Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
64.129.152.158
Returning to ask your advice and counsel, probably more like seeking counseling, on the topic of pre-amps and amps for my recently acquired 3.6s. Recall that I'm just getting back into audio after decades away.My plan was to work backward from the 3.6s and buy better (mid-fi) components to drive them: pre-amps, amps, CD players, etc. But something odd has happened along the way.
I like the sound a lot better with a CD player directly into a power amp. Is this nuts? It's clearer and has a lot less compression that way.
Here's the part that has me seeking counseling. Just to hear some Maggie music till I get geared up, I'm running an old Technics CD player from the early 90s into a QSC RMX 1450 power amp that I pulled out of my band/studio's PA system. It's not even a "stereo" amp, but it's got two volume knobs, 400wpc, and there's enough oomph from the CD player to run the Maggies plenty loud.
(Maybe too loud - I've already blown a tweeter fuse once! - a heart stopper till I realized, a fuse died to save my tweeter ribbon.)
I've also played the same setup with (individually) these additions: (1) an EQ rack unit (2) a small mixer unit with pre-amp and EQ knobs (3) a dedicated PA pre-amp (4) my mainstay Yamaha AV receiver, 100 wpc, with all the Tone knobs.
Well, the various forms of pre-amps add some body and low-mid fullness, but they all seemed to take away some clarity and dynamics compared to the sound of the CD player directly into the power amp.
Questions, good sirs: Am I nuts? More to the point, should I keep planning to add a good mid-fi pre-amp and power amp at all? Will the pre-amp (I'm thinking Parasound 2100) just do the same fullness thing or will it be more transparent than all these low-end PA devices? Will mid-fi power amps (I'm thinking Parasound 2250 or Emotiva UPA-1 blocks) be clearer still than a noisy-fanned rack PA power amp?
Am I totally overthinking this? I'm guessing that some of these questions must have come up before, and before I spend a whole lot more money, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I know I'll have to go pre-amp if I ever want to hear my turntable, but the rest of it has my gear plans on "pause."
=K
Edits: 02/01/12Follow Ups:
Thanks again for all the replies. There's a lot to think about and - best of all - much more gear to research online!
(From years in guitars-n-amps, I recognize the symptoms of GAS... beginning with realizing that the hunt is part of the thrill.)
There are some great suggestions here. I appreciate everyone's input.
=K
> I like the sound a lot better with a CD player directly into a power amp. Is this nuts? It's clearer and has a lot less compression that way.
Not crazy at all, I noticed the same thing years ago and ended up building myself a passive pre.
The exceptions to this are if you have a component that can't fully drive your power amp, or that has electronics that distort when doing so. But since it sounds better to you without a preamp, I'd go with the passive.
A higher quality preamp will of course sound better, but unless the source has trouble driving the amp without some gain or a buffer, a straight wire will sound cleaner than electronics.
If you don't mind the fan noise pro amps can sound just as good as any other kind, it just depends on the amp. There are some excellent bargains to be had, but there are also some duds, e.g., crappy Class D amps and amps that are better left to PA use. The only way to know is to check out a particular model, there's no blanket rule that says "this kind of amp is better."
"I like the sound a lot better with a CD player directly into a power amp. Is this nuts? It's clearer and has a lot less compression that way."
Then you need to research light dependent resistor attenuators. These are said to be excellent, but with a few caveats, mainly proper source and load impedance matching is needed. Kits and premade units available. Lightspeed, Lighter note, Warpspeed, Eva, and more.
Also you can throw in a tube or SS buffer, either before or after the LDR, to get the proper impedance match if necessary. Still cheaper than a mega buck audiophile preamp.
No personal experience here with these optocouplers yet, but I am currently working on a project that will use one.
I would suggest you go with a DAC/pre to avoid a proper preamp yet retain the benefits of good gain, good matching with most amps, compatibility with computer audio, and make it possible for you to continue using your current CD player as a transport.
Among the best options in price/performance are very high end AV Pre Processors from 5-10 years ago without HDMI, which makes them cheap on the used market. They usually have good DACs and provide a full function HT preamp. Search for the discussions Computerman and I had not long ago here on the MUG.
More purist are the Wyred 4 sound DAC2 which contains a good pre section, and the Benchmark DAC/Pre.
