Always had amps with 250W or more at 8ohms for 25+ years.
Had pickup truck bed of receivers, stereo amps, mono amps, etc etc. with less than 150W’s. Always clipped, never sounded good at drum solos, hard rocking metal/rock. Always sounded strained, and learned my lesson when I blew multiple mids and tweeters and 1 woofer.
If you like 100, 125, 40, or those little 3 watt amps, enjoy.
Not for me, and not at the levels I listen to.
More has always been better for me. It’s just effortless, clean, unrestrained flow of power to my speakers.
Will never get anything less than 250w @ 8 ohms ever again.
My experience and opinion.
Enjoy the music. |
MC is very wrong again on many accounts. Headroom - this is where an amp can really shine in producing high instant peaks and crescendos. If any amp, listening amp, guitar/bass amp, pushing an amp too hard will cause distortion, clipping, or possibly shut it down. Headroom is a buffer of sorts, just like the car you drive, do you always need 300hp to go to the store? No, but when passing or trailering you might hedge that way. MC always gives his wisdom on speaker sensitivity and since he thinks his low fi speakers are 94db rated, he tells everybody to ignore speakers less than 90+db efficient. He ignores a few reviews of tekton speakers where the reviewer actually measured tekton 7db lower than the rated 94db from the manufacturer. If this is the case, which I’m guessing is fact since 1 of the trade mags does measurement tests and MC doesn’t, I would think MC would follow his own advice and start looking for a quality speaker this time around that’s 90+db efficient. IMO, it’s foolish to state a speaker needs to be greater than 90db unless you want to use a low powered SET amp, then by all means look for a high efficient speaker. |
Speaking of amps that will truly, "Double Down".
The only one's, "theoretically" that will, that I know of are the Pass "Aleph 0's".
I had a pair of the, "Aleph 2" but I never really ran them hard.
Very nice amps though.....
"Erik"?
You mentioned a "Mythical" Krell, 50 watt amp also? Do you by any chance mean the KHA-100 mono-blocks?
I have a pair sitting here. And cannot seem to find anything much about them. Large though. |
I'm glad you are enjoying the results!!
I apologize I was thinking of the generic/common use of convolution filters with Roon, which most time is a thoughtless exercise.
Those same filters however can be used to make much more discrete changes.
My bad. :)
|
@erik_squires When it comes to Convoluton filters what I have now was created by a rock star in the field, not by some random DIY’er who thinks they are an expert after tinkering around. This was done by a professional audio engineer doing this for 20+ years and has written a book on this issue. What I have now is the best tweak or upgrade to my system. I do not know if you hang out in the Computer Audiophile site but my filters were created based on info posted there. Some very knowledge folks on this issue over there. I am posting my findings here because most folks on this site are not aware of the possibilities with Convolution. My Convolution files was created using Audiolense which I understand is some very complicated software (Accurate is another option). It is also not free, like REW. I had to pay $200 for a 1 time license usage of the software by the outsourced audio expert. The implementation cost was another $500. Peanuts from my perspective. I paid more for an XLR interconnect and that had 0.00145% the benefit of the Convolution. What I solved was getting a big speaker into a small room and getting it sounding perfect. That was my goal from the start and mission accomplished. It took me 2 years to get to this destination from the start of this thread. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/big-speakers-in-small-room-at-moderate-volume-levels?highligh...With regards to ROON setup, I have a 2 computer solution. My client computer was picked out of the trash 5 years ago from an previous employer. My ROON Core server is a under $1K DELL refurbished machine. It has something like 20 cores and 32 Gigs of RAM. This is actually my weakest server in the house, I have about 10 computers in the house. ROON Core does not need that much power, even with Convolution. If you go to the ROON forums and ask the ROON developers there they will tell you the same. I had a buddy over to my office today. I had him sit at my desk and I played the music. He had the same reaction I am having, glorious sound. I have actually heard enough uber systems and other non-uber great systems to know that my system is now also great. |
@diamonddupree I should be happy with the sound I am getting from a single AHB2 now. However, if I was that type of person I would not be hanging around A'gon.
I have great synergy with my all Benchmark system now. Adding that second AHB2 will just move the needle to 11. |
PS - When it comes to convolution filters and roon, I go 100% with Toole. I think they are too much, and if you want to go that flat, what is the point of your speaker brand to begin with?
