Jump to content

4est

Premium
  • Content Count

    5152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About 4est

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

13648 profile views
  1. I believe that, I was just quoting. I hadn't really given it much thought tbh.
  2. You could be correct, but that it what it says, and they are a no BS company. FWIW, it is not at all your typical cable, but a bifillar reverse wind using litz. The only other cable like it that I know of is an Audio Note IIRC. Here are the links to both. They also happen to sound great. The low inductance is why I purchased them- for better highs on capacitive ESLs. http://www.jenving.com/products/view/sword-ixlr-audio-1001906443 http://www.jenving.com/products/view/sword-terminated-pair-1000000727
  3. Perhaps I am just biased, but there is a reason why everyone compares to Stax...
  4. Perhaps look into Supra Sword. I am not sure what the capacitance of the speaker cables are, but the interconnects are .14 pF/meter. The speaker cables are of similar construction, but with more strands per leg. I am sure if you write to them, they can tell you.
  5. My point is that there is a balance to be had. The balance is everything...
  6. Thanks Barrows, that is about all I was getting at. The initial point was that simply adding additional gain to a particular circuit is not always as straight forward as Mans made it out to be. If that were the case, there would never be any gain issues at all.
  7. Well yes, but that gain came from somewhere. My point was that low distortion and high SNR require careful attention. One cannot simply provide additional gain without a cost.
  8. Note it bypasses a gain stage, not adds another....
  9. No, it means that you shouldn't keep amplifying and then reduce it later. The lowest distortion path uses the least gain to accomplish the task. Despite what many might think or claim, most devices are non linear by nature and distortion is created by most everything in the path. This is where the phrase "straight wire with gain" came about.
  10. I really do not think it was as "arbitrary" as you make it seem, nor do I think that that extra 6dB is that easy either. I doubt you will ever concede, but those levels were created when tubes were the standard. That 2V line level is the practical extreme to create low noise two stage circuits with tubes. Sure we could add an extra gain stage, but it would be just that- extra. There would still need to be an input stage in the amp prior to phase splitting. As it stands, I really see no reason to push an entire industry to change this because some wish to go DAC direct with no other sources. Most pre amps have plenty of power to run any amp. If a DAC manufacturer wishes to state that theirs is capable of running direct to amp, then they should conform to what exists. There should be some sort of buffer/amp after a volume pot anyway to reduce interaction between stages. This is how it has been done for decades with vacuum tubes and solid state. Your closing sentence makes sense, and that is what they did at that time. I should state that I use a passive pre amp and both of my DACs have no actual output stage, but use a transformer IV. I have no gain issues and "best practice" is to use as little gain as possible throughout the chain. Both of my DACs create plenty of current to transform, especially the Sabre.
  11. You might consider beginning by stating what you/they consider to be low capacitance.
  12. I disagree. IMO, we should retain the standards that were in part used because of the gain required by vinyl and tape. In an attempt to create more output voltage from sources and pre amps, it would require an extra gain stage for analog sources. Perhaps I am an outlier in that I wish to retain the functions of my analog equipment whilst pursuing modern tech too. I think a good compromise would be to have additional gain AFTER the volume attenuator that is not used if it the attenuation is not. Hence, just like a pre amp with line level being just that, line level.
  13. This experiment doesn't seem all that unusual from what one might expect. I'd like to hear the results about the same thing done with the clock being frozen instead of the DAC chip.
  14. The article referenced a system at that price. The straw man was created by them, not me. Are you suggesting there cannot be differences between a 2.5k device and a 4k one? It is not that they are tricking poor single mothers out of their food money. If you can spend 2.5k on anything as frivolous as audio, you don't need my protection.
  15. I dunno 'bout y'all, but I find it pathetically humorous that some are so worried about our hobby being "ruined" by uber priced gear. Most girls I know would see this as some sort of porn star penis envy. Who cares of some wealthy person is spending north of 500k? It certainly doesn't effect my interests or enjoyment...
×
×
  • Create New...