Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
74.76.7.98
I have some IIIa Frankenpans that have been recently rebuilt by the factory using the same foil that the 20.7's use for the mids per the advice of others here...excellent advice!! I have toyed with different active crossovers, including the DCX 2496, and miniDSP, plus others. I would like to try a combination of passive/active to eliminate some of the "digital noise" and experiment some more, while looking forward to learning another phase of searching for the ever elusive ideal sound and of course understanding that i will never find it. But as many smarter than me have said.."the adventure is in the journey". I know Satie and others have recommended passive crossovers and combinations of both active and passive for Maggies in previous posts. I am using T 1-D mid/bass panels and IIIa modified mids with ribbon tweeters on the inside. I have a center speaker but usually take it out of the mix when listening to music. I am presently driving the mids and tweeters with a Rotel RMB 1077 multi-channel amp.The T-1D's are driven by a Crest 5500C with approximately 1800 watts per side, which seems quite adequate for the bass. I have a 200 watt per channel Acoustics Design ADA PF200 that I could throw into the mix as well. I might consider some mono blocks also. I found a reference to some Kenwood L07M's in a review of the new 3.7i's and the user was quite satisfied with the result. They can be had for a reasonable price and may be worth investigation further. would love to hear some feedback on the crossovers. I have included some pictures as well.
Follow Ups:
The impression, as offered by the picture at least, appears to show that what you are most in need of is a much larger listening room. .7s or 1.7s with an adequate amp would be more than enough, and then call it quits.
As I mentioned, the adventure is in the journey. Besides, I am using only the custom foil mids plus ribbon tweeters on the IIIa's which are superb drivers, which separates the bass and mid on the IIIa and far better frames, plus the Tympani bass is not directional so what is the advantage? REW seems like the next step.
I don't think your listening space permits your chosen speakers to show their 'stuff,' or be heard in their best light and in full 'bloom'. While it's true that Tympani bass may not be directional, those Tympani ID panels require lots of breathing room. (As expected, if I were to turn off either my L or R Tympani Bass panels, the system certainly sounds different than if both were playing.)
While there's nothing undesirable concerning the adventure in your journey, it's almost as if you were driving your Porsche to the end of the street on which you live, then turning around and going back home. Should you simply want to take pleasure in listening to music thru Maggies, I believe other current models would better serve that purpose. (What are the dimensions of your listening space, pictures often can't provide an accurate clue?)
P.S. I had a 66 Mustang Fastback 289 Hypo, now that I can relate to and the picture of what you say is quite clear. :)
I do understand what you are driving at, and have considered this as well. I have to say that the bass on the Tympani is quite superb. The only real issue I seem to have now is imaging. I have experimented with placement to a degree as I am somewhat limited as this room is not just a listening room. But that said it has very little other furniture in it. It is also soundproofed. When I listened to just the IIIa Frankenpans, the imaging is not that much different. With the modifications made to these, they are quite well done. I have not heard 1.7's or 3.6's/3.7's etc, so I have no frame of reference. The latest I tried is to angle the Tympani's so that they are in a V formation, with the tip of the V pointing towards the back wall. What this did was to actually tighten up the bass. Interesting. The room is about 15' x 14' and thanks for the comments.
The main space limitation issue with your setup is the balance between the bass and mid/treble if the speakers had a fixed XO, but since you can adjust the balance and EQ with the DCX2496 then it really isn't an issue for you. The speakers will not overwhelm your room and you can even use your newfound bass headroom to EQ up the bottom octave..
Thanks Satie..I feel redeemed..lol..We have a lot of hard work and time into these including a lot of money. Right now my cash flow is down but that is quickly changing. Do you think it would be wise to invest in the DCX upgrade? In addition I think it would be wise for me to sell the Rotel in that I do not use surround, plus the other limitations such as not being able to explore PLLXO. There are some used Kenwood L-07M mono blocks, which I would not normally consider, but one of the reviewers of the 3.7i's remarked that they were quite satisfied with how they were driving them. They are quite reasonable at this time. Other suggestions? Always appreciate your comments.
Granted, the appx 9k input impedance is a difficult one for a PLLXO, That should not be the only reason for you to swap out of this amp. You should want the Kenwoods over the Rotel. The PLLXO consideration would be secondary.
I think ugrading the DCX is a good idea if you are not going to get a DEQX at some point. With the upgrade costs it becomes less competitive with a used DEQX. So do your budget math and find someone who does the upgrade board installation locally. If you like you can have a tech do it for you as the upgrade should be straightforward.
I am actually quite adept at soldering if the instructions are adequate. I have even done surface mount soldering with a magnifier. I built electrical kits way back, and have kept up somewhat with the skill. If I take my time all is well. The DEQX is on my wish list. I will investigate purchasing the parts and download appropriate instructions to see what I would be getting into for the DCX upgrade. That would give me a temporary improvement, while waiting for a good used DEQX to come up.
What is your opinion of the Kenwoods? The plan would be to use them for the mids and the PF-200 for the tweeters and selling the Rotel.
In the interim, I put a test CD on and discovered that phasing is not correct. I tried inverting the separate drivers with the DCX, but with no improvement. I did it individually. I also separated the mids and tweeters using the ADA PF-200 for the mids and the Rotel for the tweeters. That did give improved results.
The Linear audio mod Davey favors is the most convenient and provides relative level control in the analog and a general remote vol control using a vol contrl chip.You can probably get the boards and do the installation.
http://www.behringermods.com/dcx2496.html was not mentioned in the URL below
They are the proven audiosmile mods and are sold as DIY kits and would be right up your aley and cheap. There is no vol control mod for the DCX. They use very good op amps, LM4562 and a few other components for the active output.
MSB sells a couple of models of remote controlled multichannel gain and volume control boxes in op amp and discrete component implementations, $1k and $4k (price from memory check first)
Asi Tec Tweakaudio and Reference mods do different mods to the input/output analog sections digital sections and DAC - The tweakaudio mods are available in different combos so you can do a minimal mod of the output stage and DAC sections for not much more than the cost of the DCX. Asi Tec do transformer coupling (those are rather expensive transformers but it is something you can do yourself.
Only the Linear Audio mod adds functionality. It is also less expensive than full on mods of any of the others ($1500-$2500).
Edits: 07/03/15
This is what Simon Ashton wrote when replying to a request for a comparison between his and (the other vendors) mods. I have replaced the reference to the actual name of the other vendors mods with "(other vendors) to be fair...I do appreciate his honesty...
What do you think of his mods, would they be sufficient?
"...The passive output mods offered by (the other vendors) are simply inferior so don't go for those. There are very good reasons why the differential output of the DAC should be summed and buffered.
The active outputs offered by (the other vendor) have a volume control which my mods do not
(although the DCX has gain adjust for each channel as standard). (the other vendors) mods output only single-ended even though they have an XLR socket. My mods are fully balanced and floating outputs, which means even when you use them in single-ended configuration they still offer the noise cancelling benefits of balanced connections (including reduced ground loop noise). Basically the simulate the way a transformer balanced output works, with the advantages of active circuits. My mods use the latest and best op-amps with exceptional signal to noise and distortion performance while the (other vendors) mods use a less than state of the art multi-channel IC. Also note that the active (other vendors) mods need the DCX card reader to be replaced with the LED screen but this card reader has been removed from the most recent DCX revisions."
The balanced trannie outputs of some of the alternatives is fully balanced and remains quiet in conversion to SE with an RCA adapter. So no dice on that.The guys who do cap coupling instead of the active stage or trannie don't really support the balanced mode and would happily replace the XLRs with RCAs.
I will assume that his reference is to the active remote controlled output section from Linear A. There he would be right and his setup would sound better but lack the functionality of the multichannel vol. contrl.. But if you can do well enough without it then forget that. As usual you are trading function for quality with a given price range.
His boards are just cheap and effective with good quality components.
Not sure i understand the first line..."remains quiet in conversation to System Electronics with an RCA adapter..so no dice..."? If they remain quiet is not that what is desired even though they replace the XLRs? Also, though it" would lack the functionality of multichannel volume control..Would it not still maintain level controls on inputs and outputs, and would that be sufficient?