With Roon, I prefer minimal EQ, using parametrics. It maintains the character of my speakers, reduces CPU demand on the Roon server, and does the least harm. Also, prevents over-EQing for 1 spot.
|
If you are looking into CODA, try the Sanders MagTech. Made by CODA with built in power supply regulation. The only other big amps I know of who have any sort of regulation are the Krells. I'm sure there are others though.
That was going to be one of my suggestions from the start, but I thought you wanted to stay with bigger brands.
Best,
Erik
|
ref1000s do not have custom input stage for best tube amp results nor beefed up power supply.....stock icepower. So may not be best still for a 4 ohm load or use with tube pre-amp if needed, ....even though 500 w/ch. You need somewhat pricier ref1000m for that. ref1000m is what I have been using for a number of years now and still sound very good. Drives every speaker I have thrown at it to the max (Ohm, Dynaudio, KEF) and never breaks a sweat. |
@yyzsantabarbara a second AHB might not even do it. There's a pair of Belo Canto Ref 1000s available right here on Agon I think for less than $2k. |
@diamonddupree Those numbers you listed was why I am still investigating more power. However, I really wanted make the AHB2 work because I like it more than other amps (I have heard a lot). For less than $3K I think I will improve my sound a lot by going mono. Even though the AHB2 is not officially rated at 2 Ohm because it cannot run a test tone for 30 minutes at 2 Ohm (the AHB2 in stereo can). I think that is inconsequential now after my test yesterday. Even if it clips the forward correction will stop that from getting to the speaker. Since I have been investigating other amps. The 2 other lines I was considering are: CODA #8 - 150 | 300 | 600 (approx. first 18 watt class A but halved as impedance halved)
- 250 | 500 | 1000 (approx. first 12 watt class A but halved as impedance halved)
- 400 | 800 | 1600 (approx. first 8 watt class A but halved as impedance halved)
- SNR 118
CODA #16 with a SNR 130 and first 100 watt Class A. I think it's power rating is as follows,
150 | 300 | 600. The upcoming Class D Puriif amps with 1000+ watt in 2 Ohm. These ones maybe the closest sounding to the AHB2. I was also considering the Luxman m900u which is similar in spec to the CODA #8 (150 | 300 | 600) but 3x the cost. It sounds great and the only one I have heard from this list. I should be able to get a second AHB2 next month. |
@yyzsantabarbara Thiel says those speakers, though rated at 4ohm, will go down to 2.8. With recommended power at 100w - 600w, I bet they spend a fair amount of time at or near 2.8. The AHB puts out 190 @ 4ohm, 240 @ 3ohm. I'm still learning here but I would say that's way underpowered for the Thiels. Have you considered a high output Class D? I believe @mapman is running Bel Canto Ref 1000 monoblocks after switching from a lower-powered Musical Fidelity and says the difference was night and day. I bet those would do wonders for your Thiels as well. |
Below is an email I just sent to the guy that did my ROON Convolution filter for my small room system. Since you are sound guy I thought you would find this interesting.
I was curious how the Benchmark AHB2 in mono would sound with my Thiel CS3.7, which likes power at low impedance. So I took my single stereo AHB2 and switched it to mono and drove only 1 speaker. It sounded louder and with more details. It also was much more hard hitting. I listened to Soundgarden: A Sides completely on stereo. I then kept everything the same and played the CD again but in AHB2 mono and single speaker. Even with a single speaker I had more bass. In fact the bass was so much that I had to change filters to the first one you gave me where the bass was not enhanced. After I changed from filter 3 to filter 1 my irritation subsided.
