Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

[Pianist718]

Maybe buy a high quality multi channel amp, and get a new processor, or receiver as needed. That way you could keep up with the features, and spent the bucks where it matters.

Blutarsky

Exactly what i quoted a guy on. See post 68 above

[Blutarsky]

I noticed that. I am a speed reader. I caught myself later. Sorry.

Still....It is something I am actively pursuing.

Wyred 4 Sound is going to let me audition one of these

http://www.wyred4sound.com/webapps/p.../117839/339143

I think my Towers could use more power. And the idea of using a moderately priced receiver on top is logical.

B.

[GirgleMirt]

I mostly agree with Girgle on this one, however – there are definite, audible differences between different classes of amplifiers. For example, “digital amplifiers”, while being much more efficient, do so at the cost of switching noise. The power supply actually turns on and off at a very fast rate and this can be audible (ICE Power is a good example of well implemented class D technology). I once listened to a full range amp based on BASH technology and it was awful for full range music, which I believe is why they are so popular for use as subwoofer amplifiers (switching noise is typically very high in the frequency spectrum). There can be considerable differences in audio quality based on the design of the amplification stage.

Interesting... So are digital amps are inherently inferior to A/B for the top end or is it just a case of implementation? Is it still audible/measurable in the audible range in case of the good implementations?

Ascend customers generally fall into two camps – we have audio purists who avoid all the bells and whistles and strive for audio accuracy for music listening, purest analog signals possible. Then we have those who strive to achieve what sounds best to them and thus utilizing the digital domain (which unavoidably results in a less pure analog signal at the final stage) and AutoEQ. Those who strive for purity would be wasting money on receiver/amplifier upgrades provided that their existing equipment is up to par. Those who want to achieve what sounds best to them, receiver upgrades can be worthwhile based on newer feature sets that alter the original signal.

There is no right or wrong with this, just a matter of what you want to achieve.

For me, for music listening – I am an extreme purist and want to hear as much as the original (unaltered) analog source as possible, whether I like how it sounds or not.

Hmmm... Somewhat surprised, but yeah that makes sense given you'd want to achieve it via speakers rather than electronics/software. It's amazing what can be achieved with DSP/room correction and whatnot, one of the best sounds I've heard at a recent show (2y ago, so don't recall specifics) was simply studio monitors in a big room but with correction. Think they were $5-8k and correction hardware/software was like $2.5-5k, but the sound was pretty amazing, and I'm saying that in comparison with other systems costing 20-100k or more... Still that's a lot of money, and IMHO it's a better idea to just go with good amp/speakers/etc and room treatment. But even then, I'd expect you could still improve things with DSP, it's just cost/performance upgrade somewhat still isn't quite there, 3-5k for the DSP is a lot of money...

I think it's a bit weird that active speakers haven't really become popular or caught on in the audiophile market. NHT had the XT or XD I think it was, I think there's the Linkwitz Orion, but other than that I can't think of anything... And the NHT isn't sold anymore and the Orion is more of a kit than a full speaker... Anyway, weird that in the pro realm they've caught on really fast (studio monitors), yet audiophiles are still stuck in the 70s, 80s or 90s with their vinyls, tube amps, passive crossovers, etc...

For enthusiasts and DIY community, I think the prohibitive factor is cost of the crossover/DSP unit (think it's >1000$ for a good/transparent one) and amplification, but with current receivers, it would be awesome if one marketed an affordable 100% transparent active crossover that could be used with cheap receivers... Hmm.. Anyhow lol

Agreed on speakers being most important in the chain! (though every part is important too)

For example, even the most advanced DSP system can not change the dispersion characteristics of a loudspeaker and many professionals believe (including this one) that this aspect has more influence over the way something sounds than anything else.

And there lies the attractiveness of an active crossover? I'll have to admit I'm not 100% certain of the advantages of an active crossover vs a passive, but, the greatest advantage from what I understand is the flexibility and ease of 'design'. I'm fairly sure you could 'tailor' settings like delays and whatnot not possible with a passive crossover...

When considering transient accuracy, resonance control and phase integration between the drivers – (all factors that DSP processing in a receiver can not influence) it becomes quickly apparent that HiFi starts and ends with the loudspeakers. It is why more than half of our customers prefer to avoid using any digital processing and look to the loudspeakers as the critical component.

