Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JDRodrigues

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

573 profile views
  1. Besides the one over-peak on Janes vocals, I find this to be an amazing live recording. Sure wish I could have a 2 hour jam session from this place.
  2. Mustard seeds and mountains. What a concept.
  3. If someone out there designed a box that ran on a Droid/Iphone app...that would send good 11010001011111001010011111 to whatever DAC you wanted to use...they would have something. A total bypass of the integrated system, without the temptation for thieves.
  4. Swap the old red square button on any LP12 for the switch from a Valhalla. Ask the customer to try it out and see how they like the change. Half will rant and rave about the improved performance.
  5. My "grip" is just fine, thanks. That said, if you are able to use a big word like "sophomoric," you should be able to understand. (Then again, "environmentalism" is spelled using three "N's," so...) I did not steer the thread into the language realm. I merely made a (pretty relevant) point about how US society has allowed itself to play childish word games, falling prey to PC terrorism...complete with examples we now live with...woefully. If you missed this, let alone actually think there is criticism of the NAACP anywhere in my post, the only sophomoric thing here is your own reading comprehension. Maybe this link will help you: https://ldaamerica.org/adult-literacy-reading-programs/ Let me know if you need help with the classes. I help people with them locally and I am sure we could set something up through Skype.
  6. Nah, one of the analog guys had burritos last night. That smell belongs here and resents you calling it funny. Another Disciple? Timothy says hi, BTW. I just got off the cosmic phone with Mr Dass and he told me we're here now! (Lord knows we already dropped out. I think it's our amps that turned on!)
  7. Did you see the post on the facebook? One of the comments caught my eye. Eddie Lind I have one. Amazing sound. Very pure. Truly built like a tank. It weighs about 45 kg. Anyone who happen to have experience with this amplifier ? Easy to msg him on FB to find out his story. I am now curious how good the thing is. Update the thread with what you find out please.
  8. Thank You. Of course, since you seemed to have totally misread my posts meaning...and since you repeated/basically demonstrated my points rather clearly by your reply, it made it even more hilarious...I feel the need to put your ability to read the posts tone effectively in question. Are you discriminating against me because of my audiophile-ness?? Wait, don't answer that. What were we talking about again?
  9. (At least in US society) Terms that describe negativity or that are often said with a scornful tone, end up becoming taboo and thought of as either uneducated, offensive or outright discriminatory. As a shrink, my college books are loaded with sterile medical terminology that plays these games. "NAACP" makes me cringe and want to cover my mouth so I can laugh loudly. (BTW, I do not qualify as "Caucasian, myself, so apparently, I am actually allowed in US society, to point this out. Using the term "Colored" to describe nearly half of my predecessors is somehow supposed to be offensive. "People of color" is supposed to clean this matter up and be 100% sterile, politically correct and A-OK, however. <Wretch>) The term "Audiophile" may be headed down this path...(much like "Oriental" "Black" "Hispanic" "Mentally Retarded" ---and soon, we will add "Male" and "Female" to our "no-no words of ultra-PC-scoured society") ugh! it makes me want a big bong hit and a few shots of tequila, hoping the world will pull its head out of its arse and stop trying to lie about how every single bloody one of us thinks...arrrrghh! (Is this the wrong venue to bring up "Spend-O-Phile?" What about a half breed, heavily dark Portuguese "Thrift-O-Phile?" Oh God, I am KILLING myself here. Simply killing myself.) Now where is my Tequila? (Already have the bong...)
  10. Thanks for the heads up. I have owned this amp since around 1990 or so and they were redone once in 2003-ish. Does that mean anything new? (Don't forget, that is not my amps innards ) You just made me look up and begin reading about what ESR means to the sound, however...and since mine were done by a now passed away friend and I have no clue what type they are, it may be time to get out the screwdriver and find out. (Isn't this the reason for that passing !HUMMM! for a quarter second at startup that eventually takes out your output transistors?) Again, thank you!
  11. Funny you should find this. A couple of the "bargain" online rags have this listed a bit back in time. One says it is a "McIntosh-cooperative effort" and the other claims it is "built by Ongaku" so I do not know. One thing for damned sure, I would not hand the guy 100 dollars for it till I could play it to see how it sounded. (Think of how close they make those fake Rolex look to the real thing.) PS, those cans in the back look awfully similar to the A-300 Emotiva setup. Hmmmm... I wish I could see a more clear picture of the guts of the thing. (The posts I referenced did not even have those pictures you provided.)