I was always curious whether more power at low to medium volume gives you better sound. For me it seems obvious that it does. I believe in mono the AHB2 gain is boosted 6 db however, I am hearing more than increased loudness. It is a better sound. I should add that the AHB2 SNR drops to 135 when the AHB2 is run in mono. That is not much different that the SNR 132 in stereo but I was hearing more details in mono. I think my Thiel gobbled up that extra power and made better sound and it was not the SNR that made the sound better. - Filter 1 was a Convolution file that was very flat. Now using with the single speaker running a AHB2 in mono (700 watts @ 2 Ohm) - Filter 3 was a Convolution file that had a slight bump in the bass from 100 Hz down. I was using this filter with the stereo AHB2 which does not have much power into 2 Ohm (259 watts). So yes, I am buying a second AHB2 to run in mono. Maybe Floyd was using a more efficient speaker. |
I have come to believe, with limited data that the issue is not the
amplifier’s power rating but how consistently it performs across the
audio band, and this is a place where the math doesn’t quite live up to
the audible effects. The problem isn't the math, its how the amplifier is measured which is something else altogether. Most traditional amplifiers (tube and solid state) that employ feedback don't/can't use enough, so as frequency is increased distortion increases too. This results in brightness/harshness, and is fundamentally at the tubes/transistors debate. To get around this problem, distortion is usually measured at 100Hz which is too low a frequency for the problems I described to show up. This has become a tradition, so there are those that do this and don't realize that its only done that way to sweep dirt under the carpet. The reason not enough feedback is used is that you need in excess of 35dB of feedback to prevent it causing brightness (distortion) through its application. This is because traditional amplifiers lack the Gain Bandwidth Product to really allow them the proper amount of feedback at 7KHz and higher. In addition, phase margin is a problem so amps with this much feedback can be unstable and go into oscillation. If you can run enough feedback, the amp will sound just as smooth as any tube amp running zero feedback. I think what you are describing is really just the amp showing off its limitations. |
I think one area we should talk about is not power, but sag. I don’t have a better word for it, but I’ve seen speakers with low impedance, sometimes deliberately low impedance, sometimes unavoidable, sometimes the result of ad hoc experimentation, become "discerning." That is, they give off the impression that they are so revealing that different amplifiers now sound glaringly different.
I have come to believe, with limited data that the issue is not the amplifier’s power rating but how consistently it performs across the audio band, and this is a place where the math doesn’t quite live up to the audible effects. I find that speakers with drooping impedance have this characteristic, and that amps which _should_ be quite stiff and sturdy, are still susceptible.
So, I don’t think 300 Watts is a lot better than 200, or maybe 100. It’s the output impedance in the location of the speaker’s impedance droop that matters a lot more. The mythical Krell 50 W Class A which doubles in power down to 1 Ohm is a great example of what I’m talking about. It’s also mroe than I would use, but it helps illustrate what I think is going on.
Yes, big amps tend to have more output transistors, and therefore, lower output impedance, but it’s not the power rating that makes them sound better with some speakers.
Best,
Erik
|
I mainly agree with everything erik_squires stated in his last post.
My only disagreement is that in my practical experience, the use of 4
subs, properly positioned and configured in a distributed bass array
(DBA) concept system, results in exceptionally good bass performance in
most any room. Just as Dr. Earl Geddes scientifically proved with his
PHD thesis over 4 decades ago.
Sorry, was assuming 1 sub placement. I don't have a problem with this either. |
Correction, my monos are 1,200 watts each into 4 ohms
Tim
|
I mainly agree with everything erik_squires stated in his last post. My only disagreement is that in my practical experience, the use of 4 subs, properly positioned and configured in a distributed bass array (DBA) concept system, results in exceptionally good bass performance in most any room. Just as Dr. Earl Geddes scientifically proved with his PHD thesis over 4 decades ago.
There's also no need for any bass acoustic room treatments of any type when using this concept. Mics, room analysis and room correction equipment are interesting and can be utilized if preferred, of course, but I'm certain none of this was required in my 23'x16'x8' room to perform at a very high level.
On another topic that danvignau posted about, I'm failing to understand why having an abundance of amp headroom in an audio system can be accurately considered to be anything other than beneficial by Floyd Toole or anyone else.
As a practical but admittedly anecdotal matter, I drive fairly inefficient, 86db/1 watt, Magnepan 3.7i 4 ohm speakers with 2,400 watt/30 amp class D monoblocks with an abundance of beneficial results and no negative results that I've been able to discern.
Tim
|
Concerning headroom: Each channel of an early Bryston 200 wpc amp has a 375 watt transformer, two 4000 Mf filter caps and two outputs. The 125 wpc Audire has a 500 watt transformer per side, plus 4 26,000 Mf filter caps and 6 output devices. At loud volumes, teh Bryston loses some bass oomph. Later Audire gear uses many more outputs. When the power supply is big enough, the output transistors can regulate the current provided; when too small, they have to strain to get anything out, as Julius Siksnius of Audire discovered with his first amp, which had a one thousand watt transformer, and two much smaller filter caps, plus six outputs driving both channels, not one. Mine became a great sub amp, but the upper ranges sounded a bit taxed when playing really loud on full range speakers, but much less so than My Phase Linear 400.