The mods with trannie outputs stay quiet whether you wire them for balanced output or single ended. so the claim for the noise advantage is not universally true.
You have the ability to adjust relative levels in the digital domain on the DCX prior to the DACs. But overall vol control puts you into overload or loss of resolution (usually the latter since the stock DCX is a 10V standard rather than the home audio 1V standard) So as you lower volume before feeding the DCX you will get lower resolution in the AD process. The ideal way to change volumes is with a multichannel vol control and in the analog domain.
If your budget allows then the "purest" way to go is with trannie coupling in and out and a multichannel vol control like the MSB models. Some HT preamps have a multichannel vol control for their multichannel inputs without any processing, but I have not researched this carefully enough to provide you with particular models that do this without too many compromises.
I asked Simon Ashton if his transformers were coupled in and out and his reply was... "The mods are not transformer coupled, they simulate the way that transformers work. When used balanced they are like any other balanced connection but when used single-ended they reference the signal to the ground connection present on the XLR pin 3 connection. Basically, it's a good thing for reducing noise!"
So given that I appear to have the volume control on analog inputs, and I will test it to verify, then the best solution would be to find a vendor that supplies transformer coupling in and out correct?
I was referring to Ashton's competitors doing trannie outputs as opposed to his active outputs.
I think that given your budget and availability of multichannel Vol Cntrl. you should just get the boards for the input and output for the DCX from behringermods.com
It is cheap and good and you don't need the features of the Linear Audio mods with Vol cntrl..Since you can use your TGP-5 for that
I am using the TGP-5 as my preamp. I could I perhaps continue to use the TGP-5 as the preamp with the volume controlled on the inputs, plus use the TGP-5's "fixed main outs" that are line level? Would the signal carry the input volume? I could test it with appropriate cables, or do i need a separate preamp?
It would not be possible to do that with a normal HT preamp as they should be using the same circuit at some point, but perhaps the line/tape output comes out of the selector separately. But most likely it will just cause feedback.
Get a separate preamp with tape/line outputs. It is just going to be used as a selector box so you can just get a unit with good connectors and selector switch - some tube pres can have the remote control selection and tape outs work even when the tube circuits are burned out and not functional. So you might be able to get something cheap.
The tape out is taken right off the selector switch before the input stage and the vol control.
Thanks Satie, you always seem to come up with a solution that make sense. Unfortunately not all of us can afford real high end equipment, and for myself I know I have made some mistakes in purchasing equipment such as amps in the past, but it is all part of the learning process, although sometimes costly. Keeping a positive attitude and not getting discouraged while trying to tweak the best sound out of present equipment can he a challenge in itself. I have toyed with the idea of just selling these as all panels have been factory rebuilt, but I would like to solve the present problem of imaging and getting a decent crossover first. Then I feel I could make a better decision. I also hate to give up the sound of the Tympani bass. I doubt that it can be duplicated easily.
I do thank you and others here for your kind words of encouragement. I will do a search for a tube pre amp, and possibly find something that might even be decent. What do you think of the Nobosould brand. It is fairly cheap, and has some decent reviews. They can be had on Amazon which has a liberal return policy. I have a prime account so i can get it in a couple of days.
Actually, most SS preamps with a tape loop would have the same functionality too. So there are plenty of options.
There are plenty of "obsolete" pre processors with similar connectivity to the TGP-5 with analog control of the multichannel inputs that can be had for a small fraction of the cost of a new device since they are lacking in HDMI or DVI connectors.
I think that the best imaging would be had by setting up the system in the equidistant arc - the problem you have is that it might not leave enough space between the tweeters in your room - but it is worth a try since it is rather easy to reproduce so even if the panels are in the way you can rather easily move them back to the wall and pull them back out to the arc position.
You don't need to wonder about being able to reproduce the T-1D bass panels' performance.as there is nothing other than another Tympani model to provide it at a real world cost. There are Giant Wilsons Focals Magicos and Sonus Fabers and Legacy speakers that can do it - some better some not quite there - but they don't sell in same order of magnitude in pricing and you can't really move them. These are $10k and up on the used market and outside of the Legacy models all are multiples of $10k.
To better understand the signal path could you please explain? I would use the TGP-5 analog only bypassing the DSP, then how does the separate selector switch/pre-amp come into play? Presently I am using the main outs from the TGP-5 to the DCX inputs.
Sources would be connected to the preamp. You would follow with the passive switching portion of the (new) preamp. You take the output from the tape (line) outs of the preamp to the (analog) input of the DCX. The multichannel outputs of the DCX go into the "direct" multichannel inputs of the TGP-5, and from the multichannel (direct) outputs of the TGP-5 to the individual power amps.
Does that make it clear or did I make it worse?
Satie I received the Emotiva DMC-1 and except for it being a little dusty it is in near perfect shape. Reviewing the connections you recommended, I would request a bit of clarification. For the connections to the DCX2496 from the Emotiva which is the new switching uint, would't we want to go from the main line level audio outs rather than the tape out? I could then also use XLR cables rather than RCA. If not what is the purpose of using the tape out rather than main audio line level out? thanks!
The tape out is to avoid any internal circuits as tape out generally simply taps the switch output and does not even go through the input stage.
Your vol control is on the second unit doing vol control on all the dcx2496 output channels at once.
If you go through the regular main outs then you are adding the input stage and vol. control and active output which are just unnecessary circuits. Unless the sources you have end up needing a boost to get the signal high enough for the DCX AD input circuit.
Satie, I wanted to thank you again and update you on the progress of this project. I received the DMC-1 and connected it as my TGP-5 was. It fired right up and works extremely well. It almost sounds better than the TGP-5. Perhaps it is newer and has fresher parts? Not sure on that one. In any case it is a duplicate in terms of remote and operation so it was a no brainer as far as programming-setup goes. Now I have to make some cables. I posted a link in my previous post in this thread, of the RCA plugs that I have. I have two sets. I also read in the reviews that these plugs are kind of thick and will not fit will on all units especially if the jacks are close. Do you have a preferred plug to use to make some cables, and what cable would you use that is reasonably priced? I know one can spend a fortune on cables but I am not that one. I was thinking about $20 or so for the plugs and matching quality cable. I spoke with the gentleman from Apex Jr.and he recommended 20 Gauge PTFE silver plated stranded copper, but it would be stiff. I have purchased wire from him before and it is excellent quality and very reasonably priced. I made some cables for my mids using his wire and they are excellent. It is one choice, and I am sure you have more. Please advise if possible.
I am a fan of the 20g SPC twinax cable
It is slightly to the bright side so fits well tonally with tube equipment.It is not my first choice for bass ICs but is tight.
I ground the shield only on one end and cut it off the other. I mark that end with the ground. In your grounding scheme that would be either at the source - if your sources are all grounded or at the preamp (which is what I usually do as it has its own ground so I can disregard what sources might not have a ground. In your case the TGP-5 is likely the better place to ground.
I like to use them with screw on locking RCAs or XLRs or light gauge DHL silver RCAs or knockoffs.
The Cardas Rhodium on Silver is the most I would spend on RCA connectors appx $50 per 4
http://www.partsconnexion.com/product7463.html
The Onix and Dayton (parts express) and Connex WBT knockoffs are good
On the really cheap side there are practical amphenol RCAs simple and sturdy no idea what they sound like but have minimal metal - which can be a plus.
These Neutric pros are nicely engineered and have a reputation for a darkish tone in case you need it. The twinax SPC is more white balanced and fills out the top octave more so than a neutral sounding cable. So this might be a better choice if your setup tends to sound bright or even white..
http://www.parts-express.com/neutrik-nf2c-b-2-profi-professional-rca-plug-pair--092-114
Blue Jeans cable make a digital 70 ohm cable with appropriate 70 ohm connectors that also serve as very good analog interconnects Particularly recommended for bass duties, where they are slightly tighter than the JPS superconductors
To get better bass from these SPC twinax use two runs and connect the ends of the lives of each pair and the neutrals of each pair and the shields of each pair. Do not connect the shields to the connectors, leave them to float.If you get hum then connect a drain wire to the shield at the end where your ground is (presumably the tgp 5) and attach it to the RCA neutral there or to the phono ground or body - whichever eliminates the hum..