  12. Not trying to beat people over the head with my "cheap amp experiment"...but Why does an amplifier that looks to be a very sound electronic design, end up sounding like buffalo dung? To use the two amps (the old Audionics CC-2 and the Emotiva A-300) as examples, the result should NOT be what it is. The thing that grabs my eye instantly, is the two separate channels on the old dusty girl. (BTW, mine looks a little different inside, but retains all its stock components, except the connectors. Wire, star grounding and connectors are the only things actually changed in my personal CC-2. ...and those minor minor tweaks very slightly improved on what it was already doing. They did not change its nature. Messy wiring, not enough cans to hold any real power off-the-shelf transformer...etc... The CC-2 seems to be an ancient DIY attempt. In comparison, the A-300 has a fancy toroidal transformer and prominent "thump storage devices." So, I can see the Audionics may have cleaner separation of the L and R but besides that, the thing is a joke to look at, no?? Most will need to put on their "virtual" thinking cap to ingest the following...(it is "figurative" not literal)...but give it a whirl and see if I can get across the concept. Some amps need to be under "stress" to sound their best. As in, from 0-1 watt output, they do not sound their best...yet when you push them to 50% of their rated output, the sound undergoes a change for the better. Another way of putting it: if you increased resistance so the amp has to "work harder" to get the same SPL in the room, it often sounds better. Things get warm, perhaps? The resistance changes, so??? My 565 monoblocks are very UNlike this. They tend to sound the same putting out 1/4 of a watt as the do belting out 295 watts. So, with these ^^^^^ thoughts in my head, I asked myself, could the Emotiva be out of its "sweet range?" (After all, it is a "budget" amplifier, right?) I brought out the old ElectroVoice hybrids. (A DIY experiment built way back.) Incredibly inefficient, I thought, "these may get the A-300 into its "sweet range" of operation." Umm, nope. The same forward, harsh, in-your-face-mush was instantly apparent. Connecting the CC-2, albeit "less loud," its recipe/character of "all things in their place" was also as instantly apparent. Even in these ancient experiment speakers, there is no question about which amp is better designed. (The specific Emotiva I got had just come off the test bench and been given their seal of approval, so I do not think it was defective.) So it had to be the separate boards for the channels, correct? (After all, monoblock amps are, by virtue of complete separates, immune to mudding/mixing the holy grail of channel separation, no?) Well, making the mix mono @ the preamp and only using one channel of the A-300, brought the same results. One channel muddiness. Then I remembered something I had read about the CC-2 long ago. They said the amp had been voiced/designed with sound of music in mind rather than the best THD number they could possibly get to boast about in their "brag sheet." Usually, in a mainstream device like this, this is little more than an excuse for high distortion numbers, right? While it may be true to the ear, higher THD, in my experience, often means "more mush" and more difficulty discerning which instruments are in the mix...where those instruments were located...and nearly always, a high-frequency "grain" from the tweeters. This idea made me wonder if it would be possible for, say...Nelson Pass, maybe ? to modify the A-300 a little...without perfect "numbers" in mind, to sound a lot better...??? A couple of other things. In my other post about these amps, I made a price comparison. It had the adjusted price of the CC-2 around $2000+ US. This is not really the case, as electronics in general have greatly reduced in cost over the years. Truth is, for an amplifier from Oregon, (I checked) MSRP'ing @ $579 in 1978, you cannot say it translates to $2K US in value-present-day. Not sure how you would adjust for this, but I am satisfied to compare the CC-2 to something like a Schiit amp of today. The two have a lot in common in price point and allure of well-built, decently received amps made in the US. (Same with the old Apt Holman gear.) The CC-2 has a definite "hiiissss" when you get close to the speakers. Without the heat pump cycling, you can catch it pretty easy halfway between the speakers and my easy chair. In contrast, the A-300 is dead silent at idle. There are even references to the Emotiva stuff being "dead-black silent" between the musical passages. Not in my experience. To me, the CC-2 has much more "defined edges" to the music. (aka, vanishes into the abyss, instantly) Like you can pick the instruments right out of the air. (Compared to the A-300 now. I am not saying it could compete with a Pass X25 or something similar. Maybe not even an Adcom GFA-555...then again, I preferred the sound of it to the 555 on my Tabs, so who knows???) Why is it that many really good-sounding components make that "hissssssss" at idle? The second the music begins to play, it becomes a 100% non-issue...so why do they tout a dead-quiet idle as an observation in so many reviews?? (Is it just more BS to take up word space before they give crappy gear a shrouded and virtually useless "highly recommended" rating?) (Give me hiiissssss any time as long as it comes with that definition and ability to discern every device in the mix.) In all the "NAIM NAP-copy" come-ons we have seen on fleabay, when you look at the photo's you quickly realize they are NOT true copies. Why have they not taken a proven design from ten years ago and stuck with the layout, changing one tiny item only and marketing a $1200 amp with "$12,000 sound???" (It isn't like the Chinese piranha-pool of budget electronic gear really gives a shit whose patents they violate...especially the "boutique" builders.) Not that I am trying to "gut GUTB" here, (pun totally intended ?) but...my pictures show a serious ying to the yang of "the better looking, more impressive box of stuff sounds better..." (I am not trying to argue about it, only point out that this is a very clear example of where that logic can bite you in the arse.) I would really like to hear from some electronic gurus on why one sounds so much better than the other or points/observations (besides comments on long-winded-ness ) on anything above.
  13. My guess is, the "magic" has to do with the guts that feed those tape heads, not the imperfections of the actual physical medium. BTW guys, I drool at those reel to reel machines. Only thing is, when I tried tape going that fast, there ended up being more noise from the physical reels spinning at that speed than there was sound improvement. ? ?
