CI D200s with Salk HT3s

pugs · « **on:** 7 Jan 2006, 04:31 pm »

Has anybody tried the CI D200s with Salk HT3s? I don't even have my HT3s yet, but I may be looking for a smaller set of amps to replace my Odyssey extereme monos. The extreme monos sound great with my current set up, but they take up too much room. The size of the D200s is desireable to me.

Marbles · « **Reply #1 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 04:37 pm »

I haven't heard the D200's, but I'd be VERY interested in the comparison of them to your Odyssey's, should you or someone else make it.

In GENERAL, the knock on digital amps is the lack of emotional connection to the music. Of the digital amps, I think Dusty has gotten closer to this connection than the others, at least by the reviews I've read.

zybar · « **Reply #2 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 05:43 pm »

I would love to hear this combo and just might try it out via Music Direct.

They offer a 30 day return period so if the amps aren't the equal or better of my DNA-500 I could return them without paying a 10% restocking fee.

Will keep you posted.

George

brj · « **Reply #3 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 07:19 pm »

I have to admit that I'm curious about this combo as well, and have mulled it over several times. I'd really like to see a shootout on the HT3s between the DNA 500s, D200s and NuForce Reference 9.0s.

I don't have my speakers yet, but I've already asked Dusty about D200 owners in my area, and I can get access to the Ref 9s without too much trouble. I haven't started looking for some DNA amps yet. Of course, in my case, this is all "phase B" amplification, until the wallet recovers a bit from the holidays and other stuff, but I have been thinking about it.

zybar · « **Reply #4 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 07:25 pm »

I already did the NuForce 9 (not the absolute latest rev though) and DNA-500 comparison and it wrote about it here:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=21796&highlight=nuforce

This sums up my thoughts:

Quote

In a direct comparison the Ref 9's are not as well refined, have issues in the treble, and don't allow me to emotionally connect with the music in the same way as the DNA-500.

George

brj · « **Reply #5 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 07:34 pm »

Ah... thanks, George! I had forgotten about that thread.

Just to be clear, that comparison was done on your HT3s? (I don't remember the timing of your upgrade history.)

zybar · « **Reply #6 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 07:35 pm »

Quote from: brj

Ah... thanks, George! I had forgotten about that thread.

Just to be clear, that comparison was done on your HT3s? (I don't remember the timing of your upgrade history.)

Yup.

George

JoshK · « **Reply #7 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 08:45 pm »

I wonder if anyone has tried to biamp their HT3's. They seem like they should be a really good candidate. I imagine the woofer is the difficulty in driving them and if you put a digital or beefy SS amp on it and whatever you love on the top you might be onto something. This is what i'd be wanting to try out if I owned them.

Does anyone have a full impedance sweep chart for the HT3s? This might give you a clue as to where they are drawing the most current.

brj · « **Reply #8 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 08:55 pm »

Quote from: JoshK

I wonder if anyone has tried to biamp their HT3's. They seem like they should be a really good candidate. I imagine the woofer is the difficulty in driving them and if you put a digital or beefy SS amp on it and whatever you love on the top you might be onto something. This is what i'd be wanting to try out if I owned them.

Well, my plan is to bi-amp the HT3s with a Panny receiver (that will be modded at some point) as an inexpensive starting point. I'll use the XR55 unless a similar replacement for the XR70 comes out before my speakers ship. Not exactly the "beefy" SS amp you mentioned, but I'm hoping that bi-ampping at 100W into 6 Ohms will be enough tide me over until I figure out a long term amplification direction.

I have ordered my speakers with external crossovers, so at some point I will go fully active with tri-amping and room/driver correction. That will be a couple of years down the road, however, as I wait for DEC/X and TacT prices to drop.

Quote from: JoshK

Does anyone have a full impedance sweep chart for the HT3s? This might give you a clue as to where they are drawing the most current.

The only Salk speaker measurement I've seen is the FR for the HT1s.

P.S. Josh, did I mention that your avatar is disturbing?

zybar · « **Reply #9 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 09:02 pm »

Quote from: JoshK

I wonder if anyone has tried to biamp their HT3's. They seem like they should be a really good candidate. I imagine the woofer is the difficulty in driving them and if you put a digital or beefy SS amp on it and whatever you love on the top you might be onto something. This is what i'd be wanting to try out if I owned them.

Does anyone have a full impedance sweep chart for the HT3s? This might give you a clue as to where they are drawing the most current.

Josh,

I have thought about it, but I honestly haven't been able to come up with a pair of amps (plus associated gear) that I think can outperform the DNA-500 without spending a lot more money.

If you have some combinations that you think might do the trick, let me know and I will see if I can arrange an audition.

George

ekovalsky · « **Reply #10 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 09:05 pm »

Quote from: JoshK

I wonder if anyone has tried to biamp their HT3's. They seem like they should be a really good candidate. I imagine the woofer is the difficulty in driving them and if you put a digital or beefy SS amp on it and whatever you love on the top you might be onto something. This is what i'd be wanting to try out if I owned them.

Does anyone have a full impedance sweep chart for the HT3s? This might give you a clue as to where they are drawing the most current.

Both the woofer and midrange in the HT3 are low efficiency drivers, so significant attenuation of the tweeter is needed to match output levels.