In most connectors you will want a spacer made of a stiff but still flexible plastic - a dense foam PE or a polystyrene or PET would work. avoid vinyl.
Satie after careful consideration i have decided to go with the Parts Express Locking solder type connectors http://www.parts-express.com/parts-express-audiophile-locking-rca-connector-2-pair--091-1065 as I already own 4 of them, so cost is a factor and I think the quality is sufficient. The only complaint I have seen on these is a lack of instructions, and 8.3mm cable jacket requirements, but with the twinax I don't think that is a problem. Belden has one, if this is what you are referring to http://www.parts-express.com/belden-brilliance-8412-20-awg-2c-mic-line-instrument-cable-tinned-copper-braid-shield-per---102-1250 If you check the connectors out they have a "tang like" connector for the ground, so I assume that one would compress this on the shield? Perhaps you might offer some advice there. If these are not workable then I move to the Neutrik Profi or the screw type that you recommended, but that means the cost goes up. With the mods to the DCX I need to keep the cost down while seeking the best bang for the buck. I like the SPC twinax 20 AWG but I don't need the "bright side" as my setup tends to be on the bright side. I think something smack dab in the middle of the spectrum would suit me better as far as cabling goes. Have you ever used the Canare LT2S? http://www.canare.com/ProductItemDisplay.aspx?productItemID=57 This was highly recommended on The Home Theater Shack cable tutorial. Any further feedback would be greatly appreciated of course. You can also be assured that by the level of advice I have received here that i will do my best to participate in this forum and hopefully pass on some of what i have learned over the years by experimenting and talking with you guys. I love this place! :)
I have not used this Belden twinax but it seems ok. I suggest you read up a bit on what it sounds like since its inductance is on the high side. You need to know that the cable works for your single ended line level purposes.
No problem with using the PE locking RCAs. I use them too.
I did some more searching on this site of your previous posts concerning interconnet cable and found it on ebay.....20 AWG shielded twisted pair SPC... all parts and cable ordered thanks once again!
I thought you had Apex Jr lined up and its teflon mil spec SPC twinax was right in the field of vision on their site.in the 22 gauge at least.
I guess it is better you found the 20 gauge as it is more likely to be less bright.
Got the wire and the RCA plugs...looking forward to assembling some interconnects. You mentioned a spacer. I am not sure what you meant by that...do you have a link to one? In addition is there a way to terminate the cable end of the connector so that it looks neat and tapers to the wire...kind of like this.... but to the cable part of the RCA plug, so that it gives some strain relief and looks good.....https://www.parts-express.com/cable-pants-6mm-2-conductor-black-10-pcs--082-772
Thanks again!
First, don't get those.
The spacer is intended to address exactly this problem of a rather thin cable going into a connector designed for a coax. The solution is to use a spacer that will combine with the cable to create a shape like a coax so allow the set screw ( which does the strain relief ) on the connectors to get a good grip on the cable.
My favorite solution is 1/2 inch segments of the hard jacket peeled off of cheap RG something coaxial cable. Or alternately an appropriately sized cylinder shaped hard rubber (Poly propylene or polyethylene or like) to plug in the free space.
If you want to make it look nice then use heat shrink over the spacer and wire portion and back down to the cable before it enters the connector.. I don't do that since I like to keep the options on the designated use of the wire open.
I found a spacer material from some wall wart extender cables that almost appears to have been made for this wire. The inner diameter is perfect and so is the outer. I will post a step by step assembly procedure for these interconnects as I think it would be helpful, complete with pictures. I would like to add a "shiny/glossy" heat shrink tubing to the finished product for looks and to ID the cables better. A problem I am running into is finding a 3/8" or 9mm I.D glossy red and black heat shrink tubing that comes in a 3:1 ratio as that is what is needed to shrink to the approximately 1/8" O.D. of the 20 gauge wire. I have some non glossy that will work, but it is not near as pretty as the glossy. :) Any suggestions or links to a 3:1 glossy/shiny heat shrink tubing would be very helpful.
I never used a glossy heat shrink so can't help you sourcing it.
How about putting a layer of poly gloss lacquer on the plain heat shrink when you are done?
Satie..I have one question. As the signal path from the XLR and RCA outputs on TGP-5 is no different according to the manual, doesn't it make more sense to use the XLR outs for noise/hum cancellation. The manual states that they are both line level outputs and recommends of course, the use of XLR when possible. In this scenario, to refresh your memory, the TGP-5 outs are going directly to the amps. I am constructing the cables and I have purchased enough XLR connectors to get the job done using them. If I were to use RCA I would need to exchange the XLRs for RCA plugs. Of course I will do that if necessary.
Does the TGP 5 also have multichannel XLR inputs?
If it is indeed the same signal then you can use the XLR option.
Generally speaking I don't like using balanced connections with internally unbalanced gear because of the need for an extra active circuit or transformer to drive the balanced signal. If the amps are not internally balanced as well, then you have just added two stages to the signal path. So unless you have hum problems or have good reason to expect them or are running long cables then stick with single ended unless your devices are internally balanced.
The TGP-5 only has XLR outputs, no XLR inputs. Does that make a difference? The Crest amp uses only XLR connectors. The Rotel and PF-200 use RCA and the PF-200 actually uses phono as it is quite old and most likely a pro amp. I talked to the manufacturer and they said that it was originally quite an amp, priced in the $2500 range, and it is quite pleasant to listen to. Simon Ashton sent a diagram on how to connect an XLR to an RCA plug. Essentially # 1 and 3 to ground on the RCA plug. I will attach the photo, but you are probably familiar with it. From what I can glean from the manual the XLR and RCA outs are the same signal. The description is identical with the exception of recommending XLR for better hum cancellation. I will check the amp manuals to see which ones are or are not internally balanced.
For the bass amp I would not worry about excess active stages and just go with the XLR - I am assuming that would be the balanced only amp. Where the extra active stages make a difference is in the mid and tweeter amps and I understand those have RCA inputs. If so, then connect the mid and tweeter amps with RCAs not XLRs.
If your setup tends to hum much or have much RF, the balanced to RCA is probably not going to help you much with the grounds shorted together- if you need the hum issue addressed then get a balanced to unbalanced transformer to place physically near and before the amps (those are usually designed to work in either direction Bal to SE or SE to Bal). There is a variety of them available on pro audio web shops.
Guess I got confused..anyway the wire I purchased although more expensive is 20 ga. and if it is not as bright as 22 all the better. There is quite a price difference between 22 and 20 ga wire I noticed as well. Must be a lot more surface area.
Sorry I cannot find any 20 AWG SPC cable...must be missing something.
Very well explained thank you!! I am really getting pumped about this. Excellent idea from the get go! Simon is out of parts so I have to wait and I will reorder when he gets them in. In the interim I will get all the cables together and make the ones I don't have. I need some good RCA cables. I have the cabling and two sets of RCA plugs I purchased at Parts Express...http://www.parts-express.com/parts-express-audiophile-locking-rca-connector-2-pair--091-1065. Then all I need to do is to route all the correct signal paths. I have it all on paper now so it makes sense. Thanks again!
That made it very clear thank you! I am looking forward to getting this done. I will most likely be ordering the upgrade kit for the DCX2496 tomorrow. Also
thinking about a cheap Carver preamp like maybe a C-1 or something similar. I would assume the volume pots, switches etc. would be of sufficient quality to eliminate any noise injection providing it is in good shape. Any other brand suggestion?
Look for preamps with gold plated connectors (or the rarer silver rhodium) and no complaints on switch quality (switching noise) - having a tape out, of course.