  14. It was well worth the cost of return shipping to try it out for a bit.
  15. I promised myself I would try the amp out in my main system (Sequerra MET7/MET-8 subs/MET 10-8 line source---Emotiva XDA1/Topping D50 DAC's/Chrome Audio/Logitech Duet/---Adcom 565 MonoBlocks/GFP-565 preamp---LinnLP12/Cirkus/Valhalla/Grace Tonearm/Benz MicroMC/some crazy-priced custom connects to the arm---Tascam CDR2000---Pioneer707 R2R) First off, I would like to say that I find myself not wanting to agree with a certain board member whose comments are so often quoted, I cannot seem to evade them...even though I have my ignore feature active...But I have to. Without a doubt. At first I thought, "this has a real chance if it breaks in and smooths out a little." Then it did break in a little. Never smoothed out though. The claims about "Emotiva amps having grossly underrated power claims" is hogwash. My initial thoughts about how good the amp would be in the office system...sadly...wrong. If I needed something to drive subs, maybe. It has decent power. I would equate it to my old Hafler. In fact, VERY MUCH like my old Hafler. (Ice freaking cold, shrill, while retaining a dead/lifeless character.) I am reasonably cocky about my modified Audionics CC-2. It was around $400-700 ish back in the late 70's. (Cannot remember which.) So what would that be in todays money? Around $2000 to $2500?? Amazingly, that is about right where the new amps that compete with it seem to be priced, with few exceptions. Using it to drive my Office/bedroom system, (Canton Sub/Sat setup from the early 90's Lenovo PC/Linux with USB direct to Topping D50 Jriver/Deadbeef Proton AT-670 tuner Formerly through Dynaco PAT-4 preamp) even though it lacked the absolute magic it used to bring to my Tabs, it still made life-like music. It did not turn everything into a mushed pile of porridge like the Emotiva. The first night Mrs R listened to the Emotiva in the bedroom system: "Too bright. Missing...'life" at the same time. Like 'mush' in the horns.What happened to your Audionics?" Today, when she sat down in front of the main setup with one of our favorite LP's "WILLY DEVILLE <peace be upon him> "MIRACLE" she refused to even listen beyond 30 seconds. "What did you DO, JD?" (I had not told her the temporary amp was hidden behind the rack.) Other audio buddies, far less familiar with my system, had similar reflections. While the Emotiva is more powerful than the Audionics...and I can clip the latter if not careful, (rated @ 70 or 80 watts I think) I would never trade them. Not sure exactly how to describe it, but even though there is more detail in the Emotiva, there is less detail at the same time. It's as though the person who voiced the amp paid close attention to the cymbals, but F'd up terribly on the rest of it...then added in subwoofer-range bass as an afterthought, with a 30Ms spacer for the lower freq's. How they could have released a DAC like the XDA-1 for so little and built an amp that missed the mark so badly, I do not know. I really expected more. Based on what I read in the online posts, I thought the audio snobs were, well, being audio snobs. Nope. The Adcoms in the main setup are often not given nearly the accolades they deserve. Most young audio people do not give them enough credit. Many forget that they really were only subtly outdone by the big, class A Krell's in their day. (...and the Adcoms did not heat your house...) I halfway expected the Emotiva to impress with the Sequerras. Lord knows, they are rolled off and mild in the highs a little. A bit smooth for my tastes actually. Now, the D50, is a totally different matter. Although I have by no means spent enough time to dig through my digital library, I can say I want to listen more music using it. MUCH more detail ('sparkle' as well) than the Emotiva DAC. Still clean and very nice mids to boot. I may well swap DACS and put the big Emotiva on my office setup, leaving the tiny "toy" DAC right next to the Duet box on top of the 565 preamp. I actually had to walk away from this post to reconnect my Adcoms to the Sequerras. (Mrs R had gotten into Alan Parsons "Eve" and come into the office asking for me to please stop my awful experiment.) That says a lot right there as to how bad the thing sounds. Sorry guys, I know there were members here who said they liked the amps. I do not. At least this one. For a home theater, it would be great. Decent balls and reliable, cheap money. Not for a 2 channel system. Not one that makes real music. For a system builder on a budget though. Instead of the Emotiva, look for a used Audionics CC-2 as a starter amp. Those ProAc Tabs are picky bastards to drive. Anything going in is shown coming out in spades...and the Audionics does not offend. In fact, with a few mods anyone with a cheap soldering iron and a wire cutter can do (simple star-grounding and bridge circuit deletion, along with some better connectors) and you have something that will compete with lots of $1500-$2500 amps of today...only all-in, you can get a decent working CC-2 for under $250, shipped to your door off one of the used sites. I have a feeling the Topping D50 is going to end up getting praise as well. Whether it will be the one I stick with long term remains to be seen, but so far, so good. Nevermind "for the money"...the thing is damned impressive so far and sounds different than other DACS I have now heard with similar chips inside. Battery pwr supply is coming, as is a "no nonsense" plug-in supply, without the 500 dollar price tag (for $38 in full-retail-parts-cost and an hour of assembly time.)
  • Create New...