If you use a typical CD player's out into a passive "pre" then you will have some bottom sag which may join with your 3.6 to create a bass deficiency problem. It can be solved with an active subwoofer (or better yet a pair). For best match with a maggie, use a sealed subwoofer (no ports or slots).
Howdy K from a relative newcomer as well (though i've been lurking since purchasing MMG's 10yrs ago). I like your QSC amp, that's a nice one! I run a QSC GX3 amp on my 1.7's. I did 'mod' the fan to slow it down, make it quieter.
I ascribe to a non-popular view that the speakers are by far the limiting factor - will change the input signal way more than the electronics (in general!)
This comes from 'some' listening, a mind of scientific bent (in God I trust, others must bring evidence), lots of reading, and specifically, lots of reading about ab and abx testing of components. The vast majority of folks who claim they can hear differences have not level-matched ab or abx tested THEIR OWN GEAR, and refuse to do so. which is all OK if it makes them happy, the hobby is all about enjoyment anyway.
Before spending money on electronics, suggest read as many of these articles as you can stand:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm
Especially the ones about amps and ab / abx testing, negative feedbakc, etc. Eye-opening.
CD direct into amp is a good way to minimize signal path. CD to preamp or receiver should work fine. Note that when running through pre-amp of any sort, it's best to leave the amp gain controls at 100%, and control volume with pre-amp. Keep that signal strong. This prevents the signal being degraded by multiple sets of volume controls.
D/a converters.: much ado has been made about fancy d/a converters. Often, cd players have a form of digital out, such as optical. Then you have to use a receiver or something to turn it into an analog signal. Again, I have yet to see valid ab or abx testing showing superiority of various d/a converters.
I'm a big fan of spending the (limited) money where it makes the most impact - for me this has been speakers, then amp (with enough power), then all the other stuff.
have fun!
Judging by this thread on Hydrogen Audio, it's going to be a while before you see a valid ABX of DAC's:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=90382
The poor guy got trashed for asking a simple question. More than that, the posters who were trashing him seemed to be violating their own rules, in that they were claiming no audible difference on equipment that *hasn't* been ABX'd, and on the basis of measurements.
So you need an ABX test to determine that equipment sounds different, but not that it doesn't?
One thing I don't think you need an ABX test to detect -- hypocrisy.
First, thanks for all your replies. They represent a variety of views and approaches, but that's to be expected. At least I know I am hearing what I'm hearing with CD player- to- amp.
In response to several points raised above:
- Probably headed for a pre-amp soon enough, because:
- I’ll be adding a sub soon, probably a Velodyne 1200 that’s for sale used on CL locally. Is this fast enough for Maggies or is there another brand that MUGs prefer?
- I miss having a remote!
Being the New Guy here, I was trying to step lightly. I used the term “mid-fi” for lower-end hi-fi gear since a friend once proclaimed, “Hi-fi is short for ‘higher than fifty thousand.’” Dollars, that is. [sic]
Q about CD players and D/A converters: How does one separate the two? I’ve only ever known CD players with internal D/As (I guess) that present your amp with a signal. Larger question: What makes one CD player better than another, if it’s all reading digital info? Is it the quality of the D/As?
Update: Last night I installed the 1-ohm resistors on the tweeters and it made a subtle but profound difference. By taking the razor edge off the tweeters, the mids and bass can emerge, and the sound (still CD-to-amp) is more balanced. I’m from the land of guitar amps, so this is like turning down the Presence control. Makes sense.
When/ if I’m headed for pre-amp + power amp, I’ll be looking used, probably, since (as with guitar gear) your dollars go a lot further.
Inmates over 50 may smile to hear of my first stereo system in high school (1974): a Pioneer SX-424 with 12 pumpin’ watts, into a pair of low-end Advents with white plastic cabinets with brushed-chrome grills. I was livin’ large, boys!
=K
Most CD players have optical or coax digital out. That skips all the DA stuff in the player. You could also just buy a 'transport' and be forced into an external DAC.
My CD player has 2 channels of digital in, so it is also a DAC.
Cambridge Audio makes a DACMagic + which includes balanced and single ended (RCA)outputs and a level control. It even has a headphone output. If you are interested, look it up. And it is priced 'right' at maybe 600$ with the BlueTooth Dongle to stream audio from your computer. My iMac has built in bluetooth so this is an attractive feature to me.