|
One thing I’ve noticed in reading his book and even in his posts is that his observations are for multi-seat listening. Yeah, while I will never have achieved the academic and scientific level of achievement, or renown, of course, that Toole has and deserves, I also come from a motion picture theater background, so I really love his writing and perspective. In the book, almost everything he has to say about low frequencies and subwoofer placement has to do with optimizing for multiple seating positions. I think this explains a lot about his own choices in home audio. I’m mainly concerned with single-seat listening. My home theater system is good enough for my purposes. I know it may not sound as relevant, but your fixes are _almost_ always the same. Controlling reverberation time for instance is something hard to do for one spot, without also controlling it in the rest of the room. Adding effective bass traps makes EQ possible. What Toole gets exactly right, IMHO, is that the concept of room correction is greatly oversold. attempting big corrections in EQ because your sound field sucks doesn’t end up with acceptable solutions for most. Let me explain with a common and specific problem. Let’s say you have a harsh or compressed mid/treble experience in a very live room. Measuring it hyper accurately at your seated position may flatten the curve, but it still won’t sound good. You will control the energy say, between 2kHz and 10 kHz, so it no longer sounds too bright, or too dull, but with long reverb times, all that signal is noise. It’s like watching a movie, where you get the right color and brightness but you can’t tell the actors and scenery apart. In the bass, with a bad room, the best you can do is clip peaks. Now, that may be a really good improvement, I've seen peaks that were the equivalent of 200x the power output vs. the rest of the system, and clipping them was a major benefit, which EQ can handily do, but trying to EQ these subs into a great response requires a sledgehammer like approach with major amplitude shifts in multiple adjacent bands which, may work for exactly one place and is not all that satisfactory a solution at the end. Fix your reverberation, and often, the tonal balance fixes itself, and then you are left with very mild, gentle corrections to make. Add bass traps, the peaks flatten themselves, the nulls stop being so severe and again, just a little EQ here and there can give superb experiences. Hope this helps, Erik |
Excess anything by definition is not needed. It’s excess. The question with amps is always at what point is it excess?
Another way to look at excess headroom is your insurance policy against clipping. Avoiding clipping should be high on the list of things to tend to for any audiophile. |
Thanks for all the crossover recommendations. I've bookmarked all of them. And thanks @noble100 for the Toole link. One thing I've noticed in reading his book and even in his posts is that his observations are for multi-seat listening. In the book, almost everything he has to say about low frequencies and subwoofer placement has to do with optimizing for multiple seating positions. I think this explains a lot about his own choices in home audio. I'm mainly concerned with single-seat listening. My home theater system is good enough for my purposes.
Next move for me is a mic to measure the response at my listening position. Then I can tinker with PEQ and see what that's all about before deciding if an analog crossover is worth a look. And then there's Butterworth vs. Bessel vs. Linkwitz-Riley filters. The force of the rabbit hole is strong. |
Hi OP,
Glad you are enjoying your new set up.
I still agree with Toole, in general, that excess amplifier headroom does not seem to have a big benefit, as opposed to having drivers with excess headroom, or reducing the demand on mid-woofers.
The best explanation I have of why subwoofers seem to help speakers perform better in so many ways is not headroom, but Doppler distortion.
It also seems to be why 3-way systems may have a lot more clarity than 2 way systems.
By removing low frequency demand, you remove a great deal of Doppler distortion you'd have to deal with otherwise. The ability to EQ signals below the Shroeder frequency while you are at it is a big bonus.
Best,
Erik
|
If you "like", the sound of the Mini-DSP? You will love this. The K-231. And, I have no affiliation with these guys other than using this crossover and being extremely happy with it https://sublimeacoustic.com/products/k231-stereo-3-way-active-crossover Because "I" could not bear the mini's change in the soundstage in any rig I tried it in, "3". Plus a few other issue's..... I found this little company three years ago and keep a couple of the "K-231's," around. "I have needed to cascade two of them a couple of times for a 5-way". VERY, "Well designed and with a clean, high quality build American made still too! You can still call these guy's and they "will", call you back. But these seem to be catching on so they are busy..... I have been bugging them for a unit with an ext. case that is at least a, "Half-rack" space. "Instead of the little box. So it will have the room for both, RCA and also XLR, In/Out And those are supposed to be coming. But haven't heard about that for a bit. The K-231 has had both balanced and unbalanced in/out but the balanced side utilizes (1/4 "-TRS ), currently. "Instead of the XLR.'s". The last two they made for me have nice quality "IEC sockets" also. But that, "May" still be an optional, "Mod".. As Mine were. I thought at first the freq. "Modules" would be a pain but as it turned out, I really like them. They made me a bit more "serious", about where the x-over points on a few projects really, "needed" to be. But now I have a box full of them. Ha ha, Looking back? Collecting the frequency modules? It felt akin to collecting, "Baseball" cards.....! Wow, I sound like a sales rep. "Shudders"..... So,
And, I have no affiliation with these guys other than using this crossover and being extremely happy with it It is, "Nifty".
