Degree of importance for ICs

woodsyi · « **on:** 15 Sep 2004, 06:00 pm »

I have a limited budget. I can't afford ICs that I want for all connections. I can only get half the best ICs and compromise on the other half. Where would the best IC go? phonostage-pre, cdp-pre, pre-xover, xover-amp1 (mid/high), xover-amp2 (midbass/bass) or xover-amp3 (Subwoofer)?

Fife12 · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 Sep 2004, 06:13 pm »

Your best IC should be at the source first as that is the first connection point.

Last would be your preamp to amplifier.

mcgsxr · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 Sep 2004, 07:01 pm »

I second this advice - try to preserve the quality of the signal path for as long as you can...

I use my Bolder M-80 from Mensa to Pre Amp, and then Heartland IC's from there to the amps.

Mark

MaxCast · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 Sep 2004, 07:10 pm »

Just a thought, if you put it between the pre and the amp you get to run all your sources through it.

Second thought, try it both ways and do the one that sounds best

Fife12 · « **Reply #4 on:** 15 Sep 2004, 07:22 pm »

Quote

Just a thought, if you put it between the pre and the amp you get to run all your sources through it.

True.
But in the ideal world, our pockets are loaded with limited cash

mcgsxr · « **Reply #5 on:** 15 Sep 2004, 08:07 pm »

Fife, welcome to the 'Circles, fellow Canuck!

I think Maxcast is suggesting that by using it between the pre and amp, you benefit from having all the sources ultimately go through your best IC - did you think be meant buy more of them with your $$ comment?

Perhaps I am out in left field, and have TOTALLY missed the meaning of both of you.... in which case, well, I LIKE it out here...

Mark in Canada

Carlman · « **Reply #6 on:** 15 Sep 2004, 08:10 pm »

I think Max's comment was to use it between the amp and preamp instead of source to pre.... not in addition... so, there's no added cost.

However, I'd consider 2 IC's of good value: primary source to pre and pre to amp. If you only use your secondary source 10% of the time, I'd just swap cables when you used it.... otherwise, it's your call... experimenting is a good idea.

I'm spoiled on good IC's. Every time I try something else, it just doesn't sound as good. Speaking of... Nathan at 8th Nerve has some deals on Audience Conductor... you should give him a call.

-C

Fife12 · « **Reply #7 on:** 15 Sep 2004, 09:14 pm »

Actually I think I missed it all.

woodsyi originally wanted to know where you would put your ONE best IC if the rest you had were mediocre.

If you have only one source, then I would say from source to pre.

If you had multiple sources (say 3) and all were used in equal proportions, then according to MaxCast, it could be best to put it between your pre to amp.

Hi mcgsxr, actually my old user name was Fife but I got locked out while trying to switch email account..thus my new user name.

mcgsxr · « **Reply #8 on:** 15 Sep 2004, 09:25 pm »

Ahh, sorry to welcome you then...

I guess I have to agree with the logic expressed by you and Maxcast, but for me, as a single source user for listening (I mean that when I really want to listen then there is really only my front end) rather than watching and listening, or doing other things with music on, I want that good IC with the best source.

Greed, or perhaps pig-headedness...

It ties to my goal of "fidelity first" - something I try to keep in mind when spending $$, or configuring a system. Most of my friends want convenience first...

mark

nathanm · « **Reply #9 on:** 15 Sep 2004, 09:33 pm »

What's your budget and how many pairs of cords do you need?

woodsyi · « **Reply #10 on:** 16 Sep 2004, 01:56 pm »

So IC is a necessary evil for signal propagation. Why then should we poo poo Receivers? Wouldn't a Receiver with good power and shielding be better than separates? Better yet, a Receiver with built in CDP! Wait, throw in the speakers, too. That would make it an "audiophile" boombox -- no IC's needed. Why not?

Seriously, have we gone too far with separation of components? I for one am tired of having to connect CDP, Tape Deck (yes, I still have it), TT, Phono stage, Line stage, active crossover and three amps. Is there any wonder why I can't afford all quality ICs?

Carlman · « **Reply #11 on:** 16 Sep 2004, 02:43 pm »

Why don't you get a boombox and compare it to your separates in a blind test? Then maybe you'll have the answer!

nathanm · « **Reply #12 on:** 16 Sep 2004, 03:43 pm »

I would assume that if a person is into this hobby at all, that they do have a paying job. Therefore it is safe to say that anyone here can afford ALL quality interconnects. The idea that "quality" cables are out of reach to all but the most wealthy listeners is a ludicrous distortion of reality IMHO.