Old SS pieces that might also be usable with their gain stages are the old PS Audio preamps, Aragon preamps, particularly the 24. The Classe preamps, The Threshold fet 2 preamp, On the cheaper side the Accurus (sp?) 100, Musical Fidelity
On the tube side there are the lower end CJ Manley, VTL Berning and ARC preamps, the Golden Tube Audio pre was cheap and had good connectors. Newer pres like the Doge 8 (used) and the VincentShengya hybrid preamps, There are some passive TVC based preamps as well that should fit your bill..
Again, older HT processors go for rather cheap and may have the right "direct" signal path, high quality connectors and tape/line out. These usually have remote source selection which may be convenient for you.
Either of these would be fine, the TGP III is going to price better, I would guess. There is one on Audiogon for $350 IIRC.
From all I could find the Emotiva is identical to the TGP-IV not the III, so I made an offer on it as I did not want to let this one slip by. It is listed at only $225.00, so even if they don't take my offer it still looks like a good buy and it would fit the bill including remote original box etc.
https://app.audiogon.com/listings/processors-emotiva-dmc-1-essentially-identical-to-sunfire-tg-iii-2015-07-05-home-theater-97405-eugene-or
That is a terrific discount and really looks like the OEM product for both the Sunfire and Emotiva is the same.
Hopefully they don't use lesser parts - not that I have a reason to believe so, just that they have been coming out with new versions of some products with major parts upgrades, e.g. their top preamp.
Well they accepted my offer of 200 plus 55 shipping so definitely a good deal and thanks so much for the guidance!!
Congrats on the new toy.
Thanks did you see this one, even better price and not a bidding situation like the Sunfire. is the quality as good with the Emotiva?
https://app.audiogon.com/listings/processors-emotiva-dmc-1-essentially-identical-to-sunfire-tg-iii-2015-07-05-home-theater-97405-eugene-or
This Aragon would fit the bill correct? plus there is a TGP III for which I have a remote,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Aragon-Stage-One-Pre-Amp-THX-Ultra2-Certified-With-Pronto-NEO-Remote-/321798526281?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aecafd549
TGP III
http://www.ebay.com/itm/291506290787?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
Would the Sunfire TGP III series fit the bill?...here is an example if the price stays low..only 10 hrs. left http://www.ebay.com/itm/291506290787?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
I have a remote for it as well as I had to replace mine and could only find a III at the time which also works for the 5.
P.S. I looked further in the manual and it states that "...the 8-channel audio inputs bypass the DSP circuits of the TGP-5 ...provides the highest fidelity signal path...free of any coloration or processor circuitry." Would that provide the multi channel volume control like the example you might be talking about? If that is the case we are golden. :)
YES! looks like you already have that covered so you can do the vol control on the TGP-5 and not on your preamp - you just adjust the preamp to give you the best match to the DCX input to keep it out of overload and at max resolution. You should be able to get the input to just below the 0 db mark on the indicators on the loudest peaks.
On the Sunfire TGP-5 there is a settings area that allows "volume control" of the individual speakers as a whole speaker, for example "left front", "right front", "center", etc., but most likely includes processing and certainly is not input volume control. The TGP-5 does feature a "Direct 2-channel analog bypass mode", and line level stereo RCA L & R out. Perhaps what you might be referring to that may be used is "8 "short analog only signal path inputs where DSP effects such as bass management and DSP surround are bypassed. Can anything in terms of a volume control be done with any of these inputs or outputs?
If you're adept at soldering and can nut/bolt and follow instructions, then you won't have any issue with Jan Diddens's modification to the DCX2496. He's a talented engineer and that particular modification is superior to most I've seen. It's certainly better than some hack job I've seen advertised by various other members of this forum. Stay clear of those guys.
The DEQX is something completely different. You're aware of that, correct?
Dave.
Thank for the info, and yes I am aware of the difference with the DEQX and would prefer that hands down, but presently cannot afford three plus grand for a DSP. It is on my wish list though. One came up recently but I was outbid on it on Audiogon. Maybe next time. I have been thinking about Ashton's version of the mods. I know about Jan Gidden and the brilliant work he has done. Satie thought Ashton's mods would be a good choice...how about you? Have you looked at them?
I second the DEQX idea for experimentation and easy measurement. You are redesigning the speaker after all. I would suggest you keep the mid/tweeter XO passive speaker level for now and just replace any electrolytics you may have with a film cap of the same value.
You would then need to XO 3 channels. The DEQX should do that.
Davey's suggestion is another good option and endlessly flexible if you are ok with midlevel DACs.
The analog options are probably best with a good 3way XO. You can find decent pro audio units on craigs list for rather low cost - they will all be balanced so you .might need some RCA adapters if you run SE preamp/sources. Ran and Ashly produce good units. Ashly usually has more flexible adjustment ranges. If you still have your old XO - which I recall had a limited adjustment range then get an Ashly instead.
I would strongly suggest that you stop using the speakers for wallpaper and move them into the room as far as you can. For your current setup just at the wall as pictured you will need to absorb the backwave entirely with acoustic foam absorbers as this is too close to be dipersed.. If you need to stay within 3-4ft then take it as far our as practical and cover the walls with diffusors. If there is all of a ft and a bit then absorption is the only option.
If you happen across an Ashly 4way then get it since they don't seem to be in production any longer but have the option for you to go with 4 channels for 4 drivers and will probably have more of an adjustment range for the bass.
Rechecking my post and remembering that you suggested acoustic foam absorbers for the back wall. I cannot move them any further from the back wall unfortunately, as there is a doorway to contend with. Right now the T 1-D tweeters sit behind the T 1-D bass panels as I am not using them. They are just disconnected and sitting there absorbing some of the backwave I assume. Actually so far, this is the best arrangement i have heard in this room for some odd reason. The bass seems tighter and more cohesive if that makes any sense.
I finished constructing the interconnects, and they came out really nice if I do say so. I will attempt to post some pictures of the project as I documented the steps in construction, just in case someone would like to construct some. I used Cardas Tri Eutectic solder which does not come out too shiney and an Antex (made in England) XS25 soldering iron suggested by Simon Ashton. As he said it really just does the job. One of the best i have ever used and i have used several. Inexpensive also and can be found on their eBay Antex store. All solder joints were reflowed as necessary to make them nice and smooth and adhering nicely.
I had to back off on the upgrade for the DCX as taxes in my business dictated I do so. The government has to have its cut hey? I will be starting the conversion to the added Pre/Pro this weekend.
What would you suggest for acoustic foam absorbers? Do you know if there is a way to attach it to the wall without doing any damage as I am renting, and it is a beautiful apartment. I want to keep the landlord happy. :)
I also repositioned the Frankenpans with the tweeters towards the center, and angled them inwards.That improved imaging dramatically. I am slowly getting there as time allows. Business has been brisk lately which of course is good as it pays the bills. I plan to use REW with a UMK-1 that I have, once all is finalized in regards to the foam absorbers and the interconnects.
I also have a Mini DSP 2x4 that I could use for the bass panels if I want to add them in the future. That would mean using one of the Rotel amp outputs for the mids, and one for the tweeters, then assigning the PF-200 to the IIIa bass panels.
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
To summarize: A.) acoustic foam absorbers? B.) Feasibility of using the Rotel for the mids/tweeters and the PF-200 for the IIIa bass panels utilizing the Mini DSP 2x4 as an additional crossover. Any other comments are greatly appreciated.
Great job - you don't realize how many channels you need for this setup till you see a dozen interconnects.
Re the absorption for close to the wall placement. Don't over damp, add the absorption gradually in vertical strips - first right behind the speakers (mid and tweeter). Don't attah them permanently till you are certain you want them.
Satie I have just one question...which unit would control the overall volume? If for example I use the DMC-1 as the "switcher" going from tape outs to the DCX2496, and the TGP-5 being connected between the DCX2496 and the amps? Does the DMC-1 control the overall volume or the TGP-5?
