What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

Started by Bonehelm, May 24, 2007, 08:52:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

71 dB

Quote from: Coopmv on August 16, 2009, 04:03:02 AM
I am looking at the brochure for the Power Envelope NAD 2200, the amp that started the trend of high dynamic headroom amps within NAD.  In stereo mode: IHF dynamic headroom at 8 ohms is +6db, IHF dynamic power is 400W (26 dbW) into 8 ohms, 600W (28 dbW) into 4 ohms and 800W (29 dbW) into 2 ohms.  Its continuous average power output into 8 ohms is only a modest 100 W (20 dbW). I will try to scan the brochure into the computer and upload it later today so we can all share.

Well, NAD 2200 had very large dynamic headroom. Newer NAD C272 has much smaller headroom (2.3 dB), but gives 150 W continuos power at 8 ohms. On audioholics forums people are comparing these two amplifiers. According to them C272 has better sound but 2200 has more dynamic kick on loudest sounds.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

Coopmv

#601
Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2009, 05:26:28 AM
Well, NAD 2200 had very large dynamic headroom. Newer NAD C272 has much smaller headroom (2.3 dB), but gives 150 W continuos power at 8 ohms. On audioholics forums people are comparing these two amplifiers. According to them C272 has better sound but 2200 has more dynamic kick on loudest sounds.



The NAD 2600 in the Monitor Series is the most powerful amp with high dynamic headroom NAD has ever made.  I almost had a used one once but it arrived busted, courtesy of the USPS.

Specs

drogulus

Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2009, 01:42:26 AM
I am too young for 3020 but I have read about that legendary amplifier that sold over 1 million units. I don't think it was able to deliver 80 watts peak power into 8 ohm. Sounds too good. I think that's what it delivered into 2 ohms load. My 302 replaced 3020 according to NAD and must be very similar. For 302, NAD gave these power ratings:

Continuous average power output into 8 ohms: 25 W
IHF dynamic power 8/4/2 ohms: 50/60/75 W (dynamic headroom at 8 ohms: 3 dB)

Back in 1993 NAD 302 was their least powerful amplifier but I never managed to overdrive it. The performance of an amplifier is dependent on the signal form. NAD makes amplifiers that perform well with music signals.

NAD still uses Soft clipping, of course. I have it on in my NAD T762. Gives extra protection for loudspeakers.

     Your numbers do look more realistic. I might have the numbers confused with the 3150.

     These are the official specs for the 3020B:

     

     
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Coopmv

Quote from: drogulus on August 16, 2009, 02:37:40 PM
     Your numbers do look more realistic. I might have the numbers confused with the 3150.

     These are the official specs for the 3020B:

     

     

Wasn't 3020B the first integrated amp made by NAD? 

If I am not mistaken, the first power amp made by NAD also had power meters, but that was to be the only power amp ever made by NAD that had power meters.

NAD really did not grab my attention until the 2200 hit the market.  I bought the amp from a dealer in NYC and in fact drove in from NJ, where I lived at the time to pick up the amp.

drogulus

Quote from: Coopmv on August 16, 2009, 05:19:11 PM
 

Wasn't 3020B the first integrated amp made by NAD?  

If I am not mistaken, the first power amp made by NAD also had power meters, but that was to be the only power amp ever made by NAD that had power meters.

NAD really did not grab my attention until the 2200 hit the market.  I bought the amp from a dealer in NYC and in fact drove in from NJ, where I lived at the time to pick up the amp.

    I think the 3020 was the first. I had that one along with the 4020 tuner. I sold the amp :( many years ago. The tuner is at my brothers house where it still works and gets regular use.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Daverz

#605
Quote from: Daverz on August 14, 2009, 11:15:55 PM
New toy, a Squeezebox Duet.

I was very happy with the Duet, until I tried to play the 24 bit/88.2 kHz files I downloaded from the Boston Symphony site.  "Unsupported sample rate".  They only support up to 48kHz.  There's no reason that 24/96 couldn't be streamed over wireless.  I regularly watch 720p divx video files without a hiccup over a wireless connection, so audio would be a breeze.  They obviously want to push the Transporter for hi-rez files.

Valentino

That's right. For 88.2 or 96kHz throughput you need the Transporter or the soon to be released Squeezebox Touch (~$400).

But if you run the current SqueezeCenter release, SoX will downsample any sample rate (up to 192kHz) to the rate your hardware will accept.
Install SC 7.3.3 if you haven't done so yet.
We audiophiles don't really like music, but we sure love the sound it makes;
Audio-Technica | Bokrand | Thorens | Cambridge Audio | Logitech | Yamaha | Topping | MiniDSP | Hypex | ICEpower | Mundorf | SEAS | Beyma

Daverz

#607
Quote from: Valentino on August 16, 2009, 11:40:47 PM
That's right. For 88.2 or 96kHz throughput you need the Transporter or the soon to be released Squeezebox Touch (~$400).

But if you run the current SqueezeCenter release, SoX will downsample any sample rate (up to 192kHz) to the rate your hardware will accept.
Install SC 7.3.3 if you haven't done so yet.

