Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About phusis

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Personal Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3447 profile views
  1. And thank you. Actually the shotgun configuration I'm using consists of two entirely different pairs of cables; the Mundorf silver/gold 1.5 mm solid-core cable, and Duelund's DCA16GA. For a while (close to 12 years now in total, with different speakers) I had already been running with the Mundorf in a single wire config with my current mains, but while an extremely good "monitor" cable I've always found it to exhibit a slight imprinting or signature of sorts, and one that shone through on all my previous speakers (where I've used it) as well in a similar fashion. Mainly it deals with a "reticence" in the upper bass/lower mids area, and a minute sense of glare/hardness further up in the frequency range. Overall it lacked a bit "bloom" and fullness to the sound. Then I read of the tinned copper Duelund wires (+ vintage origins) and their sonic traits, and not being expensive cables I set out to to exchange my Mundorf wires for a while with the Duelund's. What became immediately clear was that the tinned copper cables (in a baked, oiled cotton sleeve) addressed the areas with the Mundorf's I felt lacking, but not without its caveats; the highs now appeared too rolled off, and the overall presentation also felt a tad too rich or slightly fat even. I longed for a middle ground somewhere between the Mundorf's and Duelund's. Upon learning of this difference with his own ears an audio buddy of mine suggested that I simply shotgunned the two wires, because.. why not? And so we did in the immediate wake of his suggestion, and there we then sat with our mouths wide open when we heard the outcome of this - it worked! All I can say is that a great balance of insight and a naturally relaxed fullness has entered the sonic stage.
  2. A bit of background info on above pictured speaker set-up of mine: Obviously an all-horn speaker system, the trajectory to which formed over the course of some years. Initially I felt inclined to move away from dome tweeters (for a variety of reasons), and tried out ribbon-based tweeter solutions from the likes of Raidho speakers, then moved on to waveguides hybrids (Amphion, S.P. Technology and hORNS), and by that time finally wanted to explore a more "through and through" approach with horn loading of the entire audible frequency spectrum to attain a fuller envelope in regards to coherency and dynamics in particular. At first I augmented my mains with a direct radiating SVS SB16-Ultra, but the decision to go all-horn with a pair of 15"-loaded tapped horns proved more than worthwhile. Indeed, coherency and overall uniformity of presentation achieved via all-horn loading is a major step-up compared to horn-hybrids, but it requires of one to accept the inevitability of size - especially where sub-territory goes (and this is where most go along with direct radiating subs, if they even get to implementing midbass horns); in my case the tapped horn subs take up 20 cubic feet per horn to achieve a ~23Hz tune @ 97dB sensitivity. Some all-horn systems requires of the listening distance to be quite substantial for the sound of each element to cohere into a whole, but in my case 11-12 ft. seems sufficient. And yet, the next move of mine may be going towards coherency in the time domain as well with Tom Danley's Synergy horns, which also means listening distance can be reduced significantly being the Synergy horns emulates a true point source. We'll see how it goes, but as is I'm extremely pleased with the sound from my system. /Mikael
  3. Very nice set-up. I know there's not much space, but have you tried having the REL's flanking your mains behind them?
  4. @The Computer Audiophile -- Do you see DAC's on a broader scale ever (still) progressing sonically over the years, and if so what in general do you assess to be the reason(s) for this - DAC chip development, jitter suppression, the analogue output stage, PSU, other, a combination of all/overall implementation? I guess a follow-up question to this could be: would you rather acquire an older, used "reference" DAC, or a new mid-level priced DAC (that, just for the sake of simplicity and to support this thought experiment, we assume costs about the same as an older, used reference DAC)?
  5. Sorry if implicitly I came across with a "You need to try this out at home, folks"-attitude, because what you both point out is valid; such an installation, without professional assistance, would likely be deemed illegal. My only real concern though using this rustic method of power cable connection isn't rooted in its potential hazard, but rather a potential insurance issue in the event of a fire, even though that fire wouldn't have been initiated by said installation. Suffice to say that my actual implementation of this connection method feels absolutely sound, also being that an electrical technician/radio mechanic friend has overseen it (and uses it himself). What I am sick and tired of is the sought (monetary) hierarchy not only of accessories, where if you really want the sonically best connection there's this and that uber-expensive solution of strips, conditioners, connectors etc. that is most if not any manufacturers wet dream to promote and live of - gimme a effing break. Perhaps there's a middle ground to be found here with a bare bones, sturdy and low(er) cost power strip with no filtering that would to do job without perceivable loss of SQ compared at least to my own DIY solution. I've actually thought about that for a while now, and should any of you guys be aware of such and can recommend it, I'm all ears.
  6. In the residential area I live there's a power transformer only a few hundred yards away feeding my outlets, and by all accounts the power here is very clean (confirmed by the local electrical power "authorities") and the voltage number is measured to where it should be (i.e.: 230 V/AC). I tried out an isolation transformer over my Media Server (where I lived previously its implementation was successful), but it resulted in a unnatural "flavor" of the sound that quickly led me to dismiss it. I use no additional power or LAN conditioners, or otherwise, as I feel them to somehow intervene unfavorably with the sound. I take it this only points back to the power in my residential area being quite clean; don't fix it if it ain't broken. In regards to power strips, I don't use any. Had I had a bunch of wall power outlets placed directly behind my stereo equipment the omission of a power strip would've been obvious. I don't have that luxury, though, so instead of a power strip I connect the bare conductor ends of my DIY power cables (lead to lead wire; return to return wire, and ground to ground if such is used) in screw terminals, so that the respective conductor ends meet each other directly with no in-between connectors and alloys, all safely mounted in a small box covering them. My solid core pure copper power cables are twisted to also create an electrical shield of sorts, so no additional shielding is used around them.
  7. @SoundSparks If your only source is digital I'd put my money and effort in seeking out a proper, dedicated DAC/preamp, and disregard a separat hardware preamp altogether. Be aware to pursue items where the preamp section and volume control of the DAC are up to snuff, and this entails a thoroughly executed analogue output stage and power supply, which is especially important when connecting directly to a poweramp. I don't know the limits of your budget, but above mentioned important aspects typically aren't the last word with mid priced (and down) DAC's, why I'd actually recommend you look for used, highend-ish DAC/preamps where more effort is very likely to have been invested in named areas. The claimed technological advancements of DAC chips is somehow exaggerated, I find, and shouldn't keep you from acquiring used high-end DAC/preamps (where the clock section isn't an afterthought either) with some years on their backs. I'm not saying DAC chips haven't seen notable advancement, only that with a poweramp-direct connection you want a very good analogue output stage and PSU in particular. Via my current, newly acquired BCA Roquefort DAC/preamp (a used, "older" though upgradable highend model), which I've recently compared to the very newly released, mid-priced Auralic Altair G1 DAC/streamer, it's quite obvious the former has a richer, more stable, tonally correct and well-balanced presentation. At its asking price I find the Auralic to be a very capable product (and the streamer section is blessing) with great connectivity options (i.e.: harddrive via USB), but in regards to pure sound quality and connected directly to the poweramp the BCA is simply more analogue and natural sounding. Just my $0.02. Compared to separate hardware preamps I've tried out, even via my former less capable DAC/preamp, the challenge to me has always been finding one that was sufficiently transparent and non-restricted (i.e.: without the sensation of it sounding like a "bottleneck" in the chain), and at the price level where this seemed to be less of an issue I've always felt it better to invest elsewhere to see actual sonic gains.
  8. Sorry for the long subject title.. What are your thoughts on older top-of-the-line, say, +5 year old DAC's (incl. upgradable DAC's) vs. new mid priced DAC's, and how they compare sonically? Has technology over the last 5-10 years truly advanced the state of DAC chips (or other areas) and made it translate into a significant overall advancement in sound quality, or is the importance of areas such as clock, analogue output stage, volume control and power supply a bigger issue to speak of here, making named older über-DAC models pull ahead still? Perhaps more adequately, how would you compare the top DAC's of yesterday vs the top DAC's of today? It seems to me the industry, not to mention some reviewers exaggerate the advancements made technologically and how it leads to ever-progressing sound quality in DAC's. If every increment of alleged sonic advancement over the years is anything to by, it would certainly strain credibility of such accumulated claims. Semantics, some might say. Well, not me.. Btw., I'm using the example of top shelf older DAC's vs. mid priced new DAC's to have a price scenario that is more or less equal, or even to the advantage of the former in a potential purchasing decision. What would you choose?