The second unit is the one you use for vol control following the DCX, The setting of the unit feeding the DCX should be combined with the input level control on the DCX to get its full dynamic range capacity by minimizing both low bit and digital overload. The input unit (source switchbox) you can perhaps also use it to adjust input levels of your sources (I don't know that you can do that for the tape out but some AV processors allow that as input stages have individual attenuators for each input while others only do that in the DSP section which is often bypassed for the tape outs).
Just wanted to update that I connected all cables as we discussed...unfortunately the results are not good. Not sure where the problem lies as it seems to have lost fidelity, spaciousness and all the good things that maggies are capable of. I don't know if I have a bad cable somewhere as all tested OK with a multimeter. I tested continuity on each, positive to positive, ground to ground and all tested fine, so there are no shorts that I know of. There may be an issue on one bass cable as the channel levels are different, but once evened they sound the same. The DCX levels are improved significantly and they do not appear overdriven at all. The levels are all even on inputs and appropriate on outputs.i can even get them to the yellow on the output meter which I could not do before so the control is much better. I tried my turntable with an excellent LP in terms of quality, but still sounds as bad as a digital input from Pandora on my Amazon Fire TV unit. I do not think a CD would produce any better results. So it looks like diagnostics time. I thought I would switch the units, making the TGP-5 the controller, and the DMC-1 the switcher, to see if that makes a difference, and check the cable on the bass amp to see if there is a problem that I did not catch. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Is there any other way to test the cables? Theoretically this should work. One other thought is that the 8 channel direct outputs are surround outputs as well as the mains, would that affect the final sound? Any other suggestions would of course be greatly appreciated. I am disappointed but not regretful as part of this, the DCX, has improved significantly. I think we are on the right track so to speak, but something has veered off the rails a bit. :)
Well, first of all you have a lot of wire to break in so leave everything as it is for listening and run it off a CD on repeat with the power amps turned off. Just leave it on that way for as long as you can and for at least 100 hours cumulative.
Yes, the units despite appearances might actually have different processing and signal routing so it is definitely a good idea to swap units from switch to vol contrl and perhaps do the unthinkable and actually read both the manuals in detail.
Is the output indicator going into the yellow a peak hold display that allows you to observe if overload happens or is it set to show average output levels.
Satie, First off the wire breaking in makes a lot of sense and I never thought of that and of course that is what happens when we get new maggies. They sound flat and not too maggie like until they break in if I recall. Believe it or not I actually did read the manuals several times and they are not too revealing. As manuals go they are OK but not complete. They do not go into any detail about signal paths for example. I did switch the units with some improvement using the TGP-5 as the "control unit" and the DMC-1 as the "switcher". There was a small amount of improvement and it was audible. As far as the output levels, I raised them when the amps were not turned on just to see what they were capable of and that is when I observed the yellow. I made that comment to explain that levels are much better as previously that was near impossible. I will check to see what the settings are in regards to this...average or peak if I read your post correctly. Once again thanks for the comments. I will see if I can set my CD player to repeat..I could probably use a digital input and play Pandora non stop if that would work. I do not think my CD can play on repeat as I am using my Samsung DVD player as a CD player. So to summarize would Pandora played through a digital input work for the breakin? In addition I will re read the manuals and see if I missed something. Thanks so much again!
Pandora is as good a source for random breakin signal as anything else.
I didn't remember the manuals as being that opaque but have not looked at them for quite a while (and not at all in the Emotiva case)
I have been breaking the interconnects in for quite some time, I would say over a week every day for at least 12 to 16 hours. I thought at one time they were improving, but now I am afraid that is not true. To diagnose, my first test was to use my turntable with a known good quality LP, Huey Lewis "Sports" which has always been one of those superb quality LP's. I use Cardas wires to the phono input on the DCM-1. No change. Then, to test whether or not it is the cables I replaced them with my old cables which were custom made and not sure what the wire was, but worked fine on my previous hook up. i replaced the input cables from the "switcher"or DMC-1 to the DCX input. I then replaced the cables from the DCX to the "Driver" or TGP-5 and then to the bass amp the Crest CC5500 which drives the T 1-D's. So that means the new interconnects from source to the amp have been taken out of the picture for test purposes. There was no improvement whatsoever. So back to square one. The sound is still muddled and at higher volumes even some distortion. It does not appear to be the cables. I also switched the functions of the two Pre-Pros. I used the TGP-5 as the switcher, and the DCM-1 as the "Driver". I am perplexed. The levels on the DCX2496 seem appropriate and certainly controllable. I could sure use some guidance on this. What would the next step be to troubleshoot this thing? I also tried lowering the input levels to -15db on the DCX to be sure it was not being overdriven, still no change in quality. It seems to me this is capable, in theory at least, of much better performance and should be far superior to my previous hook up.
I also used both units independently prior to this experiment, and both performed quite well, so neither is malfunctioning. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
It appears to be the DCX where the problem is. Can you put your old analog XO in to replace the DCX? first with its outputs directly feeding the amps then via the TGP in between.
Also post or email me the DCX settings and I will try to understand if there is anything there that could be a problem.
Can you give a more detailed description of what you hear beyond muddled and distorted?
The high volume distortion indicates that something is being overdriven. I doubt the one pre/pro feeding the DCX can overload it. However the DCX may overload the inputs to the Pre/pro since it can output over 10V so that might be the source of the problem and lower output settings would solve that at the cost of some resolution. If that turns out to be the source of the problem then we can still solve it with a 12db L pad for each channel -DIY - or you can get 12 db HLabs attenualtors - look up harrison labs Fmod for info.
The inputs on the TGP-5 are 125mV so I see what you are saying. If we have 10v output then reducing the DCX levels would compensate but never quite get there as it would be impossible to raise the volume without raising levels.
I checked out the Harrison Labs attenuators. I also saw the X-Connect selectable value attenuator....would that be a better choice in that it is variable?
the link... http://www.hlabs.com/products/attenuators/index_files/Page395.htm
And to be clear we would need six attenuators that would go between the DCX and the TGP-5 inputs correct? Would the input voltage match at that point or how would that work out?
I had to copy the DCX specs individually as they would not cut and paste. I will send the manual to you in PDF format as soon as I figure out how to get your email
I did not see anything in the DCX specs that stated that it was 10v output but I guess that is a given on pro equipment yes?
Here are the input and output specs on the DCX from the manual:
Analog Inputs (A, B, C)
Type electronically balanced
Connector XLR
Max Input level -22dBu
Input Impedance Aprx. 470 Ohms at 1Khz
Phantom Supply +15 V
Analog Outputs
Type electronically balanced
Connector XLR
Max. output level +22 dBu
Output impedance approx. 160 Ω at 1 kHz
Crosstalk 100 dB @ 10 dBu In
Sorry to have taken so long to answer
Yes, the adjustable attenuators are generally more flexible.
The figures for the TGP-5 are they the input sensitivity to get a 1V signal out of the TGP at full volume? If so, the overload voltage may be lower than I would have expected. So it looks like a 12db attenuator is in order.
That attenuator from HLabs is a good choice but you would prefer having fewer interconnects so it is better to DIY them into the wiring.
The DIY solution is very easy as it is simply inserting a trio of resistors into the wires for each leg of the balanced signal
http://www.uneeda-audio.com/pads/
You would use the circuit for your balanced cables on the first line of the table on the balanced column.
It has examples and calculation guides your nominal goal is a k factor of 10 (10v to 1V) but you can do it with less attenuation 12.db should be enough)
if you have an issue understanding the calc I can help you there.
Sorry for the second post but I found in one of my storage boxes a "Clean Box Pro" active converter that would allow me to at least test whether the L pads would work I think. I forgot I had it. I don't even remember what I used it for.
I am not sure of the specs but I think it will allow -6db attenuation. There are pots on the front that allow for varying the signal level.
Here is the link... http://artproaudio.com/artcessories/audio_solutions/product/cleanbox_pro/
Yes that would work just fine.
That is what it is for.
Check out the cost of getting two more.
I don't know how transparent it is but the Fmod attenuators definitely are transparent.