|
Hello diamonddupree and all, I was searching for more info on anything Toole has stated about amp headroom but couldn't find much. But I came across an older AVS Forum post along the way that I thought you and others on this thread may get a kick out of reading, It's from about 2003 and it describes his own home system at that time which is interesting. And he even talks about a type of loudness wars in movie soundtrack mixing he noticed back then, in which the soundtracks were mixed for everything to be loud, the cinema operators would turn down the master volume in the theaters and, as a result, some of the dialogue on scenes was not loud enough. It reminded me of engineers raising the overall loudness of cds and crushing the dynamics in the process. He used Revel Salon 2 mains positioned upside down, other Revel surround speakers and 4 subs in his system at that time. Here's the link: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/revel-owners-thread.710918/page-482#post-52485977Tim |
Hey Diamond, Here is a link to a DBX analog crossover. https://dbxpro.com/en-US/products/223xsThe biggest difference between this and the MiniDSP and the PA2 other than the one being analog and the others digital is that the MiniDSP and the PA2 can do everything the 223xs can plus much more, such as time alignment between your sub and mains, equalization, different style crossover slopes, driver protection and I believe user created preset memories so you can tune your system for different genres if you so desired. The 223xs can only perform crossover functions and its slope is predetermined and not changeable. Though that slope is the most widely used slope, at least amongst active crossovers. In full disclosure I have not actually used a MiniDSP and I am assuming it's capabilities are similar to the DBX. I have reservations about the conversion going on inside the MiniDSP, which seems to make my DAC an afterthought. I think I understand what you are saying here, but the MiniDSP or any type of crossover cannot replace your DAC. They have completely different jobs. |
Sounds like things are going well and as they should.
Your main amp is not working anywhere near as hard covering only down to 90hz. It’s like putting the same size engine in a much smaller car.
Also the sub is better cut out to handle the lowest bass and that’s all it has to do. Perfect!
You still need a DAC and yours is still doing the same thing it was before. It either sounds better now or not. That’s all that matters. If you notice some thing not there that was before you could always try something other than miniDSP to do the same thing. Or even just an analog active crossover. Many ways to skin the cat. But I have only heard good things about mini DSP to date.
|
|
Actually @audiorusty, I think the DBX would work. I could run XLRs from the DAC to the XLR inputs and run all XLRs out to my amp and sub. Thanks, this may be a better analog option instead of the DSP. |
@yyzsantabarbara this goes back to my original question which is why does Floyd Toole, who obviously knows a few things, discount the value of headroom? It seems to help in so many scenarios but unfortunately, he doesn’t elaborate on it. LMK how the amp works out. I’m curious to know. |
Thanks @audiorusty, there seems to be no shortage of RCA crossovers and XLR crossovers but not many that have both. The only ones I've found are by JL Audio and SPL and both are fairly pricey. The DBX seems to be XLR only unless there's one I'm missing.
I'm so glad I posted this thread because I've learned a ton. (You're not the only one @larry5729! Thank you @erik_squires @mapman @onhwy61 @mrdecibel @noble100 @yyzsantabarbara and everyone else!)
I have about an hour of listening with the MiniDSP. The setup was straightforward enough. I set the high pass filter for the mains at 90hz and the sub low pass at the same. The sub has its own LPF. The HPF I had to set using the MiniDSP software installed on my Mac. Once I had the software synced with the unit, which took about five seconds, I was able to set the high pass. Couldn't have been easier. I'll have to play around with the crossover point but a few observations so far.
The amp is obviously not working as hard as before. I can reach the same SPL at a lower volume on the DAC (which doubles as my preamp). With the JL sub going up to 90hz, the bass is tighter and more finely detailed. I've been listening to an album called Wood by Brian Bromberg. He plays a 300-year old double bass with a lot of slapping, sliding and plucking techniques, which gives you a good taste of transient detail and the excellent character of the 18th century bass. There's a lot of it with the JL going up to 90hz and with the Magico Minis rolling off earlier. And there was a lot of detail already there before. But now, it's even more three-dimensional. It's the same thing with a Charlie Haden/Jim Hall album that's been on heavy rotation, where the bass articulation just jumps out of the soundstage.