The CA to a power amp may satisfy your needs. Used amps are available in bewildering variety.. Too many, in fact, to list or even make a sane recommendation. For Magnepan you could even find some hi-power tube gear, like ARC.
Too much is never enough
With subs, sealed is usually better than ported, two subs are better than one, and dipole subs are better than monpoles (but that's a DIY project, though not a difficult one).
... and I posted the results at http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/MUG/messages/18/185324.html
Thanks for your help and advice, folks.
The short version: After trying it both ways, I preferred running the Maggies full-range and adding the sub as well.
=K
The Best pasive i have had was a tranfourmer setup an it had gain...so there a lot way to go.....but i say that you need a good preamp so you can see what you are missing...an yes it all about money.. i get that.
Used is the way to go..well for me...two for the price of one.. look a lot of people here have big money put in to there setups....but you have got get it in your HOME ..that the only way you well ever no..goodluck
K-wey: "What makes one CD player better than another, if it’s all reading digital info? Is it the quality of the D/As? "
Digital info is subject to distortion just like analog signals, "jitter" (timing of information) being the most prevalent issue. Read up on DACs over time and take it slow. The good news is that recent developments (and I mean recent - 12 months) in DACs has led to breakthrough performance in the $750-1000 price range, so time is on your side.
Well, I took the collective advice here, and tried out a different CD player this weekend.
I had initially been using a 1990 Technics player that I'd had for decades, sitting around unloved. Test disc was Eric Clapton's "Clapton" album from 2010, a well-recorded disc with a lot of acoustic instruments and old-tyme toons, plus his singing (which gets better with age).
I was hearing some raggedness in the upper mids especially on vocals.
Then I plugged in a 2005 JVC player from my main system. Raggedness cleaned right up! Much sweeter up top.
Okay, the CD player does make a difference. Thanks, gang. I'm off to go find a good one, used. (Gotta put the JVC back into the studio recording system for now.)
=K
listening carefully. Like Josh, I went from a pretty good ss preamp to a passive and dramatically improved my sound. Top flight passives go for $500-600 new so you will save a bunch of dosh.
You need to be careful about passive preamp/amp matching. Proper matching has to do with the amp's input impedance and its voltage sensitivity is important, too.
I use a Placette Passive Pre for my Maggie 3.6s. I haven't heard another preamp sound anywhere near as good in my system (though I haven't tried the crazy expensive stuff).
I went from a really good $1200 passive (Sonic Euphoria) to a $5000 preamp (Shindo Auriges). Although I really liked the passive the Shindo is another world and I never would go back. The Shindo has given me such an emotional connection to music it has to be heard to be believed
Alan
I can't knock the Sonic Euphoria, but I prefer my old CJ active tube one.
which I am sure is a superb component. I think passive preamps are a must recommendation for any relative newbie, due to their outstanding price-to-performance ratio. I understand there are real and valid debates about whether very expensive active preamps outperform passives, but the price differential for me at least makes the debate moot.
Looks like your doing the right thing....i got a $5k amp here an with out a speaker....it dose nothing...... But the 3.6s..... Magnepans my not be for you.....or like me you need more speakers...i have found that all speakers do some things right.....but NO one Pr of speakers can do all thing right!.....an it going to be $250 an shiping if you pop a ribbion....an far as the QSC i like them a lot for the money...so as for a pramp...i lived a long time thinking that the sound was better with out one...till i got my frist Krell...An minney others..an now i well tell you that the preamp make the setup....i can run any amp with the Krell an it sounds better....used Krell KSL go for $6-800.good place to start...goodluck
Just my 5cent 2 cent wont get it anymore.
I've never tried getting by without a pre-amp. In principle, it makes sense that you should be able to do pretty well without one with a few caveats. For me personally, those caveats are big enough I'll continue using a preamp. Like you, I bought a great pair of speakers (3.7s in my case) and am building up the rest my system as I'm able to get purchases past my wife. A center channel (for HT), a preamp, and a more powerful amp are what I'm considering ATM.
A pre-amp does a few things for you.
