AudioCircle
Audio/Video Gear and Systems => Owner's Circles => Channel Islands Audio Owners => Topic started by: dhiebert on 20 Sep 2005, 09:55 pm
-
Am I missing something?
I am evauating a pair of D-100 monoblock amps and I am having trouble noting any improvement over my current Adcom GFA-5500 amp. I am using a Rotel RCD-971 CD player with a VPC-1 passive volume control and Quad ESL-63 speakers.
My primary musical interest is classical. I have carefully listened to a variety of selections and swapped my cables back and forth between these two amps and I can't seem to detect any significant difference. I have listened to vocal, organ, instrumental, and orchestral selections. For the past four days, I have been doing a burn-in using 8W resistors just to see if that makes a difference.
I fully anticipated a notable improvement over my current Adcom 5500, considering the praise these D-100 amps have received, yet careful listening doesn't show this to be the case. I am not unhappy with my current setup--I just wanted to find out if I could improve upon it. I did gain much improvement when I changed to the VPC-1. which drove me to try the D-100.
Should I be surprised? Is my Adcom amp better than I assumed it is? Are there any suggestions of what I should listen for, either types of music or musical details?
-
My best guess is that the combination of source, speakers, and program material, are not up to the task to notice the performance difference.
The Rotel is your weakest link and is most important because that's where the signal originates. A more revealing source would probably make a big difference as the amplifier can only amplify what is fed into it. What you've discovered is that the amplifier is not your weak link.
The Adcom is simliar in that it is capable of high current and is known for good bass response and smooth midrange. The D-100's should be much more detailed through the midrange and top end while still sounding smooth and natural. Soundstage width and depth should also be better.
Aside from improved sound quality, the D-100's will run much cooler and consume less power.
-
Seems to me your ears are telling you everything you need to know.
tvad4 is right (to a certain degree)
If you're happy with the way it sounds...leave it alone.
If you want to make an improvement, I'd look for a better source component.
-
dhiebert:
Welcome to the crazy audio world! Many and I mean many times have I brought home a piece of audio gear expecting to hear a vast improvement. Many and I mean many times have I scratched my head and was wondering why I didn't hear any difference.
Welcome (And cheers)
Charlie
-
It sure seems the Rotel would be the weak link. Since you have gone this far, why not look for a used, modded CD player. There should be enough available on Audiogon etc and then you can make a more informed decision.
-
I guess when you posted this exact same thing, word for word, on audioasylum you didn't get what you're looking for.
"Am I missing something" would be a passive aggressive evasion of, "I don't care for these monoblocks." In my opinion, of course.
-
I guess when you posted this exact same thing, word for word, on audioasylum you didn't get what you're looking for.
"Am I missing something" would be a passive aggressive evasion of, "I don't care for these monoblocks." In my opinion, of course.
Well, no, this post is not word-for-word the same. I acted upon suggestions made in that forum and my present post reflects that. I don't know what you are implying here, though it is clear you didn't bother to read them both closely.
There is no need for you to publicly air your personal evaluation of my personality or motives. I did not, in all honesty, hear a difference, and I wished to solicit other experience to perhaps learn something. I don't regard my own system, nor my own experience as infallible and I am open to learning something new. I hoped for something more enlightening than your reply.
-
The Rotel is your weakest link and is most important because that's where the signal originates. A more revealing source would probably make a big difference as the amplifier can only amplify what is fed into it. What you've discovered is that the amplifier is not your weak link.
Is it your opinion, Dusty that if I were to try your VDA-1 with the Rotel, using the Rotel as a transport, I would hear the improvements you describe? Or would it be likely that the Rotel is still not up to task as solely a transport either?
I could try my turntable as a source, since I have your VPP-1 also. But I suppose my Shure M97HE cartridge might be the bottleneck then? If so, the implication is that one can never evaluate a piece of equipment without a comprehensive upgrade of the entire system (yikes!).
The Rotel RCD-971 was well regarded in reviews by Sensible Sound ("so good that I'm almost left speechless") and Hi-Fi Choice, winning an EISA award in 1999 (not that I put much emphasis on reviews, which are often noncommittal and hyped-up). It uses the Burr-Brown PCM-63P 20-bit DACs together with the Pacific Microsonics PDM100 HDCD 8x oversampling digital filter.
-
To understand why the two amps did not have night and day differences you first have to ask...why should they?
If the Adcom is well built and it's power supply is more than enough for the job at hand then any difference between it an any other well built amp with enough power supply will always be small on the audiophile "blew me away scale".
One thing that could have made a big difference (seems it did not), would have been your passive preamp...ie, one of the amps could have been a poor match for passive volume control.
I'm not trying to say that amps don't sound different...they do (I have 4 of them), just that the differences can be somewhat small untill one of them is asked to do something it was not designed to do.
Dave
-
I could try my turntable as a source, since I have your VPP-1 also. But I suppose my Shure M97HE cartridge might be the bottleneck then?
I would definitely try the phono rig as well, and would be glad to let you try a VDA-1 on the Rotel. We're also coming out with a higher end VDA-2 24/192 dac in a couple months. Feel free to call me so we can discuss what you're try to achieve and how to get there.
-
I'm not of the camp holding the weakest link dictates ultimate fidelity. I think the systems approach is more correct, though also more complicated. I have little doubt the Channel Islands (great name, btw) amps are better, the question is how badly you want to find out.
If trying them was merely a passing fancy, though I doubt it for the price, return them and be happy that your musical reproduction is adequate for your needs. Or, if you're trying to build a better system, research and ask a lot of quesions. Superior fidelity IS out there, and the CI amps CAN be a part of it. The trick is how to do it on the cheap.
-
I'm not trying to say that amps don't sound different...they do (I have 4 of them), just that the differences can be somewhat small untill one of them is asked to do something it was not designed to do.
I have to agree with flintstone as most amps measured flat 20-20k and if they are operating within their limit, the diff can be really small (amps within the same power class and types). Based on my exp, changing preamp actully make more diff than power amp (don't really know why).
Ken
-
dhiebert originally wrote:
Should I be surprised? Is my Adcom amp better than I assumed it is? Are there any suggestions of what I should listen for, either types of music or musical details?
I think I've read that the D 100 amps need about 50 hours of break-in. Most amps don't develop their full potential until after they've been used awhile.
So give 'em some time, if you haven't already.
There's nothing "wrong" with Adcom amps. I've found them to lack a bit of finesse compared to pricier amplifiers - proper reediness of woodwinds, expressing the breath of vocalists, separation of background vocals and instruments. But it's not like the Adcom sounds like a clock radio. It's all a matter of degree.
The type of music you use to demo any piece of equipment (IMHO) are selections you are familiar with and that you enjoy. Don't worry about whether it's audiophile approved or got 5 stars in recording quality in the last Stereophile magazine record review. Just play what you know and like.
When demoing and comparing different components, I've often played one or two songs, then swapped the component out and played the same one or two songs, and "tried" to hear a difference between the two. It's very difficult for me to tell a difference doing it this way and I've been listening for more than 20 years. Was the bass as deep on those drums?, did the cymbals have that same shimmer?, did the saxophone have the same air? Did that female vocal exhibit the same breath and chestiness? As another poster said, I think it's harder to do this for amplifiers than it is for preamps or even source components.
My suggestion is to listen to the D 100 for a few days, playing things you know. Do some "critical listening" and do some listening for enjoyment and relaxation. After a few days, put the Adcom amp back in and do the same thing. My hunch is that you will come away from that experiment wanting to put the D 100 back in the loop again. I heard the D 100 at a show and thought it was a remarkable listening experience.
But you know what, if you find the Adcom meets your needs then you've spent some time having fun (hopefully) and made a useful discovery. What's right for others in their systems doesn't make it right for you (and vice versa).
-
I don't recall my D-100's needing much of a breakin period, but I can attest to the fact that the better DAC can make all the difference. When I tried the Nuforce amps a while back, it interfered with my stand alone DAC forcing me to use the ones in my CD player for the evaluation. With that configuration, I couldn't hear much of a difference between my previous amp and the Nuforce's so they went back. When I got the CI amps, they worked fine with the the good DAC and the difference between amps was noticable and substantial. Just for comparison I have also tried it with the CD player's DAC and again the differences in amps were much smaller.
Point is: source matters. I don't know about the Rotel CD player, but my CD player is a decent Cambridge Audio model that also got very good reviews. It wasn't up to the task so it is entirely possible that the Rotel is in a similar boat.
Tim
-
Hi dhiebert, looks like you are fairly new to the forum, so welcome.
I haven't participated much lately, but I happened to have some free time...
As a former Rotel owner, I rate the build quality and reliability highly, but the sonics rather poorly. The Rotel may be the problem. I experimented by using it as a transport with a very high quality dac, but it did not offer any noticeable improvement. Then I auditioned the same high quality dac with an equally high quality transport, and the difference was night and day. I would recommend replacing the Rotel and auditioning a state of the art digital source. CD players have improved tremendously over the last 3-4 years. If you are happy with the improvement, you may want to revisit your amp comparison - you may then be able to hear differences.
Then again, your Quads may work so well with each amp, that it really won't make a noticeable difference. Have you auditioned other systems, and if so, do you feel they brought you closer to the music? Where do you live, maybe there is an AC member living nearby that you could share listening sessions with. A lot can be learned by listening to what others have assembled.
-
Where do you live, maybe there is an AC member living nearby that you could share listening sessions with.
I live in north Alabama. There is no easy way to listen to much else. The nearest hi-fi dealers are at least 100 miles away. That's why I need advice from others with broader experience.
Reading the "professional" reviews of equipment is pretty useless because of the (Secret) Rules of Reviewing (http://www.high-endaudio.com/reviewers.html#Rul). This leaves me with scouring what others say to derive which products are worth seriously investigating. This is what led me to the D-100.
I will mention one development, though, in support of what you and others have said. Last night, one local friend allowed me to borrow his Krell KAV-300CD CD player to help me see if a better source allowed me to hear a difference between these amps. I first confirmed that I could hear a difference between the Rotel and the Krell CD players through one amp. Then I stayed with the Krell, swapping between amps. I did find that on at least one recording (Kind of Blue), I heard a definite improvement in the imaging of the instruments--one that noticeably increased my emotional enjoyment of the music. Back-and-forth I went and yes, I did hear a difference--and one that was clearly better, rather than just different. I felt that with the D-100, I could "see" the instruments right there in front of me. The point from which the instruments' sound came from was distinctly smaller.
Previously, I had focused most of my comparisons on trying to see if I could pick up musical details through one amp that I couldn't as easily hear through the other. It's so hard to A/B amplifies because of the time it takes to swap out source and speaker cables back and forth. Now that I have a point of reference, I will spend some more time focusing upon this detail when going back and forth between amps.
Thanks for the helpful input you have all offered.
-
By now you may have more advice than you need. But, here is yet one more opinion. First, I agree completely that CD playback has changed greatly over the last few years (even the last two year). It seems you have confirmed that.
Secondly, I've found that some systems are not dynamic when using a passive preamp. I've used both and my preference depends upon the system. If you have the chance, it would be instructive to try an active amp. I've found that tube preamps are great with chip amps. But that is just my preference.
Good luck and have fun along the way.
Phil
-
I agree completely that CD playback has changed greatly over the last few years (even the last two year). It seems you have confirmed that.
The Krell model was actually introduced the same year as my Rotel, so technology related to date of manufacture is not responsible for any difference.
Since you are the second one to mention how much CD playback has improved over the past few years, does anyone have any suggestions on recent CD players which demonstrate this improvement (I realize this runs the risk of taking the discussion outside of the intent of this forum)? Just a few suggestions of recent players I should look at would suffice.
-
the ol' "crap in, crap out" theory. it is true!
buying a high end source is strong advice, especialy if everything under it is of good caliber.
might I suggest keeping your rotel and just buying a good DAC?
there are great deals out there on quality products that are certainly sweet.
bel canto
benchmark
the Grace 902.
:)
-
I've been using a Rotel RCC-955 multi-disc player for the past year and a half - my wife was keen to have multi-disc capabilities. So I complimented this with a dac and other goodies (I actually use a Monarchy DIP reclocking device, a Bolder modified smART DI/O as dac and a little bybee purifier device on the input to the the DI/O). The sound has been a significant improvement over the Rotel unit.
Chad
-
Hopefully everyone here is well beyond the old concept that specifications will fully predict how a piece of equipment will sound. Some specifications can be heard, some cannot, and some don't exist to explain what can be heard. To accept that science will always consist of questions and answers is the beginning of the truly scientific mind.
Most specifications were standardized over 40 years ago and only correlate down to values well above what any modern equipment can meet. Other specifications can be used in a down right deceitful manner or are based on limited bandwidth, steady state, non real world conditions. A few specifications do address synergy issues and/or directly relate to what we hear.
I own Rotel, but have never been impressed with the sound. Much better digital source options are out there IMO. Dusty builds good stuff.
-
The answer to your dilemma is in the above posts.
The D100 amps will deliver exactly what's sent to them through the signal chain: source, interconnects, preamp, interconnects. Each of those four elements is important...including the wire. An improvement made anywhere in that chain will be reflected in the sound produced by the D100 amps, and your Adcom amp for that matter. Start at the source. You can't get any more out of the system than what the source is putting in.
Hi, It seems to me, and Dusty can chime in on this, that the CI stuff has a long break in period. At least, that's what I have read in other reviews. So give the CI amp a chance, and depending on what the Rotel CD player does, it might show its weakness even more. The Adcom stuff is ok, but you have a real winner. I think if memory serves me right the breakin period is about 200 hours.
Ray
-
I always believed my system was very resolving, from the very first big-buck rig I assembled. I thought my sound couldn't be improved, but I was wrong because I didn't know what I was missing, It wasn't until I added a modified Universal player (substitute CD player here if you wish), the Exemplar Denon 2900 that I began to realize I had never heard what my system could do. Then, when I replaced the Exemplar with an APL Denon 3910, an entirely new level of sound emerged. Incredible. Changes in wire...power ...
Tvad whasup buddy, glad you happy, keep smilin :beer:
-
I wanted to let folks know how my evaluation of the D-100 went after first posting that I could not hear a difference from my Adcom amp. I appreciate the advice I received from many on this topic thread.
After much careful listening, I decided to keep the D-100 monoblocks. After borrowing the Krell CD player, I found it easier to hear improvements over my Adcom amp. The differences I noted were a smoother midrange that gave a more realistic presentation of instruments like violas, cellos, brass and male vocals. For certain recordings, I did note better imaging and soundstage. These are all the very improvements which Dusty cited in his first response to my initial posting. And he was right on the money when he suggested that my CD source was not sufficiently revealing. Once I had identified these improvements, I could go back and hear them to a much reduced degree with my Rotel CD player, but they were too subtle to have noticed them at first.
Furthermore, the increased texture I could sometimes hear in midrange instruments was very engaging. The actual sound differences were subtle, but the emotional impact of that increased detail was, at times, pronounced. Late last night, while listening to the first movement of the Shostakovich String Quartet No. 7 by the Borodin Quartet, the detail I heard in the cello during the last minute of the movement was so clearly supperior that I made my decision right then and there. No more listening was needed to make my decision. At that point, I unplugged and disconnected my Adcom. All future listening will take place through my D-100s.
For some reason, I found that I could hear the differences better at night than during the morning or evening. Whether that is a psychological or physiological phenomenon I do not know.
I have held reservations that much of the hype one hears about high-end equipment is more psychological than acoustic. I didn't want to really be influenced by the hope that the D-100 was better. I didn't want to trust or rely upon soley the emotional influence of hearing the music--if I couldn't describe the specific difference in an objective way, I didn't trust it, even if I did vaguely seem to enjoy the music more. One hard lesson that I have learned over the years is our ability to deceive ourselves into believing what we want to believe. I wanted to be able to compare a specific passage between both amps and say to myself "There! That difference right there in the viola."
