serious here!). Maybe they are reacting psychologically to the need to turn the volume control up compared to an active preamp."
In summary: the OP removes his
Audible Illusions L1 preamp and drives his amplifier directly from his Oppo BD105. He thinks it sounds better. He asks: how much money do I need to spend to get a preamp that will sound better than this straight wire?
Answers (boiled down from this long and contentious thread):
1. It is not possible to spend enough money to improve the sound beyond what you hear with no preamp. Preamps add some noise and distortion. Wires don't. Sell your preamp and take a trip to Paris in the spring.
2. Some people like the euphonious distortion that some electronic components add to the signal. Often, the more money they spend on the component, the better they think it sounds. Spend about as much as you might budget for a new car on your new preamp, and you are likely to feel it sounds better than no preamp.
3. Although not presented as a possibility by the OP, a class of responses caution against adding a passive preamp in place of no preamp. These arguments talk about the impedance of the upstream and downstream devices and should fall into the category of why don't you try it and see what you think? Sadly, this advice seems instead to be: don't ever try this, it's theoretically unsound and your house might burn down.
On page 3 of that thread I quoted some insights PS Audio’s Paul McGowan provided on that subject, and added some further thoughts of my own. I think those posts are worth repeating here:
Almarg 10-4-2015 Interestingly, Paul McGowan, designer/manufacturer of the OP’s DAC, has just in the past few days been posting thoughts on the very question being discussed here in his blog at the PS Audio site. Some excerpts:
My adamant stance against inserting a preamp between a high quality DAC like DirectStream and the power amplifier should be no surprise to readers of this blog. As well, my subsequent turn around embracing the exact opposite should lift no eyebrows either. But why would inserting an extra piece of gear in the signal path sound better than a more direct approach? How could this make sense? ....
... For a long time I found that DACs with no-loss digital volume controls sounded better, cleaner, livelier, directly into the power amplifier. Whenever I inserted a preamplifier it sounded different–but not better. That is until I tried a different preamp. My first revelation happened with the stunning Aesthetix Calypso preamplifier. Placed between the DAC and power amplifier, music took on a life and dimensionality that took all of 10 seconds to find it was better–not just different....
... I had written earlier that it’s likely I am asking the wrong question. How could adding more to the signal path make the system sound better, not worse? It turns out the logic is correct: it cannot. So why does sometimes adding a preamp between a DAC and power amp help the system sound better?
Because it’s helping the DAC not sound worse. And that bit of logic is key to answering the question....
... Imagine we have a DAC with an identical output circuit to that of a preamplifier. How would this respond driving a power amplifier directly? Theoretically as well as a preamp and, perhaps, better because we haven’t another component in the mix. But here’s something you may not have thought about.
DACs are significantly more sensitive to power supply changes and noises than preamps. When an output stage struggles to drive a complex load, it is the power supply feeding its output stage that sees these changes. If this occurs in a preamp, it has little effect. But that same situation, when applied to a DAC, has very different results indeed. Small changes in power supplies have big impacts on sound quality–especially jitter.
So this is one reason, and there are more, some preamps can help a DAC.
Makes sense to me. So if Paul McGowan can do an about face on this issue, at least under some circumstances, I guess I can too :-) But I believe that in general the opinion I expressed in my first post in this thread still stands:
09-23-15: Almarg The burden of proof should always be on adding anything to the signal path that is not an obvious necessity. In this specific case a preamp is not an obvious necessity, and per George’s analysis (with which I agree) the odds appear to be in favor of that burden not being met. However, as others have indicated the only way to know for sure is to try it.
Almarg 10-4-2015 ... I suppose an additional possibility is that high frequency noise resulting from a ground loop condition between a DAC and a power amp could enter the DAC’s output circuit and find its way via grounds, power supplies, stray capacitances, etc. to the D/A converter device and/or its surrounding circuitry, causing an increase in jitter.
Of course, depending on the specific designs introducing a preamp between the DAC and the power amp could either resolve such a problem, introduce such a problem, or make no difference.
Almarg 10-6-2015 An excerpt from today’s blog post by Mr. McGowan on the same subject:
Our newest DAC, DirectStream, ... has zero loss at any level setting–a major achievement. So, how could a control with zero resolution be suspect? That’s a question I have been mulling on for some time now.
One piece of the puzzle seems obvious. We know that tiny changes in the way internal FPGA process are organized make significant differences in sound. Even changes to the display affect sound quality. It’s a delicate process when jitter, power supply and the tiniest of changes can be heard and must be attended to. What’s to stop us from believing that different level settings have different sound qualities–despite the fact there are no measurable resolution losses?
Were it to be found true much would be explained. For instance, we know not all preamps sound better than DACs directly into power amps. In fact, most don’t. This observation lends credibility to the explanation that it is not preamps that make DACs sound better, rather, it is preamps helping DACs not sound worse. This theory can only be true if the preamp is of sufficient quality to add less degradation than using the DAC’s volume control. That all kind of makes sense.
But, just because something makes sense, doesn’t mean it’s true. How do we make this determination to see if this theory holds water?
Paul McGowan: My adamant stance against inserting a preamp between a high quality DAC like DirectStream and the power amplifier should be no surprise to readers of this blog. As well, my subsequent turn around embracing the exact opposite should lift no eyebrows either. But why would inserting an extra piece of gear in the signal path sound better than a more direct approach? How could this make sense? ....
Almarg: Makes sense to me. So if Paul McGowan can do an about face on this issue, at least under some circumstances, I guess I can too :-) But I believe that in general the opinion I expressed in my first post in this thread still stands:
Almarg: The burden of proof should always be on adding anything to the signal path that is not an obvious necessity. In this specific case a preamp is not an obvious necessity, and per George’s analysis (with which I agree) the odds appear to be in favor of that burden not being met. However, as others have indicated the only way to know for sure is to try it.
Good luck. Regards, -- Al
Al, a smiggen of imagination here, did you know he made this about face Oct 2015, during the development period of his next to be released product in 2016 the BHK active preamps, hmmmmmmm?
As far as Oppo direct to Amp, I am told by someone who should know that the digital volume control on the Oppo produces a signal that is not lossless. I tried Oppo to amp a couple years ago and it sounded better with the preamp (Classe SSP-800) in the circuit.
@georgehifi The direct drive amps I will use won't have output transformers and will put out 5000V to the panels. I've heard them in another system and cannot believe the clarity. It's really scary. Also, good for you for calling out McGowan and that BHK preamp. Which leads me to this: Seriously, we're quoting Paul McGowan around here now? Things have gotten a bit worse on this forum than I suspected. BTW - IIRC Paul's former partner Stan Warren designed a nice passive/active buffer in the early days of PS Audio. In my opinion they were a better company back then.
The direct drive amps I will use won't have output transformers and will put out 5000V to the panels.
Same, drive esl's from the tubes 5kv, mono blocks to keep the speaker wire short as possible, the trany's I mentioned were for the power supply side of things. I heard a pair of 57's driven like this and it was amazing, they had a pair of Magnat MP-02 Plasma tweeters from 12khz up. I now own them also and they are on my Monoliths from 12khz up. Same as these. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Magnat-Plasma-MP-02-ion-tweeter-massless-air-plasma-speaker-Plasmahochtoner...
leotis I am told by someone who should know that the digital volume control on the Oppo produces a signal that is not lossless.
Correct it’s not lossless, If you had to used that digital domain volume control below 75% of full up because it was too loud, you may very well have started to "bit strip" the resolution, from 16bit down to 14bit to 12bit to 10bit ect the lower below 75% you went. The only way out of that one is to have a passive in between and leave the Oppo digital VC up full.
Hi Al, hopefully you already knew this but to be clear I was not attacking you, it was more a reflection of my opinion of Paul McGowan's comments, which I'm not even going to bother to take the time to address. I think George's comment says a lot in that regard.
In my opinion, the most relevant comments on the need for an active preamp are those made by Ralph.
The Tortuga looks interesting. I tried their buffer when it was "on tour" and it was not bad at all. The combination of my Goldpoint passive and the buffer sounded quite good but not at the level of my SMc buffer/preamp. I would have liked to have tried the Tortuga passive + buffer but only had their buffer and not the passive. I asked them why they don't offer the buffer integral with their passive preamp (it should fit in the big box version they offer) but I think they are just not there yet.
@phomchick I assume the question is rhetorical, since you and I had an exchange earlier on this thread that relates to your post. To answer it directly though, if in the context of your last post, then 'yes' (BTW, did you try that test I suggested?).