Yeah, 7.3.3 on Ubuntu.  I guess this is a plugin?  I don't see anything obvious in settings.

[Edit] Ah, it only works for flac and ogg.  The files were originally aiff.  Interesting that it still reports a sample rate of 88.2kHz in the controller.

[Edit] I can see the sox command line in the unix process table, and it shows a 44100 sample rate.  My DAC lists the input as <=20/44.1.  So I wonder if some dithering is going on, too.


Valentino

Yeah, I hope so. Proper resampling includes dither this layman believes.
We audiophiles don't really like music, but we sure love the sound it makes;
Audio-Technica | Bokrand | Thorens | Cambridge Audio | Logitech | Yamaha | Topping | MiniDSP | Hypex | ICEpower | Mundorf | SEAS | Beyma

RebLem

#609
Speakers:  2 IMF MK III Improved 4 way speakers weith Nordost 2 flat speaker cables.   http://www.imf-electronics.com/Home/imf/speaker-range/reference-speakers/professional-monitor/professional-monitor-mkiii#TOC-SPECIFICATION

Power amp:  Audionics CC-2.  http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=310147816970  and http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/bobsickler.html

Preamp:  NcCormack RLD-1.   http://www.mccormackaudio.com/rld1.html

Tuner:  Magnum Dynalab Etude FT-101A with a 1/2 wave indoor antenna.  http://www.magnumdynalab.com/x_ft101a.htm

CD player: Arcam CD-72.  http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/arcam_cd72.htm

Next upgrade will probably be a set of good component interconnects, probably Kimber Kable.  Also, a Rega P2 turntable.
"Don't drink and drive; you might spill it."--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father.

Daverz

Quote from: Valentino on August 17, 2009, 01:15:31 AM
Yeah, I hope so. Proper resampling includes dither this layman believes.

I mean dithering from 24 bits to 16 bits.

Valentino

You should get 24 bits. SoX just halves (popspeak) the Fs for 96 and 88.2 kHz.
We audiophiles don't really like music, but we sure love the sound it makes;
Audio-Technica | Bokrand | Thorens | Cambridge Audio | Logitech | Yamaha | Topping | MiniDSP | Hypex | ICEpower | Mundorf | SEAS | Beyma

Daverz

I guess I can write my BSO hi-rez files to a DVD-R in some way that it will be "understood" by my Oppo, then play it back into my DAC.

I downloaded the recent live Levine Mahler 6, by the way, for $10.  Looking forward to hearing it.

Valentino

I still don't quite understand: Won't SC downsample you hirez files to 48 or 44.1? Or is the thing that you WANT 88.2 or 96?
We audiophiles don't really like music, but we sure love the sound it makes;
Audio-Technica | Bokrand | Thorens | Cambridge Audio | Logitech | Yamaha | Topping | MiniDSP | Hypex | ICEpower | Mundorf | SEAS | Beyma

Daverz

#614
Quote from: Valentino on August 17, 2009, 10:54:01 AM
I still don't quite understand: Won't SC downsample you hirez files to 48 or 44.1? Or is the thing that you WANT 88.2 or 96?

I'm listening to these hi-rez files with my Squeezebox now, after converting them to flac, but it's the principle of the thing, dammit. ;)

My original plan was to set up a small embedded Linux system to do the streaming.  Might still try that.  I'm sure I could do internet radio with that as well.

BTW, the Levine Mahler 6 has very nice sonics, but it seems a bit bass light and not particularly dynamic.  I don't think it really needs hi-rez.


drogulus



    I want to get an inexpensive receiver that processes HDMI audio (not passthrough IOW). Does anyone have a suggestion? My upper limit is ~$500 but I'd like to go lower than that if I can. The high rez formats are welcome but not necessary. Does anyone know about this? I'm sure the info is there on AVS Forums but it's scattered over a number of threads.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Daverz

Quote from: drogulus on August 17, 2009, 12:45:07 PM

    I want to get an inexpensive receiver that processes HDMI audio (not passthrough IOW). Does anyone have a suggestion? My upper limit is ~$500 but I'd like to go lower than that if I can. The high rez formats are welcome but not necessary. Does anyone know about this? I'm sure the info is there on AVS Forums but it's scattered over a number of threads.

This one looks nice:

http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-SR705-Channel-Theater-Receiver/dp/B000OBMX0K

drogulus

Quote from: Daverz on August 17, 2009, 01:12:33 PM
This one looks nice:

http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-SR705-Channel-Theater-Receiver/dp/B000OBMX0K


    It does look nice. What I'd like to know is how far down the line you can go and still get audio processing (not HD audio, just the usual PCM and bitstream). I want to send HDMI audio to the speakers, not the display, and cheap receivers are usually pass-through only. What's the lowest model in the Onkyo line that does what I want? The same question would apply to other brands such as Yamaha, HK, Sony and Marantz.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Coopmv

Here is the NAD 2200 specs from the original brochure ...


drogulus

Quote from: Coopmv on August 23, 2009, 05:13:15 PM
Here is the NAD 2200 specs from the original brochure ...



     Those are impressive numbers.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0