  9. @The Computer Audiophile/Chris Do you still more or less exclusively use the DAC direct-to-poweramp approach, and if so does it still reign supreme over a separate hardware preamp to your ears? I use a combined DAC/preamp, and using convolution filters as well (which may have eaten roughly 6dB's of sensitivity) I am fortunate to have very high efficiency speakers and a DAC/preamp that never has me running out of volume capacity (nearing '75' out of 100 on the digital attenuator has the roof close to lifting).
  10. Hi, folks Anyone around here have experience with the Auralic Altair G1 DAC/streamer? Sonic impressions are appreciated.. /Mikael
  11. Soon about to be building a new musik server (/HTPC), as the old, current one is pushing beyond 10 years. Yeah, I know - I hear the blasphemous screams from CA-members in reaction to a largely non-optimized HTPC (apart from Fidelizer 8.4) this old for anything approaching audiophile sonics, but, oh well, times flies.. Initially, a few years back, I had intended for its retirement as a music server, but about a year ago I sold my previous sMS-200 Ultra (12V w/copper cable upgrades) + sPS-500, because I found my existing Audiophilleo 2 + PurePower to equal, and in some respects better the SOtM combo via named old PC-server (YMMV, of course). Wouldn't you know, but it did. I now intend to upgrade the software part as well, to JPLAY FEMTO for music-only duties, and remain on the JRiver MC25 platform for movies (@Marcin_gps, I'll be looking for your server-tips and the innards to be used here). Used to run JPLAY (Classic?) through JRiver, but that ended with the latter's support withdrawal of the former - not that there really was any to begin with. Being I'm a JPLAY owner though will make use of the price reduction on the FEMTO. Thanks for this thread.
  12. Let me re-post your initial reply: Lot of assumptions here, the core of which is trying to instill the image of some immature "show it off to the lads"-type of person (the sonic delivery, guys, nothing else) which, implicitly, you're saying is me, right? Does the part concerning snobbery (or arrogance) ring a bell now, by any chance? To reiterate: it's a common misconception of yours, and one that fails to understand that this, in my case, is less (if at all) about aiming to "blow them back in their chairs," and almost wholly about ease of presentation, bandwidth (dynamically as well as in regards to frequency extension downwards), more or less uninhibited SPL-capabilities (when needed, as in real, live acoustic performances), and physicality. These are vital traits in the pursuit of a fairly authentic reproduction, and while anyone can prioritize whether to achieve this it doesn't make it any less vital for realistic reproduction. As to your latest reply, I can only agree with you; it comes down to preference for a variety of reasons, yes, though I might add that my own pursuit - although it involves reproduction gear one might associate with pro-installments - isn't any less in the effort towards musical satisfaction, or so I gather
  13. Something about Rorschach..? Perhaps I should have elaborated with "[internal] organ massage"..
  14. It's a common misconception I believe to associate what I'm referring to with "Spectacular, spectacular" (cue 'Moulin Rouge!') as the sole or primary goal in reproduction (even so, what's wrong with "spectacular"?). I can certainly understand your inclination here, because this is mightily powerful stuff that could likely pop windows (+ -sills), make for an effective organ massage, modulate one's voice and lead to blurred vision if given the opportunity. The whole point though, as is my intention with this, is to more or less revert "hifi" into its more proper meaning - as an approximation, at least - for what is effectively a more realistic approach to the reproduction of music. I know, there are a plethora of ways in doing this (and different priorities to come by, which is totally cool), but physics aren't to be avoided whichever route one seeks - certainly not if realism is sought. At times this is hifi in a nutshell (and an act of snobbery, I find): to disregard power and SPL-capabilities (through which uninhibited dynamics and not least ease is more easily achieved) as a brute or Mr. Simpleton's game, when in fact it's a vital part in attaining authenticity of reproduction.
  • Create New...