The reason to use an active line stage is to reduce coloration. The coloration can be caused by the cables and the math that derives therefrom (bandwidth limitations, increased output impedance of the source and thus the impedance driving the amplifier).
Gain may not be needed, but buffering the input and output of the volume control so that the source and amp see a constant impedance is. In this way the setting of the volume control may not also act like a sort of tone control.
One way an active line section is handy, especially if a digital source is involved, is how the volume control is used. The technique is to run the volume control of the digital source all the way up, and then use the volume control on the active line section. Especially if the volume control is digital, this has the effect of increasing resolution.
BTW I'm pretty sure that the Oppo uses an analog volume system, but it is chip based and chip based remote volume systems can have their own set of issues. But IMO they are better than using a digital control.
Anthony (Clio09), yes, it was clear to me as to whom you were attacking, but thanks for making sure.
I do think, however, that the explanation Paul McGowan stated is technically plausible, and could very well support the notion that in **some** cases inserting an active preamp between a power amp and a source component containing a DAC could result in performance that is objectively as well as subjectively better than a direct connection. And likewise with respect to my own hypothesis that I presented in conjunction with his.
The BDP-105 players will not lose resolution since they are 32-bit DACs. So they are the ideal solution if you want to go direct to an amplifier.
This is from a discussion I had with Thorsten Loesch the designer/owner of the very hiend digital company AMR digital.
" Turn down the volume even the tiniest bit using the digital volume control and the sound quality to a massive hit. I have tried many times, the minimum attenuation in the digital domain possible seems to destroy the sound quality of any true high end DAC I have owned. This includes using PC software that claims to have a super duper digital volume control. "
I and others I know also Wadia states the same that you can go down a little to 75% of full, maybe Thorsten has bat ears.
As I sit here listening with no preamp, it seems like common sense would tell you that if a preamp alters the sound from the source in any way it's really a processor of some type. Right?
"Any! active stage/s introduces noise hum and distortions, increase their gain and you increase those as well."
Nonsense. I don’t care who said this. Active circuits have long been proven to be less noisy than a simple resistor for proper buffering and volume control applications. Why? they have both high input impedance to precisely preserve input signal and low output impedance in order to drive whatever follows.
Honashagen 5-26-2018
As I sit here listening with no preamp, it seems like common sense would
tell you that if a preamp alters the sound from the source in any way
it's really a processor of some type. Right?
... Unless, that is, the presence of the preamp somehow causes the source component to behave in a more accurate manner. And as you've read above, there are what I would consider to be plausible technical explanations for why that may be the case in some systems.
Also, my perception has been that in past threads in which the preamp/no preamp issue has been discussed a significant majority of the reported user experiences has been that the addition of an active preamp to the path between a source component containing a DAC and a power amp has been beneficial. I would not assume that all and perhaps even most of those experiences were the result of inaccuracies introduced by the preamp.
Subtle effects can often occur in electronic circuits and systems that have consequences which are counter-intuitive, and that are not necessarily consistent with what "common sense" may lead one to expect.
As I listen to more music (sans preamp, which also means sans 2 SVS powered subs) I am overjoyed by how much richer the midrange, more accurate the bass, and quieter the background. Playing cds like CSN with musicians spread wide on the stage and spot on individual singer locations is shear enjoyment
I am curious to know whether (or why) my active preamp outs somehow interfered with the SVS inputs.
Seems like the only way to reengage the subs is with something. Wish I could afford the Tortuga. whichever one I experiment with will need XLR I/Os and one set of RCA outs
As I sit here listening with no preamp, it seems like common sense would tell you that if a preamp alters the sound from the source in any way it’s really a processor of some type. Right?
To me this is correct, but I use the term colouration/distortions not processor. And that why all "preamp aficionados" have different views how all of them sound, as no two sound the same, and no one sounds like the proverbial "piece of wire" like going direct does.
Also sources today and even yesterday have outputs that are just as good as most preamps, and better than some.
Here’s another little gem from the audio god himself on passives: And going direct is even easier for the source.
Nelson Pass: Historically we have had a number of consumers concerned about input and output impedances of equipment, but from our experience the concern is largely unjustified. From the standpoint of input impedance, I can only say that it is a very pitiful source that cannot come up with the 100 micro-amps of current needed to drive this input. I don’t know of any tube circuit that doesn’t bias to at least 100 times this amount. The output impedance needs to be low enough to drive the capacitance of a reasonably long cable. How low does it need to be? I would say that it should be able to drive a 1000 pF load out to 100 KHz. The worst case output impedance of the Aleph L will drive 1000 pF with a -3dB rolloff at 225 KHz."