I tried the Clean Box pro and although there seemed to be some improvement I was not sure what gain to set it at or where it started. If the gains are set to zero there is no signal..then I slowly increased them and it seemed to be clearer. Bach sounded pretty good with just the Tympani panels driven, even though I think the CD player I have is mediocre at best. This Clean Box may be better suited to an XLR to RCA converter than an attenuator. Of course just having one of them really limits the test as I can only do bass, mid or tweeter at one time so it is hard to get an overall picture..I am just going to go for the Harrison Labs attenuators and see. It is not going to break me for sure. I will order the 12 db attenuators from Parts Express tonight. I should have them in a couple of days. I would love to get a better source also, so I have to check my LP's and see what i have. I have a bunch of well done recordings in aiff or apple lossless, but the only DAC I have is what comes with the TGP-5 or DMC-1. I will have to check the manual to see what source activates it as we are using all analog now, bypassing DSP functions. Does using an optical in automatically use the DAC function? Or does that have to happen from on outside source?
You can run the test with the bass panel filter raised to a high freq to check for the input overload issue. The basses can run into the 5 khz range before rolling off their tops heavily. So that would cover a range where overload distortion would be easy to spot.
The DACs on the TGP at least are decent though not state of the art by any measure. That should do you well enough for the test.
Finally the attenuators arrived and that seemed to do the trick. At least I feel as if I have something to work with. Fidelity is back although due to other reasons, I am sure that can be improved. Imaging is much better and so is instrument placement and separation. I know I have the closeness to the front wall to contend with, and need to come up with a solution to that problem. The good thing now is that the attenuators did the job. It is impossible for me to move the speakers out as there is a door to contend with. and this is my bedroom. It is the best I can do so I will have to compensate somehow. How much will room correction do? I can do an analysis with REW as I have the UMIK-1 mic and an apple laptop or an iPad I can use. I have done nothing with delays in the DCX or e.q. I have to learn the settings and what is possible. I am psyched once again as we finally have some success with this experiment! Thanks so much for the guidance as I would have never been able to accomplish this without your help. So I have my work cut out for me. the following needs to be addressed... 1.) front wall treatment. 2.) exploit the best from the DCX by utilizing delays, eq etc., and optimizing crossover points and slopes. 3.) Room correction using the above and REW.
Any further comments suggestions of course are always appreciated!
Sorry I missed your post before
Very happy it all worked.
Too bad making the most of the DCX takes so many tricks.
Now you can use the REW and calibrated mic to try and tame the room and those close to the wall bass panels. First thing would be to correct time issues you might have. Generate real time difference data from the various drivers with REW and try to offset them in the DCX. Then proceed to bass EQ and any major mid or top end peaks.
When doing EQ try doing a 2/3 correction rather than trying to hit a 0 deviation from flat.
Also your target overall FR slope should follow the kind of in room balance you get from big Wilsons, Focal Nova Utopia etc. - meaning gently sloping downwards
Another thing to do is brace the tops of your bass panels to the wall with a short strut and a U clamp on the speaker end to get cleaner and more dynamic bass - that is once you are ok with their position. Otherwise you would be like me with holes all over the walls..
Satie...Just to update, I have been studying REW to learn how to read the graphs, but unfortunately I have been swamped with business, and have had little time to devote to taking measurements. I hope to get to some this weekend.
One question, I have had problems with getting volume out of my iMac, Not sure what that is about as all my recordings were recorded in Pure Vinyl at 0 db which is what they recommend. I have been using Audirvana or iTunes, and going through a TC Electronics Impact Twin. I have never had this problem in the past, so not sure what is causing that. Also, are the DACS sufficient on the TGP-5 and Emotiva? Do I need an external DAC? They are the same brand, so it appears they are identical. Is it worth exploring adding a different DAC? Would a cheap music streamer help? This is an area where i have little knowledge. I would be glad to do another post on this subject but i am not sure if it is appropriate here. For example best DAC for Maggies? Any thoughts you have would be appreciated.
If you can port SPDIF out of your Mac or the TC interface then try the internal DACs in the Pre/proc. They are decent, particularly for the price of the units. I am not a Mac man and I use Foobar so can't say anything about the problem you are having being caused by any of the links in your Mac chain nor the software..
.
OOPS forgot the links...One is the Marantz, and the other an ebay item.
http://us.marantz.com/us/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=HiFiComponents&SubCatId=0&ProductId=NA7004
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Non-Oversampling-DAC-TDA1543-DIR9001-96kHz-SPDIF-Coax-Optical-9V-NiMH-charger-/200880700656?hash=item2ec56c3cf0:m:mGBNXPqApip7x4bUhps9hRw
Both Ideas look interesting but you are going through the Behringer so you are redigitizing everything and the sound depends on the Behringer DACs and it questionable analog output stage. So I would not go overboard on reaching for DACs with superlative SQ. The AKM DAC chips in the Behringer are ok. so the Sunfire and Emotiva DACs should suffice to at least match that level.
I use a Musical Fidelity HTP for a DAC/pre for PCM, a Schiit Loki for DSD and I have 3 CD and DVD players from Sony and Oppo and a Tascam US 800 interface for another USB DAC option at 24/96. The MF piece only takes red book.
Audiosector has a highly regarded NOS DAC with an actual power supply, though it is hard to beat a battery for clean power - just that dynamics and bass can come off weak.
Thanks for the info, I guess I really don't understand the role of the DACS in this setup. Lets take an example which is most likely how I will be playing most of my music. I have an iMac that I am using for a "music server" and have been testing Audirvana, and using iTunes. So I output through a firewire cable to my TC Electronics Impact Twin at present, which worked well for recording with Pure Vinyl. Not the best DAC in the world but it did a great job putting my vinyl on disk, plus it was what was recommended at the time of my recording project, at the best price point/quality according to Channel D who make Pure Vinyl. The Impact Twin analog outs go to the Emotiva (switcher) through the tape inputs. The signal then goes to the Behringer, and then to the TGP-5 analog in connections with attenuators.The TGP-5 analog outputs go to each amp. Given that example, what role does the DAC(s) play? It appears we have four DACS to consider. The one I was thinking of upgrading was the Impact Twin...(specs below). I could of course consider optical inputs from the IT to the Emotiva as well.
P.S, Like the Schiit equipment. i have looked at it previously. Looks like a good company and US made as well! :)
http://www.tcelectronic.com/impact-twin/
You don't need to use the TC unit's DACs, you can just feed your switcher unit with the digital signal off the TC's coax SPDIF output and use the internal DACs and the front outputs instead of the tape out you use with the TC twin You just need to compare what you get out of them in SQ and convenient output levels and decide.
The role of the DAC feeding the Behringer is limited since the Behringer does its own AD/DA cycle. So it is its DACs that determine what you get out. Optimally, however you feed the Behringer, you want the level reaching it to get you the full range output- meaning that 0db digital comes out as 0db on the behringer output indicators.
You can use a -20db test signal file and CD to calibrate the vol setting on the behringer input control (if you are using the switcher unit's tape out - i.e. bypassing its vol control) OR the other way by using the switcher's vol control via front outs and setting the behringer input control near max You need to calibrate to get a -20db output read on the behringer.
It is just a matter of which has the better final SQ - using the Behringer input attenuation or the switcher's vol. control. But you need to match levels all the way to the output on the behringer.
Hopefully this clarifies things rather than confuses.
The only thing the DAC feeding the Behringer needs to be is better than the Behringer DACs, which is a rather low bar requirement. So don't splurge on DACs with highly refined performance.
Sorry It has been a while since I have been able to reply. My business has been quite busy, and we have had some issues with help being sick. One thing I did find confusing, was the statement you made about the DAC quality. On the one hand, It appears that the Behringer determines the quality of the sound as it is using its DACs to digitize all sound as all of it goes through it and is affected by it, on the other hand, in your last sentence you state..."The only thing the DAC feeding the Behringer needs to be is better than the Behringer DACs, which is a rather low bar requirement. So don't splurge on DACs with highly refined performance." So does that mean that a better DAC on input would increase SQ or would it not have an affect at all? As you also state that the DACS on the TGP-5 and DMC-1 are about the same quality as the Behringer DAC would it make a difference in SQ to add a better DAC? As you see I am a bit confused on this. Please clarify if you can.