Thanks again. Now, I just need to get myself a new CD player (or possibly an external DAC).
Darren
-
(Get the APL Marantz. :wink: )
Upon your earlier referral, I read up on the APL Marantz. I looks interesting, but I have no prior experience with APL or Alex Peychev. Is this recommendation based upon his reputation, or do you have his new Marantz unit?
-
That's a good follow-up post Darren. People often don't report back on what they actually ended up doing.
As for a future source there is some discussion that recently took place in this thread here (http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=21818). FWIW, my personnal recomendation would be to ditch your passive pre and run your amps directly off a modded Squeezebox2 (http://www.slimdevices.com/index.html). It sounds amazingly good irrespective of price. Once I replaced the power supply (<$20) I almost didn't bother sending my unit out for mods (Bolder Cable (http://www.boldercables.com/Store.asp?m=TheBolderCableCompany&n=10&k=136511&s=+MODIFICATIONS)). However, w/ the promise of even greater sound quality for just a bit more money, I couldn't resist.
Its really pretty easy to rip CDs onto your computer and its great not having to load & re-load CDs to hear different songs. I've been without my SB2 for almost a week now and even though my Denon 2900 is a very good deck (IMHO), I find myself listening to much less music now. W/ the SB2 it takes just a moment to hear whatever song you want to hear. Lastly, they do have a 30-day return policy, so it doesn't hurt to give it a whirl.
Best of luck,
Jon
-
dheibert, you may want to do some research here on Alex before making a commitment. There are lots of posts. Here is an example: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=21790&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
There are a number of great dealers here at AC that offer liberal audition opportunities.
I can also concur that evening listening is superior to daytime listening. Part of this may be phychological, but later evenings do offer cleaner electricity, which has been pretty well documented and accepted as having a positive sonic impact.
Also, I believe that you cannot choose a component on theoretically objective criteria - both measurements and listening. Most of us listen to music for the emotional connection, and if a component doesn't connect with you on an emotional level, what does it matter how objectively good it is? I spent years auditioning in pursuit of the right components. With amps I found one that connected with me several years ago, and even though I've heard objectively superior amps, and even though my amp is long on the tooth in terms of age and "state-of-the-art" technology, I have a strong connection to it and have been very satisfied with its sonic performance. In any audition, you should spend some time listening with an objective hear and evaluting things like resolution, soundstage, dynamics, but when all that is done, you should just sit back and listen for the musical experience, and let your emotions be the judge.
-
Thanks again. Now, I just need to get myself a new CD player (or possibly an external DAC).
Maybe you'll want to wait for VDA•2 so you can have all CIAudio electronics :D
It'll be out in 6-8 weeks, I'd be glad to let you try one out. It accepts signals up to 24/192, uses the latest PCM1794 current output DAC IC, both single-ended and balanced outputs, Toslink and Coax inputs, slow roll-off digital filter, front panel phase switch, and uses no op amps.
-Dusty-
-
Maybe you'll want to wait for VDA•2 so you can have all CIAudio electronics :D
Well, I now have the D•100, VPC•1, and VPP•1, so I am well on my way there, already. The only thing non-CIAudio at this point is my CD player and turntable.
It accepts signals up to 24/192, uses the latest PCM1794 current output DAC IC, both single-ended and balanced output, Toslink and Coax inputs, front panel phase switch, slow roll-off digital filter, front panel phase switch, and uses no op amps.
Dusty, can you please comment on how an external DAC compares with in-player solutions? For example, when I look at modded players, like APL, the improvements include a better master clock. When using an external DAC, I presume that one is still stuck with the player's clock, which affects how accurately timed is the bit stream going to the DAC. To what extent is the laser's signal handled by the player prior to the digital outputs of the player versus how much is handled by the (replaceable/external) DAC?
This question is to help me understand how much of an improvement is possible by an external solution given the inherent limitations of my current player.