If no interconnect is better than 1 interconnect and let's say for the sake of argument that this piece of wire costs $1000 then you could say that by butting the two pieces of gear back to back with only a male-to-male RCA adpater plug between them you must be getting in excess of $1000 worth of sound quality without spending a dime and only suffering a slight ergonomic inconvenience, right?

mca · « **Reply #13 on:** 16 Sep 2004, 03:48 pm »

Mark Levinson says their integrated amp will sound better than seperates of the same or better quality if the quality of the interconnects are not up to snuff. That's one of the reasons I've always liked integrateds, one less set of interconnects to worry about.

There have also been several attempts to combine a CD player and preamp in the same chassis. I think NAD had one and also the Musical Fidelity CD Pre-24. I always thought that unit would be a cool one to try, but looking on Audiogon, they don't seem like they were that popular.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #14 on:** 16 Sep 2004, 04:36 pm »

Assuming for a moment that all ICs do have distinctive sonic signatures (hmmm...wouldn't this make them tone controls? Nevermind...), and every signal had to pass thru at least the ones linking the amp/pre, isn't the sound of that pair going to be the limiting factor? If you have a whole bunch of firehoses, with one length of garden hose in there, you'd have a bottleneck. Wouldn't matter how much volume the other hoses could handle thru the rest of the system.

lcrim · « **Reply #15 on:** 16 Sep 2004, 05:30 pm »

Right now I have a lot of IC's in use. I have a 2 channel system with separate amp, preamp, phono stage, TT that has built in IC's, CD player, and the analog outputs from an HDTV receiver.
My HT system also includes a universal player which therefore requires 3 pairs of IC's (5.1 outputs) plus an older TT w/ tonearm that doesn't include any IC's just female RCA outlets, plus a separate phono stage (another pair of IC's.) In addition there are subwoofers in both systems that require IC's for their line level inputs.
I tend to place the best IC's closest to the sources but that's not a hard rule. The surround and bass channels on the universal player get the dregs. The CD player (actually modded DVD) gets the best but the IC's on the older tonearm were chosen because the connecters on the Audioquest green things were the only ones small enough to fit w/o running into one another.

mcgsxr · « **Reply #16 on:** 16 Sep 2004, 10:10 pm »

Yes, NAD had the L40 which was cd, tuner, amp and preamp all in one chassis. Some liked it.

There are versions of the JVC hybrid digital amplification that at least one person here uses - cd, tuner, amp and preamp all in one, small package...

mark in Canada

woodsyi · « **Reply #17 on:** 17 Sep 2004, 02:51 pm »

You know I asked the original question because I wanted to be cheap and skimp on 2 pairs of long (2m) IC that I need for a pair of monoblocks I just obtained. I don't suppose that it would be a good idea to connect two shorter IC's with an adoptor?

I started looking around the Audiogon for ICs and found a puzzling use of Palladium. According to a conductivity chart [/url]http://web.mit.edu/3.091/www/pt/pert7.htmlhttp://
Pd has 1/10th the conductivity Cu has. I can understand the use of Silver since it is the only metal that is more conductive than Copper, but why Palladium? Of course, it is supposed to be more expensive than platinum which is more than gold which is more than silver which is more than copper. Thus the price of Pd IC's are high. I just wonder what make it a good IC material. Nickel is in the same family as Pd and Pt. I wonder if we will soon see ICs made of pure Ni.

woodsyi · « **Reply #18 on:** 17 Sep 2004, 02:54 pm »

Somehow the link did not work.
http://web.mit.edu/3.091/www/pt/pert7.html
I hope it works this time.

Carlman · « **Reply #19 on:** 17 Sep 2004, 03:03 pm »

Because it sounds cool.

Palladium, gold, silver, platinum... I think it's all audio jewelry designed to impress someone.

I think the cable business is in business because the idea and product literature makes it sound sexy and like a great thing to do... Getting a nice, thick cable that you insert into your new toy sounds like a lot of fun to some. Having a little glamourous jewelry makes it seem a little more tasteful.

However, this new palladium idea suggests it's not the size of your cable that matters, but how much it costs. I think Palladium cable makes as much sense as a girl who doesn't bring a purse with her on a date. It's going to cost a lot and the end product usually isn't as good as the wrapper.

I don't know, maybe the cable industry is full of people with merit that aren't just trying to reap huge profits. Who knows?