I'm not sure if it's the mains not having to extend down to 40hz or the extra headroom from the amp not having to drive the mains that low, or maybe a combination of the two, but the DSP makes both the sub and the mains sound better, and the whole system more resolving. Brad Mehldau's piano from a 1990 Art of the Trio live recording sounds slightly smaller than another Art of the Trio recording from 1997, and both pianos sound smaller than Chick Corea's on Trilogy 2. I've listened to all three albums many times and never noticed the difference in the apparent size of the piano. Quite an upgrade for just a $200 piece of gear.
I guess I should just be happy at that but of course, I have reservations about the conversion going on inside the MiniDSP, which seems to make my DAC an afterthought. I'm really curious how an analog crossover would work but for now, I'm going to enjoy the improvements this inexpensive little upgrade has given me. Thanks again to everyone who took the time to respond and share their expertise.
|
@diamonddupree Here is a post that is related to your original question. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/coda-no-16-amplifier.31078/page-2 (post #22). I am interested in the same amp as this guy. It looks like this guy will have 2 amps to compare side-by-side in January. Here is what he is referring to on V1 and V3. V1: 150 Watts x 2 into 8 Ohms 300 Watts x 2 into 4 Ohms 600 Watts x 2 into 2 Ohms
Class A ~18 Watts V2: 250 Watts x 2 into 8 Ohms 500 Watts x 2 into 4 Ohms 1000 Watts x 2 into 2 Ohms
Class A ~12 Watts V3: 400 Watts x 2 into 8 Ohms 800 Watts x 2 into 4 Ohms 1600 Watts x 2 into 2 Ohms
Class A ~8 Watts |
I run XLR cables to my sub because when I've run RCA, there's a low-level hum from the sub that completely goes away when I use XLR cables. DBX makes a DSP unit that has XLR outputs. https://dbxpro.com/en/products/driverack-pa2 If you shop around I think you can find one around the same price point as a MIniDSP. Inline RCA active crossover? They make high pass filters for 70hz and 100hz. Any reason why these wouldn’t work? These would work provided the crossover point the you need is either 70 or 100 Hz and they give you the proper slope. A DSP unit will give you many more crossover point options and should offer several different slopes. @noble100 Hi Tim, I do not have any actual experience with the MiniDSP. My experience is with DBX and XTA and both of those allow you to configure the outputs in any manner that you desire, From what I have read and heard, I'm assuming that the MiniDSP works the same way. |
All of you are above my knowledge, but would extra power provide less distortion as a result of not having to push thing so hard to achieve a certain volume level. I would also think matching efficient speakers could also help. What about adding a pair of REL Subwoofer. Reason why I mention REL is I like their high level connection because this enables them to act more like woofers to extend the bass seamlessly. Since they are powered this is an efficient way to reproduce bass. Wish I had the knowledge of this group. I'd be curious to know how many of you are dealers because you are certainly technical. I learn a great deal from all of you. |
I originally drove a pair of Acoustat 1100's with a Sumo Andromeda II A power amp... 240 into 8, 400 into 4 and 750 into 2. They are a combination woofer module and a tall electrostatic element. The panels dip as far down as 2 ohms at 10K and over frequencies. I thought that was plenty of power until I decided to bi-amp and use a second matching stereo amp. Woofer modules are fed with one channel of each amp and the panels get a channel of each amp. Bass was tighter and better controlled immediately, transients such as snare drum and all percussion was much better, instantly.
|
HI,
So the caps I was suggesting is the same exact idea.
You'd just have to build your own RCA cable. :)
|
|
@erik_squires the day I try to install that is the last day my amp would ever work.
MiniDSP comes tomorrow. I have no idea what to expect. Should be interesting. |
You may want to go even cheaper than a miniDSP. :) Get a capacitor of around 0.04uF and put it in line with your amp inputs. https://www.partsconnexion.com/JAM-82668.htmlBTW, I have a miniDSP and I love it, but I only use it in my sub path way for the reasons you are concerned with. Of course, if only audiophiles could give up these damn separates and go with an Anthem streamer/preamp or similar with built in room correction and bass management. :) Best, Erik |
Hello mrD,
I really don't disagree with anything you stated. I would just add that high efficiency speakers are not a requirement if you enjoy your music at hearing health threatening levels. I know you didn't state otherwise but I thought some might mistakenly assume this. I personally listen to music at about 70-90 dbs but on occasions I will go over 100 dbs when I get the urge.