Of course, from there we must consider power cord upgrades

yeah, because the last 1 meter of the electrical wiring in your house/street/city is the most critical and this is where the invisible radiations and radio frequencies ruins your power!

Half serious question: What about power conditioners though? I know in some cases where you could have 'issues' it might help clear things out, oh no I remember now the power supplies in amps/pres/cd players/etc are all designed to filter things out and power conditioners are useless... hahaha

[phlw]

It is a good question why there are not more speakers with active crossovers/DSP and built in amplifiers.

Wouldn't this go a long way fix many of the issues caused by a passive crossover? Could driver deficiencies be compensated for as well? There must be some reason why this has not caught on.

Is it the difference in sound quality (if any) simply doesn't justify the extra cost?

Just thinking outloud

[GirgleMirt]

Yeah I was thinking a bit later I think it just comes down to cost... Although if they can do it for studio monitors, why not hifi? Hmmm... Well most studio monitors are expensive I guess...

I guess also market. Maybe the audiophile community just isn't ready for such change, if they're powered, how great is the amp and I mean, how can it compare to an amp like Krell or Bryston which costs 5x the price of the powered speakers? I mean, for sure the amps aren't as good... (sarcasm) Well I guess people also have amps already, and with the number of upgrades most folk go through, maybe having one amp is better for savings, although they'll most likely upgrade their amps a few times too...

Nah but I'm pretty sure it's cost. So maybe the solution would be to sell a cheap/transparent crossover/DSP unit, which you could couple with a receiver type amplifier with many channels. But even then for a 5.1, if you have a 3 way speaker, that would be like going from 5 channels to 15, so 3x the receiver... Ouch... Lots of wiring too...

I guess price/performance, passive is still where it's at.

[davef]

Interesting... So are digital amps are inherently inferior to A/B for the top end or is it just a case of implementation? Is it still audible/measurable in the audible range in case of the good implementations?

With Class D amps, the ultimate goal is to achieve class A/B sound quality but with the added dynamics of having almost limitless power reserves. Digital amps are considerably less expensive to manufacture (compared to class A/B and especially Class A) due to requiring MUCH less cooling (much smaller heat sinking, if any) Think inexpensive power...

Interesting... So are digital amps are inherently inferior to A/B for the top end or is it just a case of implementation? Is it still audible/measurable in the audible range in case of the good implementations?

It depends on the design, but I have found in most cases, switching noise is easily measurable and audible. There are various techniques to try and reduce this noise, most employ a basic low pass filter.

The noise is relatively simple to see using a basic oscilloscope and running the amp into an appropriate load.

[davef]

David .... Then what a guy from another forum wrote is verry accurate. Here is what his suggestion is.....

"

Makes sense???

Yes, I think that is very reasonable advice.

[Veda]

With Class D amps, the ultimate goal is to achieve class A/B sound quality but with the added dynamics of having almost limitless power reserves. Digital amps are considerably less expensive to manufacture (compared to class A/B and especially Class A) due to requiring MUCH less cooling (much smaller heat sinking, if any) Think inexpensive power...

Dave, you should check out the new NAD C390DD "power DAC". Amazing product, far better than any ICE amps I've owned or TI based Class D's or any other amps I've owned.

[davef]

Dave, you should check out the new NAD C390DD "power DAC". Amazing product, far better than any ICE amps I've owned or TI based Class D's or any other amps I've owned.

Thanks for the recommendation. I am now considering picking one of these up for our sound room

[Veda]

Thanks for the recommendation. I am now considering picking one of these up for our sound room

Dave, NAD just announced 3 new integrated networked amps with one of which uses the same power DAC technology as the C390DD and M2 but only 50W@8ohm and costs $900. It's called the D7050. Might be a better alternative for a small demo room:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/n...uty-and-brains

"Finally, the D 7050 UPnP network receiver uses NAD’s Direct-Digital technology, is rated to deliver 50Wpc into 8 ohms, and offers an asynchronous USB input, AirPlay, WiFi, Ethernet, and aptX Bluetooth functionality. Sweet: beauty and brains."