-
Dusty, what's your expected price on the VDA-2?
-
This question is to help me understand how much of an improvement is possible by an external solution given the inherent limitations of my current player.
There are advantages to both all-in-one players and separate transport/DAC combos...each have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Since CD players are mechanical devices, they are much more prone to failure. Most payers I've owned have lasted an average of 5 years before the laser or spindle motor fails...and when I've tried to repair them, parts were no longer available. There are many good CD players (most of them expensive), but what do you do when it fails or DAC technology becomes outdated?
IMO, the DAC (conversion/analog stage/power supply) is responsible for the majority of the playback performance. Our philosophy is to use a reasonably priced player and a good DAC. If the player fails or DAC becomes obsolete, you simply replace what you need to.
It all comes down to sound quality, get a few players on audition and compare it to your existing player with a VDA•2, and see what you like best.
-
Dusty, what's your expected price on the VDA-2?
Hi Brad,
around $600 for the VDA•2 with standard power supply, add $159 for VAC•1
See ya tomorrow at the RMAF!
-Dusty-
-
See ya tomorrow at the RMAF!
Not tomorrow, that whole job thing gets in the way, but I'll be there all day Saturday. See you then.
-
around $600 for the VDA•2 with standard power supply, add $159 for VAC•1
¡Wow! seems like a major upgrade from the VDA-1, for all of us, happy owners of a VDA-1/VAC-1, what would we benefit from with the the new DAC? Is it worth the upgrade?
Best regards,
Roberto
-
Quote:
"This question is to help me understand how much of an improvement is possible by an external solution given the inherent limitations of my current player."
Our philosophy is to use a reasonably priced player and a good DAC. If the player fails or DAC becomes obsolete, you simply replace what you need to.
It all comes down to sound quality, get a few players on audition and compare it to your existing player with a VDA•2, and see what you like best.
I concur, but it is important that the cd player used is a transport is not responsible for degrading the signal. I switched to a dedicated transport because there was a significant audible improvement over a cd player used as a transport using the same dac. I'm not qualified to explain the technical reasons, but it was explained to me that when the transport and dac are physically separated from each other by distance and shielding there is less destructive interference caused by the electronics used by the transport (i.e. laser) and the electronics used by the dac.
I have an 8 year old Classe dedicated transport that I leave on all the time. It's lasted this long with no problems On the other end of the spectrum, I have a 17 year old Onkyo multidisc player that is still chugging along just fine.
-
What is the diameter of the spade portion of the speaker binding posts on the D•100? In other words, what size spades are required?
-
What is the diameter of the spade portion of the speaker binding posts on the D•100? In other words, what size spades are required?
.2" on the flats (spades horizontal) and .31" at the widest radius (spades vertical). I actually prefer cables with locking bananas on the amplifier end.
Harmonic Tech Fantasy, Pro11, and Pro9 are available this way, as well as some from other manufacturers.
-Dusty-
-
Maybe you'll want to wait for VDA•2... It accepts signals up to 24/192, uses the latest PCM1794 current output DAC IC, both single-ended and balanced outputs, Toslink and Coax inputs, slow roll-off digital filter, front panel phase switch, and uses no op amps.
Have you had a chance to evaluate the new AKM DACS that Alex Peychev is making such a fuss about? I haven't heard anything about the PCM1794. I am curious how it compares against the other new DAC chips and what you might have had a chance to evaluate before deciding on the PCM1794.
-
Have you had a chance to evaluate the new AKM DACS that Alex Peychev is making such a fuss about? I haven't heard anything about the PCM1794
The AKM439X parts are also good and have similar specs to PCM1792/1794, but we liked the performance and current outputs of the Burr Brown part. Part of the magic in VDA•2 is the way we do the I/V conversion/analog stage, which can only be done with current outputs.
-
I just thought I would close out this thread on my evaluation of the capable D•100 with this wonderful image that I found here (http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/10/has-jp22-got-himself-new-job.html).
(http://www.whitwell.ndo.co.uk/musicthing/images/jp22.jpg).
Having fun...