Emotiva *finally* released their XMC-1 preprocessor. It lists for $1995. However, because you purchased a UMC-200, you are eligible for a 25% discount, making your cost $1495. There is nothing anywhere near that price that compares. Take a look here: http://XMC-1.com
-RW- |
"Thiel CS2.7 (or something just as transparent if I find it)
Amp to match the Thiels (Pass Labs x-150, Peachtree 220, suggestions?)
I realize it's a pretty open ended question, but can someone suggest other 7+ multi channel pre/processors to match the above hypothetical system?"
I wouldn't do it this way. To be honest, its reckless. If you are looking to get a pair of cs2.7's (or similar), there's a lot to consider. Even more so that you'll be using them for HT. Its not a forgiving speaker and you really need to match the components for it very carefully. Given that, I wouldn't be too fast to use a HT preamp for 2 channel. It would probably be a better option to keep your Emotiva (I'm assuming it has a HT pass-through), and just get a good quality 2channel preamp. If you mess up with the preamp (for 2 channel), the system will never sound right, and you'll go nuts trying to fix it.
Take your time and listen to some components. Make sure you know what you want for your 2 channel setup, and then built the theater around that. Its much easier and you'll probably save a lot of money. |
As much as I LOATH ZD542, I kinda concur. :-) If you're going "music speakers", and focusing on improving 2 ch, then you should go dedicated 2 ch amp/pre and maybe separate the two systems for maximum.
For one, the Theils 2.7's are gunna be too laid back to properly do justice to HT, in my opinion (I've had 3.6's 2.3's, MC1's, 1.5's and 2.3's in my systems over the years).
If I had to go Thiels for double duties, I'd probably lean the powered monitors they sell, or maybe 1.6's in passive.- you want more presence from your ht system, or you'll lean into the sound, which isn't thrilling or involving for proper HT, IME.
Still, I'd go dedicated movie speakers for the HT, if I could...maybe running a pair of your preferred 2 ch speakers in conjunction with looped in AV pre/pro (you're processor is likely fine), running a 5.1 ch dedicated HT monitor system and sub for movies.
I think this topic has be exhaustively covered over the years. |
A brand new processor from Emotiva? A little bit on the risky side, and he'd have to keep the UMC-200 to get the discount, so he'd still be out of pocket 2 grand. Plus, the XMC doesn't have the Dirac room correction yet, so for 2000 or 1500, there's plenty that beat it hands down. And they don't have bugs.
I concur with the idea that hazyj should take his time and develop a complete solution/plan of attack before replacing just one or 2 components. Perhaps it would help for him to list what he has now that he wants to replace. |
Thanks all. After posting I decided to go in the direction you're advising, so great validation to know other minds agree. I see no reason to not at least audition a nice 2 ch pre and have fun comparing it to the Emotiva. Will need to post a comparison test at that time.
Avgoround - am curious - I think this is the first time I've heard anyone describe a Thiel speaker as "laid back". I understand you qualified that as meaning for HT, but can you explain?
HJ |
Hazyj,
I'm kind of late to this thread and don't want to dissuade you from getting a good 2-ch preamp. However, I have a suggestion that worked for me and may work for you.
I'd urge you to consider purchasing an Oppo-105 Bluray player for about $1,100. I bought one of these and I've been thrilled with its performance. Here are some advantages of the Oppo in your situation:
1. It has a built-in 7.1 surround processor that is very good and would lessen your need for your UMC-200.
2. It can double as a surprisingly good 2-ch music preamp. I actually no longer use my VTL 2.5 preamp for 2-ch music or my older Parasound surround processor for ht since installing the Oppo.
3. It can also be utilized as a very good stand alone dac if you ever decide to incorporate hi-rez computer audio into your system.
4. You also gain a highly reviewed and respected source for a wide variety of optical discs for both music and ht (cd, sacd, dvd, cd-rom and bluray).