Thanks for your comments. I am considering a couple of different add ons to take care of the streaming. There is a lot of legacy equipment, including CD players, that have some really decent DACS onboard. Here are a couple of interesting items. I know that the Marantz was advertised at $289 previously from the same seller, so it could probably be had for that or maybe less. The Marantz would accomplish it all as far as streaming goes. It is tempting. I will do some more research as there is so much out there in legacy equipment with some great DACS onboard. I would love to know what you use, and others as well. I will also research the digital part of this site. Thanks again for all the help. I hope to get some REW measurements done this weekend. I will post what I get as soon as I have them.
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond! It is my turn to apologize. I have been busy and I usually only have the weekend to devote to this and rarely do I get a day extra, but today in part is one of them. I have been studying REW as I am a neophyte when it comes to its use. I started a new post on REW to see what others have done also. So bottom line, I am still in the process of learning REW, and found so far it is quite a tool. I took a few measurements to get my feet wet, and plan to take some more isolating each driver. I will take a separate measurement for each side with each driver, then a measurement with both sides and each driver, and finally a measurement using all drivers on each side and then together. They will be done at the "sweet spot" only for now. That should cover the whole spectrum and give us the appropriate data to work with. Is that too many measurements? Are there examples of the FR slope using the speakers you talked about? Any tips on the type of measurement would be helpful as well, i.e.,, do I need anything other than what I specified. Sorry for so many questions. I am learning a great deal from this and as always appreciate the time and effort. I try myself to give back as well, once i have learned enough to do so. P.S. I have a sub as well but will keep it out of the picture for now if that is advisable. Using the analog in only inputs, precludes the use of any DSP functions in the pre/pros according to the manuals. I am wondering if that includes distance of each driver, and eliminates any sub crossover capability? If so, I have a mini-DSP 2x4 that I could include at a later date and use it for the sub. Thanks again for any experience you have to share.
I will give the extended crossover point a try on the Tympani's thanks. As to the DAC, the DMC-1 is the "switcher" so it would be using the DAC on that one. They appear to have the same specs and components. Both have Crystal semiconductor ADC and 24 bit 192 kHz DACS. They appear to be identical units with the exception of the cases. I wonder what that was all about? I will report back what the results were with the Tympani's. I have a better CD player, plus I have a TC Electronics DAW that was recommended by the folks who wrote Pure Vinyl for recording. It needs to be attached to a computer to be able to use it properly. I may use that in the future as it was excellent for recording. I know it is more of a production unit and I don't know much about DACS but this seemed to be pretty good quality for what it did. I have an older Philips CD player that was not too bad. I am gong to try that instead of the Samsung DVD player to see if there is a difference. Again will report back when done. Thanks again!!
The Clean Box Pro is much more pricey than the H Labs stuff...$65 each on Amazon, so I will use it for a test, but if I wanted to use it permanently i would also have to make more cables. The cables to the TGP-5 are XLR to RCA, grounding the extra surround wire as instructed by Simon Ashton who modifies the DCX. He even sent me a diagram on how to construct the interconnects using the above configuration. So it looks like the least expensive and best route would be to use the Clean Box as a test, then order the H Labs 12db attenuators if successful and I believe it will be. I hope to be able to get to that today, but have a busy business day. Using the H labs attenuators would be just a plug in from the DCX to the TGP-5. The Clean Box requires XLR input which would mean a converter or different cable, then another cable from the RCA output to the RCA input on the TGP-5.. That is the only route to take if one wants to convert from +4 to -10 inputs. Hope that all makes sense. Any comments or suggestions are always appreciated. This has been quite a project but I think we are starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel. I am keeping my fingers crossed and I do believe in prayer. :)
OK I now know. I agree that the Fmods are the best choice - no extra wires and cost much less.
I went to the link and saw the tables, etc. I think I will get the H Labs attenuators. I agree I do not care for the extra connections, but at this time I do not have the time to desolder and resolder resistors and such. So for expedience sake I will purchase the Harrison labs 12db attenuators. I would assume they would go on the TGP-5 and the cables would plug into them correct?
Yes they go there. I am forgetting - are these RCA or balanced XLR inputs on the TGP?
As always you seem to be right on. I set all levels on the DCX to -15db. I think it is being overdriven because I slowly raised the levels on each output, and the sound was not bad. I was able to get some volume out of it also by slowly raising the output levels.The "distortion" seemed to pretty much disappear also and the imaging was quite good. I found I had the center speaker turned on and turned that off. That helped also. The problem comes when I raise the output levels too much or the input levels which of course decreases quality. So again....I think you hit the nail on the head. I will see about getting those L pads. Do you know how to make them? I will also investigate the Labs attenuators. At least it is starting to make sense. I cannot afford to upgrade the DCX at this time, but maybe the attenuator will at least get it to the point where it sounds decent. I know there is more there as a lot of it did improve. Imaging is much better and separation of instruments as well. I think it has a lot of potential. Thanks once again!!
Let's start by getting a better idea of how far up the DCX output settings can be adjusted before the distortion on high volume shows up. If that is a few db below the 0 setting (which should correspond to 10V) you likely won't gain much from adding Lpads. The input overload of the vol control preamp is the limiting factor if I got your experiment right, as that is typically 10V for SS line equipment and some oveload below the spec level. So raise the output levels gradually and see if you get the distortion on high vol peaks. If you are confident it is not happening then go and try the next level up. I would start from -9, -10 db, -15 is costing you lots of resolution and is too low a setting.
I have been trying to do a listening test as you described. If I were to sum it up, I think the word resolution is most correct. The imaging, and instrument separation has improved, but overall resolution has not. Depth and presence have suffered. When I use a digital input from my CD/DVD player, which is all it has, I definitely get some distortion. When I use my turntable, it is much better, but still a lot missing. I tried the level settings adjustment as you described, and the more i raised them not a lot changed, with the exception of the CD player.Certain recordings like Bach do not sound bad, but others give distortion. The "Maggie" sound is not missing but I know there is a lot more there.. You know it is like searching for a word on the tip of your tongue but cannot recall it. I guess my vocabulary for describing sound is just not that great. I can post the settings if you like, and I assume you are talking crossover points/slopes etc. I have not activated any delay or eq settings. I could try the attenuators at this point in time as I am not sure what else to do. Parts Express has a 45 day no questions asked return policy, and they are not that pricey. so nothing lost if they do not work. What do you think? If you have any other ideas or any other way to help me pinpoint this it would be greatly appreciated. I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.
Sorry I did not see this post before I answered the previous one...I did try this but not in a controlled manner as you mentioned. I will do this today and report back. Is there any way to match input output voltages exactly. For Example, The input voltage on the TGP-5 is 125 mV. Can the output voltage from the DCX be matched to that or am I not understanding this? I will also see what I can find from a search for matching voltages on pro and home equipment. Thanks so much. This is quite an education for me and I thoroughly enjoy it. I hope one day I can give back some of what I learn here.
Update--I have been playing a CD in repeat mode for about a week for 8-12 hours a day with the amps turned off. I turned the amps on yesterday to see if there is any improvement. I am happy to say that they are getting there. Some of the fidelity is coming back, and the dull muddled sound seems to have disappeared. They still have a ways to go i can tell tht as well....but slowly getting there. I certainly did nore realize the importance of breaking in newly built interconnects. Once again Satie hits a homerun! :) Again this site seems to be a very valuable resource for all us maggie crazies, but I guess that is why it is called the "asylum".
I re read the manuals and did get more out of them...I was able to glean more about signal paths and settings. They also said that bass management does not affect 8 channel inputs, but for the way it is set up that should not make a difference. I am playing my CD in the Samsung and so far it seems to be automatically repeating. I am playing Bach continually so far. Thanks again. Feel free to peruse the manuals and if you find anything more i should be aware of please let me know. THe Emotiva is near identical to the TGP-5 right down to the specs. It is not written quite as well in my opinion.