Sometimes when we get too smart we sacrifice common sense. Not that I am more experienced or smarter than the posters here.
For me, common sense tells me that ANY time you can eliminate cables, jacks, circuitry from the signal, it would be better- better as in 'more accurate'. Saves money, too.
But sometimes, adding a preamp serves to RESTORE, what is lost between the source and the amp. Passives aren't always as transparent as they seem.
I think it IS possible to have a preamp with a better volume control than what the Oppo does, easier on the cables, and thus, better sound. Or not. Which parts of science we wish to apply should not cloud the application of what will actually work better.
I might ask, is the modulas 3a or 3b better than the L1? What about balanced? I missed if those are being used going direct with the Oppo.
I missed if those are being used going direct with the Oppo.
It is one case where going direct to amp with the balanced output betters the rca because the Oppo use a balanced output dacs in the Sabre which has + and - outputs in each channel, so it's naturally better to use it's xlr output than it's re-configured xlr to rca.
Re: balanced vs rca on the Oppo: certainly, I might expect it to be better, but I mention it because it's another variable. AI pre's are single ended.
If I understand correctly, the amp is a McCormack? I don't remember those as being xlr inputs, but I could be wrong. Maybe it was an option?
I just recently got a UDP-205, and it is going into an Audible Illusions M3a. I haven't been able to compare the rca vs balanced, I don't have the stuff. What I CAN say is, to spite having the "best dacs available" or at least the best for Oppo, the old Theta Prime 2 seems to be a batter dac.
I mention this, because as far as "upgrading", the rca vs XLR is right there in the picture, ain't it? A balanced pre makes sense if the other components are balanced, even better yet, TRULY balanced, but it doesn't make sense to ugrade to balanced to take advantage of the Oppo's balanced outputs when a better dac could be had for less money.
The best way to me, because it uses Sabre balanced + and - dac chip outputs, is to use the XLR output on the Oppo direct into a true XLR input poweramp. And use the Oppo’s volume control, hopefully it’s used at 75% or higher so there’s no risk of "bit stripping" This should be the ultimate in transparency and dynamics.
Can we really expect a simple pre amp to improve on the mastering engineers ear and gear? If so just put a bunch of your favorite preamps in series and the sound would just keep getting better!
No sir. And while I haven't read ALL the post on this long thread, everyone, even the arguments, are with the goal of transparency. the LEAST amount of change to the signal.
If you are happy with no pre right now, that's great. General opinion here seems to think it's the best way to go. You could even take the money you saved and spend it on 5k of interconnect and REALLY have the most transparent set-up.
Questions might be, is there a difference having the extra jacks and cables? Is the volume attenuation by the new per better than the digital of the Oppo?
Is the Hatton buffered or is it just pure switching?
tweak1536 posts05-28-2018 5:04amI just closed a deal for a Hatton passive XLR, so will see whether it improves on no preamp. If no glitches, I should have it by friday
Can we know what your sources impedance and output voltage is and the power amps input impedance and sensitivity is, so there are no question raised? As you’ve posted in other posts that you have a tube/capacitor coupled output Raysonic source, which would not be very low output impedance especially in the bass, for your experiment to be conclusive in it’s outcome. Also do you have a link to this Hatton xlr pre, all I can find is stuff to do with bands/studio ect.
Can we really expect a simple pre amp to improve on the mastering
engineers ear and gear? If so just put a bunch of your favorite preamps
in series and the sound would just keep getting better!
Improve on it no- maintain neutrality yes.
If you were instead to put a bunch of your favorite passive volume controls in series, the result would not be pretty. Nor would putting a bunch of active preamps in series. The idea in high end audio is to do the least damage to the signal while getting it from the source to the speakers.
The simple fact is that a passive is too simple to do the job. The reasons why have been explained several times in this thread.
I guess my takeaway so far has been that an active preamp can actually improve the sound of the source. Your comment about doing the least amount of damage makes the most sense to me.
I've tried it at length. Most notably with a TEO passive preamp. It still misses out on that jump factor, that aliveness that a good active brings to the table. I only really use analog signal though, maybe one might have more luck with digital.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