Just something a bit different to consider,
Tim
|
I concur with Tim's recommendation of the Oppo BDP-105 as an acting digital processor, but it will not accept analog source. I select among three analog sources, so I use a JC-2 preamp for stereo, take surround from the Oppo directly the amps, and SW directly to a bass manager. When used with the Oppo for surround or HT, the JC-2 is set to unity gain. If you have only digital sources, the Oppo is likely to suffice. |
I too have the OPPOS but recommend a preamp or processor if theater is your thing, They are more versitle |
Thanks all. I'm not going the theater route, though I'm sure I'll have fun with that at some point. At this point separates make the most sense for me as I'm trying to keep it all really flexible - I've got a DAC and a passive 2-ch pre on the way. That's the plan ... for now:-) |
I oppted for the Emotiva over the Oppo 105 as the analogue dacs sounded rather thin in the midrange/bass due to the high resolution and extension it has.The Emotiva beat it in 2/5 channel analogue hands down. Great eq-ing in the emotiva. Also, if you have different speaker ranges or sizes the oppo can only crossover everything at the same value - no independent crossovers. I found with the oppo for 2 channel with a subwoofer the front speakers need to be on small for the sub to run hence if you have full range floorstanding horns like me you can't run them large( full range) and utilize the sub for the lower ranges below 35hz. In home theatre 5.1 the sub will work either way. I sold my 105 and purchased the 103 for just the video processing which is identical to the 105 and saved $650 dollars. I am awaiting the Emotiva XMC-1 to try and see how it measures up compared to the UMC-200. |
One can prefer whatever preferences one has, but the Emotiva UMC-200 does not best the Oppo 105. It sounds like you've been buying and selling components frequently. I advise slowing down. Don't buy the XMC just because it's being released. Give it time to make sure it doesn't have bugs, and that Dirac has been implemented properly. Dirac isn't even included yet. They want you to buy it with the promise that Dirac is coming!
I don't know why they didn't wait to release it until it was ready with Dirac. Some suspect Emotiva was cash strapped and needing to see some return on their(6 year) investment in the XMC. I suspect they released it early to temp Emotiva buyers away from the new format that's coming, Dolby Atmos, something they don't have. Either way, it's been an uneven and jerky ride waiting for them to come up with an XMC to sell, so I'd be a little patient. After all, it's outclassed in the feature department by almost any 1000 receiver with pre-outs. |
Just remember, you WILL be losing out on the dynamics side of things, in absolute terms, going the passive route with your thiels! I'll put a good active preamp up against a passive approach, virtually every time, from my years of exerience,when it comes to properly producing dynamic transparency from a system. Not properly oversimplifying the initial signal before the amp section, will cost you in that area. I know...used to use direct from DVD and CD players -as well as both Mcormmick and Pass L preamps - in conjunction w many many different amplifier choices, with several Thiel loudspeakers (stereo n multi config). ..it's MUCH, stronger dynamically using a high quality active preamp in the system!
Just something to consider. ..maybe experiment??? |
Avo-
What good passive pres have you listened to?
By properly oversimplifying the initial signal do you mean properly preparing the input signal for the input of the amp? If not what do you mean by oversimplifying?
I do think I'll experiment, but am guessing already that the quality of a passive that I'm looking for will be too expensive. I'll probably start with a Placette Passive Linestage to at least see if I like it better than the Emotiva and then go from there by comparing with a good active in the same price range ($1500 used most likely).
Thanks,
Hazyj |
"Just remember, you WILL be losing out on the dynamics side of things, in absolute terms, going the passive route with your thiels!" Why would you make such a claim, Avgoround? What can an active preamp do for dynamic range? It amplifies both signal and noise, so S/N is determined by the source. If the level of the source is sufficient to drive the amp to full output, as that of an Oppo BDP-105 is likely to be, I see an ideal preamp as a device for switching among analog sources and passing the signal without degradation. Of course, if you're into tone controls and such . . .
db |
Ive used McCormmack TLC and Pass Aleph L passive preamps mostly, plus DIY passive volume attenuators and, of course direct DVD player to amp combinations mostly, for my passive experimentation.
Now granted, I've not played with passive setups in at least 8 years, honestly. But my experience with many amp and passive or direct combinations pretty much exclusively has always yielded me less than optimum dynamic results from the sound, and so I just gave up trying, to be truthful!
Now it may very well be possible that the combination of source components and interconnect cabling which I used, was running into impedance issues, and the CD players nowadays very well might be offering lower output impedance than previous units I experimented with (plus maybe I didn't consider restrictions from cabling being an issue there either???), allowing for better signal flow between the components, for more dynamically unrestricted sound, but I'd have to go back and experiment and research some more. Dunno.
I was reading a recent article where more than a couple of posters stated they also experience a " loss of dynamics and some compression in the audio signal going passive,too! So I definitely know that others have had similar experiences as I had in the past..so it's not just me! However, why aren't nearly ALL magazine professional industry reviewers MAINLY using high end ACTIVE preamps as a reference in their own systems, if passives work and sound better/more pure sounding???! That makes no sense.
I did also read this article from a year ago, claiming that passive preamp require careful cabling and source component selections for good results from passive preamp, so maybe that's it.
Maybe I really DO need to go back to experimenting. Because certainly I'd MUCH rather be able to ditch a preamp in the chain altogether. If I can simply get the full dynamic capability from my sound, large open, unrestricted full soundstage that I've experienced with the best high end preamp I can get?! ..maybe my old Card as and Harmonic Tech interconnects were either not compatible with my DVD player n amplifiers impedance matching compatibility, and combinations were simply not compatible with each other? Hmmmm...
imma need me some more research n tinkering, I guess. If anyone out there who listens to occasional Metalica, eclectic world beat, hip-hop n pop, rock, and even movies through their 2 children system, and they exclusively use a passive front end setup with great dynamic results, in their opinions, ..lemme know what you are using in your setup, if you'd be do kind?!!!! I'd like to try out your combo, fer sure. Otherwise, my results of trying paramount amps w built in volume controls, high quality attenuation n DVD players w built in volume haven't cut it for me, compared to better active...is all I'm sayin.
Yes. I'm willing to be enlightened, otherwise, and shown the error of my past ways... |
"I did also read this article from a year ago, claiming that passive preamp require careful cabling and source component selections for good results from passive preamp, so maybe that's it."
You're right. That is it. Passives can be great, but there's a lot of equipment out there that doesn't work well with them.
"I do think I'll experiment, but am guessing already that the quality of a passive that I'm looking for will be too expensive. I'll probably start with a Placette Passive Linestage to at least see if I like it better than the Emotiva and then go from there by comparing with a good active in the same price range ($1500 used most likely)."
See if you can find an Adcom GFP-750. Its both active and passive, so you can switch back and forth between the 2. It also has a remote and is balanced. |
Ive used McCormmack TLC and Pass Aleph L passive preamps mostly, plus DIY passive volume attenuators and, of course direct DVD player to amp combinations mostly, for my passive experimentation.
Now granted, I've not played with passive setups in at least 8 years, honestly. But my experience with many amp and passive or direct combinations pretty much exclusively has always yielded me less than optimum dynamic results from the sound, and so I just gave up trying, to be truthful!
Now it may very well be possible that the combination of source components and interconnect cabling which I used, was running into impedance issues, and the CD players nowadays very well might be offering lower output impedance than previous units I experimented with (plus maybe I didn't consider restrictions from cabling being an issue there either???), allowing for better signal flow between the components, for more dynamically unrestricted sound, but I'd have to go back and experiment and research some more. Dunno.
I was reading a recent article where more than a couple of posters stated they also experience a " loss of dynamics and some compression in the audio signal going passive,too! So I definitely know that others have had similar experiences as I had in the past..so it's not just me! However, why aren't nearly ALL magazine professional industry reviewers MAINLY using high end ACTIVE preamps as a reference in their own systems, if passives work and sound better/more pure sounding???! That makes no sense.
I did also read this article from a year ago, claiming that passive preamp require careful cabling and source component selections for good results from passive preamp, so maybe that's it.
Maybe I really DO need to go back to experimenting. Because certainly I'd MUCH rather be able to ditch a preamp in the chain altogether. If I can simply get the full dynamic capability from my sound, large open, unrestricted full soundstage that I've experienced with the best high end preamp I can get?! ..maybe my old Card as and Harmonic Tech interconnects were either not compatible with my DVD player n amplifiers impedance matching compatibility, and combinations were simply not compatible with each other? Hmmmm...
immature need me some more research n tinkering, I guess. If anyone out there who listens to occasional Metalica, eclectic world beat, hip-hop n pop, rock, and even movies through their 2 children system, and they exclusively use a passive front end setup with great dynamic results, in their opinions, ..lemme know what you are using in your setup, if you'd be do kind?!!!! I'd like to try out your combo, fer sure. Otherwise, my results of trying paramount amps w built in volume controls, high quality attenuation n DVD players w built in volume haven't cut it for me, compared to better active...is all I'm sayin.
Yes. I'm willing to be enlightened, otherwise, and shown the error of my past ways... |
Yes, I too had played with the old Adcom gfp 750 (forgot about that) and that was at least 12 years ago. But, with whatever CD sources I tried, the active setting sounded definitely weighted and more punchy than the more closed-in sounding and subdued, dynamically, passive setting! Once again, even though the passive setting was clearer n less colored, rock n dynamic stuff had more soul n powerful overall sound in active...that's just what I found, and Im pretty certain I sold that piece retail in two different WiFi stores at the turn of the century! ...in fact I'm also certain that we sold other ACTIVE preamps then, that were much superior over the passive adcom setup,if I recall. In fact Im pretty certain just about every hiend audio equip you could think of produced better sounding top end preamp during that time, of which the Adcom was no match, if I recall correctly?! I mean if the passive section of that 750 was that good, why wouldn't more reviewers using them as reference pieces in their own systems???!