Thanks Satie..the Frankenpans now that they are towed in are from 18" (tweeters) to 24" bass panel not presently used. The Tympain's are only about a foot from the rear wall, so I assume these are the ones that need the most attention correct? Any suggestions for material within reasonable cost?
Why don't you start a new thread on front wall treatment for close to the wall placement to suss out what others have done.
Thanks will do and thank you for all the help so far..hope the posting of the pics for the interconnects is helpful to someone.
Alas, I did bite the bullet and bid what was affordable for me on the DEQX. I bid $801.50 and someone had a higher bid in. So this one has to slip by me for now. Hopefully one will come up in the future and I will be financially better able to bid. That was the maximum for me at the present time, and even at that my accountant would be hard to control for a while ha ha..In the interim I guess I have to explore the JRiver approach. You mention to keep the passive XO I have for the mid/tweeter Satie, but I am not using passive at present. i am using the DCX2496 for all three channels with a Sunfire TGP-5. Were you referring to the stock XO, as I still have it? Would have loved the DEQX and I do appreciate the support, but I sadly have to let it go for now. Hey one door closes another opens. I am an optimist at heart.
OK so you have a DCX. I didn't remember that.
So you have been just skipping the IIIa bass panels entirely?
So you need one more channel of XO to make use of the IIIa bass panels. You can get a second DCX and run it in parallel to control the T1D separately.Or you can add an analog 2 way on the bass channel of the DCX to get a separate channel for the IIIa bass panels. You should be able to get better performance in the 150-500+ Hz range from the IIIa bass panels. A second DCX is the better choice to allow delays to be set appropriately.
You can build the speaker correction by hand or automatically for the .IIIa portion pulled well into the room one speaker at a time, then use the other DCX to do room correction on the T1 D bass panels. The DEQX can do this more easily and do time domain correction. With the DEQX you will want an analog XO on the bass channel outputs so you can use the IIIa bass panels. You really should since you already have an adequate amp lazing about waiting for something to do.
A "computerman" should be using a computer for this function. A good quality multi-channel soundcard and JRiver (or similar) will give you complete control and allow endless experimentation.
Dave.
You sound as if you have some experience with this setup. Could you please enlighten us as to how you are using this? What about costs? Does one have to have a dedicated computer & sound card? I know that a good multi channel sound card can cost a fair amount of dineros. Would there be a significant savings using a setup like you mentioned? You definitely have my attention. I have toyed with this idea in the past but not using JRiver as I was not aware that it was available. If I recall when compared to a good used DEQX, when one considered the cost of the card and dedicated computer, this approach was more expensive.
I guess I am going to bite the bullet and do a bid on it. I guess I could always sell it as they rarely come up used. What would you bid tops for this.. I was thinking somewhere around 725 or so? No strings attached to the question. Better yet if you do not feel comfortable answering that question, would you tell me what you paid for yours and do you think it was worth every dollar?
Quite an impressive beast, that Frankenpan. It's hard to give advice on the crossover since the system is so far modified from "stock". You have to fool around using your ears before you venture out to DIYland. However there is a DEQX 2.6 listed around ~$600 on Audiogon that, if I were you, I would snatch up in an instant. That will give you all the flexibility you need to reach an ideal solution.
You mentioned that you had the factory re-do your panels with foil. I assume you are talking about the IIIa. I had inquired about that and I was told that it was not feasible (I assume different magnet spacing between the wires). Could you explain exactly what they did and how you got them to do it.
I caught your previous post about the DEQX and I would love to snatch up that DEQX but it is bid right now as an auction item at 603.50 after having the reserve of 499 met. I expect it to go for much more as the bidding frenzy ensues, but who knows. Right now I do not have the funds to bid, without first getting rid of some "stuff" which I have listed. I could swing it but not too prudent at this time.
As to the build at Magnepan, yes they are the mids...I do recall asking once before to get this done or something similar, and they advised I do it myself. I guess I must have hit them at the right time. I have had all six T 1-D'panels done plus IIIa tweeters and purchasing the kits for the IIIa's so I got to know Shella pretty good. I don't know if that had any impact, but I suspect not. Perhaps it was just luck. I would ask again if I were you.
I have been experimenting with the actives for quite a while and have some pretty good XO points. I have no clue what they might translate to if I were to go combo passive and active though. I just do not have that level of experience. I can construct them OK but I would be guessing about the XO points so that is why I did this post.
I looked up the specs on your Rotel. The load impedance of the amp is only 8200 ohms which is way too low to create a PLLXO. In fact, you might be hard pressed to use a tube preamp without inserting a buffer to lower the input impedance to the amp. Without going in to details a PLLXO requires a low input impedance and a high load impedance (preferrably 50k or more) to be practical.
Not sure I follow you on the Rotel. I am presently using a TGP-5 to feed a DCX2496 active XO into the Rotel RMB-1077 multi channel amp. How would the load impedance nullify a passive XO in the mix? Are you talking about the 8.3k ohms Input impedance? I am looking at the specs and just trying to follow you.
Neo is referring to a passive crossover implemented ahead of the power amplifiers. "PLLXO" is a passive line-level crossover. In that case, source output resistance and load input resistance become very important.
Reading your original post again, it seems you're not aware of the PLLXO approach and your "passive" interest was only regarding high-level crossovers between power-amps and speakers.
The DCX2496 is fairly dated unit and it was designed for the professional market and not the consumer market. Thus, there are all kinds of issues regarding noise, signal levels, etc, etc, that can rear their head. Most users who continue on the DCX2496 usage path are eventually forced to modify it for superior operation. Here's one excellent example:
http://linearaudio.nl/dcx2496-active-output-mod-6-channel-vol-control
Dave.
Thanks for the explanation Davey. I am also considering purchasing some Kenwood LC-07 especially since I missed the DEQX this time around. Could I then use the PLLXO approach? I did think that the XO at the speaker was the same as PLLXO.."more will be revealed" :) That is one of the reasons I love this site. I learn so much while not being judged for my inexperience.
In addition I sent an inquiry to Pilgham audio who supply the mods for the DCX2496. What do you think of the final product? Is it worth doing? Lots of choices to make.
Thanks again!
Yes, it's worth doing....if you're going to commit to the DCX2496 for a while. There's nothing wrong with the DSP portion of the DCX.....it will perform all the crossover/equalization/etc that you need and the PC software interface is fairly intuitive. The downfall is in the analog portions, and the excellent modification designed by Jan Didden solves all issues.
Dave.
awesome! that seems as if it is the least expensive way now as I have it paid for already..and the update done by them should be reasonable enough. I am waiting for a price and I will update you as soon as I have it. Only drawback is that it has to go to the Netherlands which increases shipping costs and time. Seems like an excellent company.
I am seriously contemplating selling my Rotel RMB 1077 as I no longer do the multichannel thing and also considering purchasing some Kenwood mono blocks LM 07 is the correct model. I read a review referred to by the present post about the 3.7i's and the reviewer stated that they were quite satisfied with the sound using the 3.7i's and the kenwoods. There is a pair that is reasonably priced on eBay. Any thoughts on them?
It is worth looking for a US based modster doing the same alterations to the DCX.
Try tweakaudio to see if Ric Schultz is still doing this.
As soon as I have a quote, I will post it here and the tech who is going to do it. Thanks for all the suggestions...any comments on the Kenwood L07 M mono blocks? Refer to the post on the 3.7i's There is a review that uses them to drive the 3.7i's and they were quite satisfied with the sound. They are quite reasonable to purchase also. I would sell the Rotel as I no longer use it for multi channel, then use the Kenwoods for the mids. I would for now use the ADA PF-200 for the tweeters or the Rotel until I sell it. I could swing the Kenwoods, depending on the price of the mods for the DCX.
No no no. The kit could be purchased from Pilgham and a qualified local technician could install it, but there's no way I'd let Ric Schultz touch it.
Dave.
Very glad to know thanks!!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: