0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 63217 times.
ps. "I would consider one of his if I ever get to that second system."Just wondering why the second system, and not the first? Have you already auditioned one? Cheers.
Haven't you heard...Pete's in love with a "DUDE"!! George
The idea that you can only have 3D by adding something to the music that ISN'T there already is a bit disturbing. Makes me think some of these gain stages are fancy forms of distortion that folks consider 3D. I believe that the 3D affect is inherent in the recording and mastering. Therefore, less interference (stuff in the signal path) will gain you more 3D.
The Warpspeed OC......... I believe folks like Nelson Pass and the whole SET crowd believe simplification is the key. To each his own, right? Sometimes less is really more.
Did someone dismiss it? If so, welcome to the club John. Some have dismissed mine as well.Where is that stated?Is it less? It is a volume control just like any other volume control, actually more complicated. So the gainstage is moved to the "integrated amplifier". So how is the system less?See above. It is more complicated than a typical volume control.Cheers.
Hi Steve, I went ahead and edited out some of my comments...they were not aimed at you but at another post that got edited while I was typing. JohnP.S. I do think it is a valid issue of where 3D comes from: is it inherent in the source? And if so, how do you not lose it through the components. My point with distortion is that if you are adding (or exaggerating) something that isn't there, then it is a form of distortion. This is a simplify the signal path comment.
John - On paper, things like passive volume controls and crossover less speakers make sense. It's jut that in my experience I've never heard a passive preamp that sounded better than an active design. Same with crossoverless speakers. Everyone has an opinion and a personal preference but in my experience, sometimes less is in fact less. Haven't heard the Octo but anyone in Chicago who wants to bring one over for a comparison is welcome. If it sounds better than my 10A, I'll buy one immediately. I have no connection with SAS other than ownership of their excellent preamp.
Hi John,I also did some editing. No sweat and nice points. I also believe 3D is at least from the source. Stereophile CD2 and CD3, both track 10 are cool tracks. At one point the tester is some 50 feet from the mic, and it sounds that way. Nicely put. Anything that adds or subtracts from the input is distortion. "How do you not lose it through the components." You are very wise as you see there are other forms of distortion besides HD and IMD. For instance, masking distortion will cause 3D to diminish.I think we are on the same track John. I appreciate reading your points. Thanks.Cheers.
I would love to hear your 10A. If I go visit my sister in Chitown, I'll pack my WS and you can take a listen.John
The idea that you can only have 3D by adding something to the music that ISN'T there already is a bit disturbing. Makes me think some of these gain stages are fancy forms of distortion that folks consider 3D. I believe that the 3D affect is inherent in the recording and mastering. Therefore, less interference (stuff like physical switches in the signal path) will gain you more 3D.John
Absolutely agree with this and it is reflected in what I said earlier about the effect being source-dependent. My own recent experience shows the importance of having a source that does an excellent job of retrieving the data from the source material and then doesn't step all over it before handing it off to the pre. And of course you want a pre which in turn does not crap all over that fine, exquisitely-retrieved data before sending it down the chain. The fact that my pre so clearly differentiated between my existing source and the better one in terms of making that "halographic" effect more prominent tells me two things :a) that the concept that the 3D effect is indeed derived from the source material ( if indeed it is there to begin with ) is indeed the case and that a quality source and pre will lay that out before you without degrading the data and detracting from the desired effect and b) my pre is doing what a good pre is supposed to do: accurately reflecting what is going on in front of it without making a mess of it. That's why the sonic difference between the two sources were so obviously different. But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong... D.D.
DD,If that Manley is your preamp, you are doing pretty darn good in the 3D department. Cheers,J
Steve, I do intend to try a tube preamp, someday when my system is finished. which will be soon, actually. I've got you and Dodd at the top of my list and pretty much no others. We've spoken at length before if you recall, and I have immense respect.