Anyway, what was I missing then?... |
ANYONE FOLLOWING THESE LAST FEW POSTS REGARDING PASSIVE PREAMP FRONT END VS ACTIVE, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING STEREOPHILE ARTICLE FROM COREY GREENBERG,NOV 1991 STEREOPHILE MAG BELLOW
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/54/
..then you'll all understand my troubled frustrations and shortcomings with the passive thing over the years... |
Avgoround,
I believe the source that was originally being considered as a substitute for a preamp was an Oppo BDP-105. The Oppo has very low output impedance and sufficient level to drive nearly any amp to full output. I use three analog sources, a Parasound JC-3 phono stage, an Ayre C-5xeMP, and stereo from an Oppo BDP-105, so I use a JC-2 to switch among them. I have tried the Oppo direct to my Proceed HPA 2 & 3 amps, and the sound is superb with no lack of dynamic range -- remember, any amplification amplifies both signal and noise, so doesn't change S/N. Even though I use a preamp for stereo, the surround outputs from the Oppo go directly to the amps.
db |
Avo - the stereophile url you provided was incomplete. can you try again? thanks. |
ahh ... ok i see it as this:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/54/
note that this article is from 1995, not that there isn't plenty of relevancy here. just thought it worth noting.
hj |
"note that this article is from 1995, not that there isn't plenty of relevancy here. just thought it worth noting.
hj"
Not only that, Corey Greenberg was a complete idiot. Stereophile got rid of him decades ago. |
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/54/
http://thecarversite.com/yetanotherforum/default.aspx?g=posts&m=178039 |
Dbphd, thx. Now if you would also be so kind and steer me to either some profession Audio reviews, or also postings here on this kind of site's chat forum, where there is in-depth discussion pertaining to SPECIFICALLY comparing Oppo direct from its analog outs, vs passive preamp vs active, I'd like to see it!
Does Oppo have built in volume? Otherwise,what,..us need passive pot or pre??.. Thx |
"In fact Im pretty certain just about every hiend audio equip you could think of produced better sounding top end preamp during that time, of which the Adcom was no match, if I recall correctly?! I mean if the passive section of that 750 was that good, why wouldn't more reviewers using them as reference pieces in their own systems???!
Anyway, what was I missing then?..."
It looks like you missed what Stereophile had to say about the GFP-750. I believe that it set the record for being the lowest cost preamp to get a class A rating. Here's part of the review where they talk about sound quality and compare it to some active preamps.
" The GFP-750 must be a disciple of Hippocrates, because it does about as little to a system's sound as any preamplifier I've heard—at any price. There is a slight—extremely slight—softening of details when it's used as an active preamplifier, but many audio cables have more sonic impact than the '750. So do most other preamps, for that matter. If you need to drive a long run of cable, or if you have a difficult amplifier impedance, I wouldn't hesitate to use the GFP-750's active circuitry.
In comparisons with the $1495 Audio Research LS8 (reviewed elsewhere in this issue by Martin Colloms), the active GFP-750 sounded considerably more open and extended. On discs with deep bass, such as Robert Rich's Seven Veils (Hearts of Space 11086-2), the Adcom quite simply captured the power and heft of the synth-produced bottom end in a way that the Audio Research did not. Without the direct comparison, I would probably have been quite happy with the LS8's bass response, but the Adcom had a lot more impact down under.
Nor did the LS8 reproduce the harmonic overtone structure of the recorders on the Flanders Recorder Quartet's Armonia di Flauti (CD, Opus 111 OPS 30-201) with the harsh and extremely extended—extremely alive—effervescence of the GFP-750. That harshness, which almost clangs, is what gives this fantastic-sounding CD its sparkle, but it was subdued by the LS8.
Again—while I clearly heard the Adcom as having superior overtone presentation in a direct comparison with the Audio Research, I did not find the ARC particularly closed-down on its own. It is not as transparent as the best preamps I've heard—which the Adcom is—but it is by no means among the most colored either. It's enjoyable, if not exemplary. The Adcom is both.
Actually, the preamplifier that most reminded me of the GFP-750 was the Mark Levinson No.380S, which costs $6495. The two had similarly open, grainless characters. In direct comparisons I had an extremely difficult time discerning differences between them—and that was a sighted comparison! Blindfold me and ask me to identify which one was playing and I'd probably have to flip a coin.
Unless the Adcom was in passive mode, when it was the sonic equivalent of nothing at all. What's it sound like? After many hours of listening, I'd have to say, "What did what sound like?" The GFP-750 is the preamp for the audiophile who hates preamps.
But if I had to describe the sound of no preamp, I'd say open, open, open. Open as in huge soundstage, uncompressed, naked—nary a veil in sight.
Not everybody prefers their sound so unembellished. I'm not sure I always do—sometimes a little euphony can be very appealing. That's okay. There's a lot to be said for liking something simply because it's pretty... But if you want to hear what the signal really sounds like, then the Adcom is the preamp for you.
Experiment treacherous, judgment difficult
But sometimes, judgment is simple. Adcom's GFP-750 is a remarkable preamplifier. It's well-built and elegantly designed—on the inside, where it counts. I've gone just gaga over it, not simply because it performs well for the money, but because it begs comparison with the best preamplifiers I've ever heard. Period. No matter how much you've budgeted for a stereo preamplifier, listen to the GFP-750 first. If you end up choosing something else, then you'll know that your choice is very good indeed."
I'm not a huge fan of Stereophile, but it seems like they were pretty happy with the Adcom. Also, it doesn't appear that they had any issues with the preamp running in passive mode like you did. Are you sure you had it set up right? |
Avgoround, your question about whether the Oppo has a volume control suggests you have never heard one and have little or no knowledge about the 95/105 analog capabilities. You can visit the Oppo 105 owners site at AVS for an extensive discussion of the pros and cons of taking a 105 direct to amp. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the work you could do yourself if you really had an interest other than promoting your belief that an active preamp is required.
db |
"..it looks like u missed what Stereophile had to say about the GFP750" "I believe it set the record for the lowest cost preamp to ever get a Class A rating" - Zd542
Zd542, no no NO NO NO!! Hate to break it you, ..don't care one iota what bogus rating Stereophile got paid to give,..ADCOM NEVER MADE IT INTO A LEGIT CLASS A STATUS!! Let me reiterate, just incase you didn't hear me ,..NEVER HAPPENED! (Yeah, let's just say it was, ahem,...conveniently "placed" there at one point) ..Used this piece in several systems, in different stores, and it's not a world class piece! I'm tellin you. It's just not. MUCH better in lists even bellow it, yes.
lemme just go ahead inform you that, after having worked directly in hiend audio retail sales in 4 different very hi end av salons for over 15 years, TO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ REGARDING AV EQUIPMENT REVIEWS!!!..YES, EVEN IF ITS STEREEOPHILE MAGAZINE!! Yes, reviewers are, have been, and always will continue to be incentivized and paid directly from equipment manufacturers-desperate for GLOWING OVER REACHING REVIEWS - because they know for proven absolute certain that such favorable write-up will SELL PRODUCT!! SEEN this over and over for decades now. That's just business. And, if anyone is naive enough to believe otherwise, then I dunno what to tell ya - but it's historically proven to be EXTREMELY difficult for small esoteric equipment makers ( let alone even larger mainstream manufacturers ) to stay in business, let a lone turn a profit. Yup, reviewers definitely play their roll..and the money changed hands in this very tight knit hiend industry. Believe it! ..as a famous competitor once said .."man,I got kids ta feed!"
So sorry to say, but no, Bryston nor Parasound never made it as an elite product line, nor was the Modulus 3A actually Class A, nor was the Mirage M1 tower class AB, .and neither did the B&W DM302 speakers really make, class B stereophile, ..and nor are Def Tech the greatest loudspeakers, as Brent Butterwort lead u to believe, and neither were Paradigms,. Also, nopeTHE Arcam AV300 AV receiver also WASNT better than separates, as crazy over zealous reviewer claimed to "sell soap", etc, and so forth.
All I'm sayin, is you gotta try this stuff out with actual hands on!...otherwise don't just always believe what's printed somewhere..cause there may be an agenda. It happened. I swear.
("Money answereth all things" -Eclessiastes 10:19) hummmmmm.. |
Sure, I will check into more Oppo postings and such...
But besides all that,..just blanketedly, It's probably safe to presume that, simply due to the fact that probably most all of the pro Hifi industry magazine reviewers use an actual -mostly active- preamp in their own personal reference systems ( and not to mention that the "Amp/preamp" forum here on Audiogon is easily 5Xs THE SIZE of this home theater forum..why is that???? ), that the entire informed audiophile world understands that preamp are merely convenient SWITCHERS, and far inferior options to simply bypassing straight from the Oppo Direct??!! ..so, what, The Oppo direct analog is undisputed the purest most high fidelity analog option that a system can attain??? Sounds like it from what I heAr here...so I'm just making sure that that's the proven position, from both audiophiles, industry pro reviewers, n hobbyists alike, fer highest fidelity 2 children perspective digital sourcing, correct?
just wanna be clear. ..cause it sure doesn't add up, when I look at the storyline thus far...but maybe I'm underestimating the Oppo alltogeth??
Let's look into this.. |
Zd542, case in point: Sound and visions Sep 2014 issue reviews a few new AV receivers on the market, including a $2000 Anthem far and a $600 entry level Available receiver. AND GUESS WHICH RECIEVER GOT THE FULL FIVE STAR RATING??!! ..That's right, the $600 light weight Sony mass market surrounds sound piece got the highest rating possible, and was lauded as sounding dynamic, open, airy and uncolored sounding!!! Comparatively, the $2 grand audiophile ambitious offering from world renowned high end audio equip mfr Anthem, got dinged with a 4.5 star rating, criticized as analytical sounding???
I'm Gunna go out on a limb, from having sold all this stuff for decades, that the Anthem indeed is the higher fidelity piece, with more refined sound, better power n dynamics and refinement, period!!
Really??!! ..you think the little Sony is REALLY FIVE star worthy, cause a review said so??!!! ..um yyeeeaaAAAHH NNOOO!!
Buyers beware..n proceed at your own risk before buying (particularly new) |
Zd542, I'd like you to please type in "gfp-750" into the search bar on home page for the discussion forums here on audition, and then proceed to read through ALL the postings pertaing to the Adcom ((mostly all are pertaining to the Adcom vs other preamps) ...
Then after you read how All the experienced posters here DOWNGRADE the actual performance of the GFP750,do be sure n get back to us on your new newely reinforced position on this piece as a legit Stereophile world class A rated component!!!!
YYEEAAAHHH ..OK. No really.. I'll wait |
And here I thought we got rid of you. I knew it was too good to be true. If any of you guys are thinking of responding to this disaster, I can tell you from experience that you're just pissing in the wind.
There's only one upside to Avgoround's posts. If you have kids, make sure they read them. If there is a more compelling example as to what happens to your brain when you do drugs, I don't know what it is. |
Avgoround,
If it's any comfort to you, I'm shipping my JC-2 to Parasound for the by-pass mod, so I'll be in Oppo BDP-105-direct-to-Proceed-HPA-amps hell for at least a couple of weeks. I'll be denied access to the JC-3 phono stage and the Ayre C-5xeMP. That should be sufficient punishment for holding such a heretical view that a preamp might not be necessary for those without analog sources.
db |
Oh, Dunno what I was thinkin! You guys are obviously correct..I'm half baked,..the Oppo is a world class transport n dig audio source, clearly on the level of a Wadia tranny from its analog outs, n the gfp750 is most certainly the same or better sound than the CAT, Reference AUD Research, etc. ..no really, musta mised all of this over the years probably.
Me n my tin ear, n spaced out tendencies towards watching the Tv that was playing in the store window.
Errr, um, yeah. ..Well at least you guys can sleep at night knowing you have found the end all be all reference system pieces, that are without equal.
..so ya got that goin fer ya...which is nice. |
I told you it was like pissing in the wind. lol. He completely ignores everything you say and then just makes stuff up out of thin air. lol. Soon, he'll start talking about his famous, reverse engineered, alien technology meter. Now that's a treat you won't want to miss. |
Imaginary equip? Yes thats valid. Once again, you are merely stating as FACT that the industry pros all recognize the Oppo as the leader in world class audio direct from its analog outs..no need for a preamp, to attain the best possible digital sound reproduction. That's all im trying to verify, really.
No really, so these are the facts? Seriously, someone please confirm here. Really. I wanna know cause its just a little suspect position, however, since when I read all the reviews n go to all the hiend audio shows, I simply never see any vendors or reviewers using this setup.
Feel free to intelligently address this observation, anytime you feel the need to actually provide a valid point. ..that and feel free to point out why the aidiophiles here cant seem to hear the superiority of the Adcom GFP750.
Anyone? Anyone at all?..
All I here are jokers cackling |
"Feel free to intelligently address this observation, anytime you feel the need to actually provide a valid point."
OK. I'll do just that, although it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Here it goes:
"08-06-14: Avgoround
Imaginary equip? Yes thats valid. Once again, you are merely stating as FACT that the industry pros all recognize the Oppo as the leader in world class audio direct from its analog outs..no need for a preamp, to attain the best possible digital sound reproduction. That's all im trying to verify, really."
Since I'm stating this as FACT, can you please define what that means? I know what fact means, but your version of FACT is clearly different than mine. Can you point out my quote that you are referring to. Here's an example of a quote is just to be clear: "Once again, you are merely stating as FACT that the industry pros all recognize the Oppo as the leader in world class audio direct from its analog outs". That is a direct quote by you. Its something you said. Now, using that as a template, can you quote me this time and show me where I made that statement of FACT that you refer to?
I won't hold my breath. lol. I've never seen an Oppo, let alone heard one. lol. I couldn't comment on its SQ even if I wanted to. lol. |
my apologies Zd542. I lump both you and the PhD-in-DP's guy into same "passive camp". Yes, simply provide some FACT based on submitting ur position that the Adcom is world class A rating worthy.
Oh, since any opinion is relative ,obviously, fer some sort of relevancy here, let's count FACT as at least half or more of those classifying themselves as audiophiles agree on an position. In this case, since pretty much every review or comparison on audition, pertaining to the 750, state that the thing ain't all that! Good enough, in my opinion.. |
ZD542, If that doesn't work for you, then how about "if the Adcom GFP750 at such a cheap price on the net is such a killer world beater deal, then why aren't lead industry respected audiophile reviewers using this thing in their reference systems, in DROVES??!!..instead of the ridiculously expensive ones their likely using instead?!
Clearly, they must be foolish not to, I suppose??..
Again..Ur response?? I'll wait |
Avgoround,
Its like I said in the other thread. If we could read your mind, it would put Barnes & Nobel out of business. It doesn't matter what anyone says. You just ignore it and make up something.
I'll make a deal with you. I asked you a question in my last post. Here it is.
"Since I'm stating this as FACT, can you please define what that means? I know what fact means, but your version of FACT is clearly different than mine. Can you point out my quote that you are referring to. Here's an example of a quote is just to be clear: "Once again, you are merely stating as FACT that the industry pros all recognize the Oppo as the leader in world class audio direct from its analog outs". That is a direct quote by you. Its something you said. Now, using that as a template, can you quote me this time and show me where I made that statement of FACT that you refer to?"
If you give me an answer to my question (And not any answer. I need the answer to the question I asked. Not just something else you make up.), then I'll do my best to give you some of the answers you want from me. If you can't do that, don't bother asking me any more questions. I'll just ignore you like I should have done in the first place. |
No no..not needed anymore, thx. No one reading hear needs care if some specific inference or special form of answer to your question gets answered in some unique manner! Thx for the games though.
You know what you are!...and that's all that counts, "Mr avoid THE IMPORTANT POINTS IN QUESTION!" - which was making your case of the Adcom actually being what some paid off biased review in an audio rag said it was..when CCCLLLEEEEAAARLY the entire audiophile community found out otherwise, including myself! That's fine..just skirt around the meat of the matter here, for what anyone cares to discuss. Surely we all think you're cool and edgy with your redirect of a redirect! WWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! Isn't this fun.??!!
Summation, apparently without rebutal: Adcom GFP750 was/is NOT so special!..so as we all could share in your heart felt sentiment towards this overrated piece of mind-first gear!!! If it was, I surely woulda bought one for a few rooms in the house, years ago, when I had the chance at dealer cost!
Thx fer the giggles! Don't bother with anymore circumventions of actual audio talk...cause that's all u got |
Mid-fi gear..my bad.
..Same goes fer the Oppo, it seems, as no stepped forward to defend its direct analog connect to an amplifier, passive application merits vs others, nor active pre comparison.
Oh well...tried |
The JC-2 is packed for shipping to Parasound for the by-pass mod, so I've been listening to the Oppo 105 direct to Proceed HPA 2 & 3 amps that drive KEF Reference 107/2 mains and 102 surrounds. I think the sound is pretty damn good, a quality of sound I could easily be happy with.
db |
Great! So direct Oppo vs Oppo to passive pre vs Oppo to active pre should be easy to judge the differences and quantify??. Like to hear the results posted, if u dare?? Yes,please compare difficult dynamic large scale stuff to compare would be awesome, n inform us all what differences u found comparing the diff connect arrangements?
Yes, oppo is as I suspected, read reviews as better than most, but bellow world class disc spinners for more money. From what I gather, I'm sure I could live with moded versions. Which ver is best bang fer???
yeah yeah...probably look into getting one for all it accomplishes.
Then again we WILL be going 4k and even disc-less real soon. Soooooooo....... |
Avoground, you're reading far too much into my posts. For stereo, I prefer my Ayre C-5xeMP for CD and SACD or my Thorens TD 124 with SME Series III arm and Ortofon SMS 30H cartridge through the Parasound JC-3 for vinyl. Of course, both of those sources go through the JC-2. OTOH, an opera on Blu-ray DTS HD MA played on the Oppo 105 and projected onto our 100" screen is a treat.
db |
Am very happy to find people having 'fun' with this thread, and am more than ready to jump into the melee or would be if I didn't have equipment comparisons to get to ...
As stated earlier I was going to do some testing with a Placette passive pre and compare with an active (a Forte Audio Model 2). So far inconclusive except for the clear fact that there is no "dynamic" rolloff of any sort whatsoever, and I see no reason why there would be given Placette's attempts to prevent it. It's been nothing but a pleasure to listen to the passive in concert with Pass Labs x250 and Vandersteen 2Cs. If you doubt it, give me some source material to listen to that should convince me. I want to hear the rolloffs but simply can't - highs are well extended and bass is beautiful and as "dynamic" as is delivered by the Forte.