But I understand my speakers can safely handle very high volumes as long as the power is clean; it's normally high distortion and clipping that damage speakers. My system is capable of playing at volumes well above levels I care to ever listen at but I like knowing my system's capable, consider it a sign of quality and view it much like a high quality car that's luxurious, a great cruiser on the highways, very powerful and fast when you feel the need but also gets good mileage when I take it easy.
I have fairly inefficient Magnepan 3.7i main speakers driven by 1,200 watt @ 4 ohm class D monoblocks that have very low distortion. I run them full range but also supplement the bass between about 20-40 Hz with 4 subs powered by a separate class AB 1K watt amp.
I built my system based on the concept of combining 2 systems: a very powerful and dynamic bass system, that's also textured, tonally accurate and detailed, to establish a solid foundation for any genre of music along with a high quality pair of main speakers layed on top that provides very good midrange, treble and stereo imaging performance.
The most difficult part, in my experience, is getting the bass sounding right and seamlessly integrated with the main speakers. My opinion is that at least a pair of good quality subs are a requirement for optimum results.
I've found getting the midrange, treble and stereo imaging sounding right is the easier part, especially if high quality and well matched amps and speakers are utilized and the speakers are precisely positioned in the room and in relation to the designated listening seat. Lastly, strategically placed acoustic room treatments work wonders.
Overall, I believe diamonddupree has all the necessary component system parts to build a similarly very good system, possibly even better.
Tim
|
To the OP, and everyone. I am here to not play devils advocate, but here it goes. 1st, lots of good information shared above. Steve Guttenberg, the Audiophiliac, came out with a video on his channel a few weeks ago, asking " Is your system perfectly matched to your music ? ". I think it should go beyond that. Is your system matched to your listening " habits "? What I am finding here is, by the OP, trying to get sound pressure levels ( 100 - 105 db ) out of a mini monitor ( with 7 inch woofers ) is not very realistic, no matter the quality, or power. I listen loud, and my peak levels approach these levels often, but with a pair of modified and tweaked Klipsch Lascala. They do everything I want them to do, with all types of music ( they run full range, and I do have subs to extend the much needed bottom end ). I hear compression with most low efficiency dynamic speakers ( panels too ), and specifically, mini monitors. One of the reasons to listen to music with an audiophile type system to begin with, is to experience the full scale of dynamics and shadings, of the musicianship, of the players and the composers, of our favorite music. Raising the level does not always get you there, unless you have the right system, " for you ". I take nothing away from those using eqs, crossovers, dsp, or whatever else. However, I find it all to be band aids ( ime, and to my ears / brain ), with the added complexity of electronics and cables added to the system, it ultimately hinders the details of what I want to hear, from my recordings. ymmv. Enjoy, be well and stay safe. Always, MrD. |
audiorusty:"
Proper installation of your MiniDSP would be between your preamp and amps. IOW you would connect the left and right outputs from your preamp to inputs 1 and 2 of the MiniDSP. You would then send two of the four MiniDSP outputs to the inputs of your Musical Fidelity amp and one of the remaining MiniDSP outputs to your sub. Technically you could send both of the remaining two outputs of the MiniDSP to the your sub as long as the sub has both a left and a right input but I doubt if you would notice any difference.
Hello audiorusty,
Very useful info but I'm still trying to completely understand how the DSP Mini operates. So in diamonddupree's system with his combination Mytek preamp/dac, he would just use a pair of standard/analog rca cables to connect the main left and right outputs of his preamp to the MiniDSP's inputs 1 and 2. Then he would use another pair of rca cables to connect 2 of the 4 outputs on the MiniDSP to his amp.
Questions:
He can use any 2 of the 4 outputs on the MiniDSP?
How does the user know which output is the left channel and which is the right ch to ensure proper connections to the amp's l+r inputs?
Assuming these 2 connections are somehow accurately l+r connected to the amp.
Questions:
Could the remaining 2 of the 4 outputs on the MiniDSP each be utilized as summed l+r ch mono bass outputs, with a single cable going to each of a pair of self-amplified subs?
Is there a method to configure the internal functioning of the MiniDSP for things such as assigning l+r ch outputs and the low-pass/subs and high-pass/main speakers crossover frequency settings?