I would think that to get a worthwhile improvement over a single powerful amplifier, tri-amping with active crossovers would be necessary -- and the HT3a is offered for exactly this purpose.

Based on what I understand fo the design, bi-amping the woofer and mid/tweeter separately would probably not be worth the cost and trouble. But of course I don't own these speakers hence am basically just talking smack.

JoshK · « **Reply #11 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 09:06 pm »

I am not so sure how beneficial biamping will be with a Panny. The reason is due to the small PSU. My thinking is that the the limitation of the output is not being able to source enough current from the PSU, and clips from current limitation, so biamping will not provide any overhead because it is still limited in current from PSU.

zybar · « **Reply #12 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 09:08 pm »

I bet the HT3's would jump to a new level with the fully modified TacT amps and 2.2x preamp.

Unfortunately, the only way I would be able to hear this would be if I sent Eric my speakers and showed up at his house.

How about HT3's as carry-on luggage?

George

JoshK · « **Reply #13 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 09:11 pm »

Eric, I see your point, but I am not sure that efficiency is the amp taxer so much as impedance. The closer the woofer plays to its Fs the higher the impedance and draws current like noones business, this causes the distortion and amp to near clipping. Take the bottom octaves away from one amp provides a much easier load for the other.

You do have a point about padding down the tweeter, but apparently biamping in this range with different amps is difficult.

ekovalsky · « **Reply #14 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 09:32 pm »

Quote from: zybar

I bet the HT3's would jump to a new level with the fully modified TacT amps and 2.2x preamp.

Unfortunately, the only way I would be able to hear this would be if I sent Eric my speakers and showed up at his house.

How about HT3's as carry-on luggage?

George

Come on over !!!

DMurphy · « **Reply #15 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 10:28 pm »

Does anyone have a full impedance sweep chart for the HT3s? This might give you a clue as to where they are drawing the most current.[/quote]

The nominal impedance is 5 ohms, but it dips below that between 100 and 200 Hz. That's quite normal in a 3-way of this type, and the area is narrow enough not to present problems to any decent amp, including Jim's "little" Jolida tube jobs. I really don't know whether biamping would make any difference, assuming Jim configures the HT3's to allow that. Maybe Jim has tried it?

zybar · « **Reply #16 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 10:39 pm »

Quote from: DMurphy

The nominal impedance is 5 ohms, but it dips below that between 100 and 200 Hz. That's quite normal in a 3-way of this type, and the area is narrow enough not to present problems to any decent amp, including Jim's "little" Jolida tube jobs. I really don't know whether biamping would make any difference, assuming Jim configures the HT3's to allow that. Maybe Jim has tried it?

Dennis,

Jim has on his website the following:

Quote

We matched the quality of the G2 and W18 by working closely with the engineers at TC Sounds to create the 989. This extremely low distortion driver plays authoritatively deep in a relatively small enclosure. The massive motor size and 21mm of XMAX are indicative of its excellent power-handling capabilities with minimal distortion. This design allows the HT3 to operate at a nominal 8-ohms.

Looks like we need Jim to chime in...

George

DMurphy · « **Reply #17 on:** 8 Jan 2006, 01:32 am »

Quote from: zybar

Looks like we need Jim to chime in...

Jim's probably hard at work. I'm recovering from the flu (them shots don't work so good), so you're stuck with me. I think Jim meant that the various drivers of the HT3 are rated at a similar impedance, which allows them to work together well. But once the crossover is in place, particularly one that has to get the woofer out of the way by 250 Hz, the impedance will drop. I don't know of any 3-way design with normal drivers that can maintain an 8 ohm load across the board. 5 ohms is actually quite benign for most amps.

jsalk · « **Reply #18 on:** 8 Jan 2006, 07:25 pm »

Just a quick response on the topic of bi-amping.

While the issues can certainly be debated (and tested), one things is certain - using a single amp is fool-proof (the crossover does the work). Bi-amping, while certainly possible, introduces potential level errors due to different gain structures in the associated amps.

Using different make and/or model amps can really make if difficult to get the gain relationships correct without resorting to test and measurement equipment.

With a multi-channel amp, this problem should be minimized (provided the channels are consistent, which they should be). But now you have to look at the power supply. Is it robust enough to supply all the amplifier channels with all the power they require?

Take using the Panasonic approach mentioned above, for example. Regardless of how many channels are used, the power supply is only capable of of supplying a given amount of instantaneous power to the amplifier circuits. Once this is exceeded, it makes no difference how many channels of amplification are used.

While I have never had a problem driving HT3's with a Panny at moderate levels (I own and often use an SX-40), it does not have a very robust power supply. Since this is the limiting factor, I am not sure that bi-amping with one would provide any significant benefits.

Keep in mind that the tweeter requires very little power. Most of the power is consumed by the woofer.

Although I have not had time to experiment with it, I have often thought of using a high-power SS amp for the woofer and smaller tube amps for the midrange and tweeter. With DEQX, this is very easy to control. Simply hook the chosen amps to the appropriate drivers and measure them. When the crossover is created, the levels will be optimized automatically.

You could end up with a very nice musical tube sound, yet have all the power required to avoid any hint of clipping in the woofer section.

Just a few thoughts...

- Jim