Avo - you've written a lot and I've enjoyed most of it and appreciate quite a bit of the writing. I'm getting plenty out of it as well, but always with a keen eye on the lookout for extreme subjective commentary. There is a lot, but that's true with most of the posts here. I find that to be useful at times as well. However you never even tried to answer the question I posed to you about your claim that "Not properly oversimplifying the initial signal before the amp section, will cost you in that area." There's no way for me to understand what you mean, either as an engineer or an wanna-be-audiophile. "Oversimplifying" just isn't a word that means anything at all to me. Can you at least try to explain this comment you made? |
"As stated earlier I was going to do some testing with a Placette passive pre and compare with an active (a Forte Audio Model 2). So far inconclusive except for the clear fact that there is no "dynamic" rolloff of any sort whatsoever, and I see no reason why there would be given Placette's attempts to prevent it. It's been nothing but a pleasure to listen to the passive in concert with Pass Labs x250 and Vandersteen 2Cs. If you doubt it, give me some source material to listen to that should convince me. I want to hear the rolloffs but simply can't - highs are well extended and bass is beautiful and as "dynamic" as is delivered by the Forte."
I'm familiar with the components you are trying here, and if I had to guess what kind of results you would get, it would be what you just stated. Pass, in my opinion, is much better with amps than preamps. Going from the Forte to the Placette, I would expect dynamics and resolution to increase a bit, even though you are using a passive. But the argument here isn't passive vs active, its the Placette vs Forte Model 2. Each component has its own sound, regardless of design. So, while you can make some generalizations as to the overall merits of one type of design over another, in the end, you still have to take things on a case by case basis. And in this case, I don't think you overlooked anything. Your findings make complete sense. |
HAZYJ, sorry about that. It was an auto word spelled TYPO!
The word I was trying to type was "AMPLIFYING" ..not oversimplifying.
My understanding has always been that source components, have not historically outputted the same level of amplified or buffered analog signal as say you would from a good active preamp output signal!! In fact, if you read through both old and even more recent threads and reviews on passive preamp n such, you'll get similar feedback (which often is commented as "constricted dynamics" or even rolled highs, on occasion) from those who have tried passive pres and direct both!
My years past results ,using high end CD and DVD players with passive pres and direct to amp ,BOTH have only resulted in softened dynamics, unfortunately, as well..otherwise I would have stayed using Pass Aleph L passive pre, or direct analog out from my 24/96 DVD player w built in volume control, amp direct, if I had gotten stronger overall sounding results! It just never worked out, and I was much more satisfied using meow expensive active preamp, accordingly.
That make sense?
Now, however, looks like I'm unna look into trying, yes, the likes of a modded Oppo, direct to tube n ss amps BOTH, with short ICs n see if that player handles the passive, or even no-preamp approach, better than years past. If it does, I'll be most encouraged, certainly!
I mean, seriously, who wouldn't want to be able do without an unnecessary extra component in the chain if they can effectively do without it?! I would, sure. ...just can't live with with whimpy dynamics nor constrained soundstage from my sound. No no..that I WILL NOT do. It's just uninspiring n weak sounding, otherwise, you know... |
Zd543 says "But the argument here isn't passive vs active, its the Placette vs Forte Model 2. Each component has its own sound, regardless of design"
I'm going to play devil's advocate here to see what the responses might be, as I find this to be one of the big topics in the audiophile community. It interests me greatly and I'd like to know others' feelings as well ...
I believe your opinion is the Placette Passive "has it's own sound", and my D.A. response is that I'd expect that sound to be that of the source. If you tell me that no, the passive adds or subtracts something then I'd ask for an objective if not factual basis for that statement.
Where is this all going? In my opinion this is going in the direction of asking "just what IS the sound of the source"? I don't think that's been adequately addressed anywhere I've been reading. Why? Because this sound is dependent upon the recording specifics, the other components and the listening environment. I don't think it's too bold to state that the only way to reproduce the true sound of the source is to have the vocals, instruments and venue almost perfectly reproduced (whatever that means) in your listening room. Is that even possible when most audiophiles (I believe) listen through only the two channels in their own home listening environments?
My true opinion about all this (losing the devil's advocate point of view now) is that for almost all of us extremely analytic listeners of different recordings of various musical genres it doesn't matter! You either do one or the other of these ...
1. spend all your time and $$ trying to reproduce the sound of the source - a very expensive endeavor that's not possible because every recording is different and a single system just cannot truely reproduce each soundstage & venue recorded. Even the most expensive and/or well engineered systems can only come close to truely reproducing SOME recordings and venues but will fall far short of others ( though in a pleasant sort of way). Or ...
2. spend only enough time and $$ needed to achieve compromises that result in an enjoyable listening experience for as many recordings of your preferred musical tastes and recordings as possible. Will it be as enjoyable as approach #1? That's completely up to the listener to decide.
A closing question as a case in point: do some audiophiles prefer tubes and vinyl because those technologies and approaches give them the feeling of the most accurate sound reproduction or is it because they simply like the sound? Does it even matter?
|
Avo-
Yes - I understand now. "Amplifying" makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. |