Thanks,
Tim |
@erik_squires no, the JL only has a low pass filter. They make an active crossover that does high and low but it's not cheap. I have a feeling I'm going to try the MiniDSP just to see what rolling off the mains at around 80hz sounds like and I'll probably take it right out. I like my DAC and I'm not crazy about the DSP ding its own conversion after the Brooklyn. |
I really like the room correction in the JL Audio, doesn't it have a high pass output as well? I'd go that route before adding more gear.
|
Thanks @ https://forum.audiogon.com/users/audiorusty. My DAC is my preamp. The Brooklyn DAC+ is both a DAC and a preamp. But most everything else you said applies. I'll take the analog outputs from the Brooklyn and connect them to the analog inputs on the MiniDSP, then the analog outputs from the DSP to the MF amp. Only thing is, I run XLR cables to my sub because when I've run RCA, there's a low-level hum from the sub that completely goes away when I use XLR cables. And the MiniDSP doesn't have XLR outputs. So I'll have to stick with the XLRs going from the Brooklyn to the sub (L & R). |
@atmasphere the JL sub that I have makes it very easy to set up with auto room correction. It comes with a mic that you place at the listening position, run a test sequence and the sub's internal DSP corrects for the room modes. I've never had a problem setting up the sub anywhere I've placed it. In corners, against wall, midwall. Once I run the room correction software, from the listening the position, there are no nulls, peaks or modes as far as I can tell.
|
Proper installation of your MiniDSP would be between your preamp and amps. IOW you would connect the left and right outputs from your preamp to inputs 1 and 2 of the MiniDSP. You would then send two of the four MiniDSP outputs to the inputs of your Musical Fidelity amp and one of the remaining MiniDSP outputs to your sub. Technically you could send both of the remaining two outputs of the MiniDSP to the your sub as long as the sub has both a left and a right input but I doubt if you would notice any difference. |
Yes but the topic was total amps not power so # amps per channel x 2.
Class D amps are most efficient by a large margin. That’s their biggest claim to fame. So they are inherently better at delivering more power and current than others. Just like more efficient speakers are better at going louder with less.
You will have to take that argument up with bel canto and their published specs for PEAK amps and power onto both 8 and 4 ohms. That power double couldn’t happen without the hefty # amps to enable it. If more than enough, then better safe than sorry. Right now the OP still sounds sorry so maybe better to be safe. |
DBAs add complexity and would also likely take more time and effort to
get right initially as a result. If it were me I would solve one problem
at a time....resolve the problem at hand first with existing sub then
consider adding DBA after that is resolved, but only if worth it for
you.
Actually in practice a DBA is easier to set up than a single sub, since you don't have to work so hard getting the bass right at the listening chair! When I installed my setup, I already had speakers that made deep bass (flat to 20Hz) so I only added two subs. I only placed them once. Only hooked them up once (IOW didn't play with phase). I used cheap speaker cable. I didn't mess with the amplifier crossover settings more than once. It worked perfectly the first time. By comparison I have a single sub in my bedroom, and moving that thing around so I finally got bass where I wanted it (and not all the bass is there, its a bit of a compromise) was a bit of a pain, plus the sub is sitting in an obvious space, but where it would be convenient doesn't work- no bass in that location. Well its 45 amps per monoblock X 2 = 90 amps total.....nothing to sneeze at especially with a most efficient Class D design.
Uh- can we do a bit of math here? If 45 Amps, giving the amplifier the benefit of the doubt, so driving a 1 ohm load. The power formula is Power = Isquared x R where power is in watts I is amps (in this case 45) and squared R is the resistance of the speaker This means that if the amp makes 45 amps it also is capable of 2025 watts. If we are talking 4 ohms, then the output power is 8,100 watts. Clearly this isn't happening. A speaker that only dips to 4 ohms isn't going to need that sort of current in any event. The OP simply has no worries in this regard. The fact that the amp is class D is irrelevant in this regard and will behave as an ideal voltage source driving this speaker. |
My understanding from quick read is the minidsp device can function as an active crossover and it’s internal implementation is digital. Crossover goes between pre amp and amp, both analog. So the digital crossover must then first do Analog to digital conversion, then work its magic digitally then convert back to analog for output to amp. That is a different function in the system than the DAC. The DAC takes a separate digital source and converts to analog for an analog input into a pre amp.
So the digital part of the minidsp is really a black box. It all happens internally and being digital that enables many potentially marvelous things not possible with analog. How marvelous or not? The only way is to try and hear. It either will make things sound better or not depending how you use it. I would not get hung up on the extra conversions between digital and analog it does. That just an ingredient in the final results. It’s the final results that matter. Personally it sound like a very smart design and I may try it myself possibly someday unless I spot something that sounds even better by then. |