1) It generally adds a remote control. I do like the ability to change volumes as I listen. Virtually no power amps will have remote volume control (precious few have volume control at all!). You could also get the volume control on some CD players, possibly through the remote.
2) A lot of us like subs with 3.xs. Do you need one? Depends on what you listen to, what you value in music, and how much you enjoy sharing your listening experience with the neighborhood. A preamp will simplify the process of adding a sub. This could probably be done with splitters or creative use of the analog outs AND headphone jack on a CD player, but a good pre may give better integration.
3) As others have mentioned, a pre can juggle multiple inputs, although this can be accomplished with a bit of a wiring project. Personally, I have sufficient sources to juggle I want the preamp, but I use mine for HT too.
4) If you're listening to a CD, you're using a DA converter at some point. That can be on the CD player (pretty much all have it) or in a preamp. Some on here will advise the purchase of ultra-high end CD/DVD/Blu/computer music servers/digital radio/whatever else comes digital so that you get a good DA converter for the signal. My philosophy is to get a good preamp with DA conversion I'm happy with, and let it do the converting off cheap readers for whatever I'm listening to. I'll freely admit I don't have a great preamp yet, but I do intend to get one and do all my DA conversion there. So, if you are happy just listening to CDs off your system, a high-end CD player could make real sense. However, the preamp is something to consider if you will be using additional digital sources at some point. (And yes, I imagine this point will start a fight.)
A preamp can do a few other things (Audyssey calibration, interpreting more advanced surround sound modes [mostly for HT], equalization, and a host of things that are probably generally bad ideas). My guess is most of us would choose a preamp, but I can certainly believe its possible to get great sound without one.
Paul
No, you're not nuts at all. The most transparent audio component is a piece of wire! Which is why I discarded my preamp years ago and replaced it with a homebrew passive unit.
There is however an important caveat here. Not all devices have sufficient gain to drive a power amp directly. You have to be sure that they can utilize the power amp's peak output and are comfortable with the power amp's input impedance. And they have to be clean at those levels. If the electronics in the CD player aren't clean or are overdriven, they'll distort. You'll get better sound with a good gain stage than with a direct feed. There's no fixed rule here: it's very equipment dependent.
I'm not sure by the way that you're using the term "mid fi" correctly. Mid fi components like mass market receivers typically don't have adequate sound quality for revealing speakers like Maggies. Components like Emotiva's aren't mid fi, they're bargain high end. They may not give you the best sound possible, but they're typically an order of magnitude better than the typical receiver and can be used in a good system without pain and without apology. Eventually, you may decide to move up the ladder, but I'd say you want to begin on the Emotiva level if possible rather than going with mass market stuff, and that you'll be happy if you do so. (Even this is an oversimplification, after all, you can find incredibly pricey high end components that don't sound very good and supposedly mid fi stuff that punches way out of its class, but it's *usually* true -- the main criterion in mass consumer electronics is offering lots of bells and whistles at a bargain price, and that means you're usually going to be using the cheapest converters, op amps, caps, etc. that will do the job.)
You are making decisions based on using a world class speaker with low end sources. When you get into better equipment you will find that a good pre will give you better sound then straight into a power amp from a cd player. The first thing you need to do is get a good power amp for your Maggies. Then go from there. The Parasound or Emotive amps would be a good start
Alan
Hi K,
You will get more consensus if you ask about mags and chest thumps :)
My 2 cents is that I agree with your assessment. A pre is not necessary and if you have one source IMHO a pre often leads to a worse SYSTEM.
To get a pre that doesnt mess up the sound you have to usually spend a bunch of dough. Dough that could go toward better amps than you are talking about, and I personally would make certain that I had an amp or amps that could really drive the 3.6s cleanly. You can do better than the amps you are talking about.
Also I am betting that your amps are tripping fuses because they are probably clipping. Said another way if fed clean power mags can pretty much take all you can give them.
Now if your cdp doesnt have a volume control then a pre is a must.
Afterwards we discovered faith; it's all you need
A couple of options I can add to the mix are the Dodd Audio Diy Tube Buffer which is a passive preamp that many people really like and has a remote option. Here is a link to a popular thread.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=79766.0
Another choice to look at would be a Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11 as it has a volume control built in. They offer a 30 day return policy.
Both items are budget minded.
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: