|
So cheez is some high effort troll and this 4chan-speak "Anandtech's Watercooling or is that board just one of those moderation-endorsed crazyhouses where the inmates run the place? RoadCrewWorker fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Dec 10, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
I like how while most audio nutjobs insist on using only the finest audio test discs for their videos, this one instead decides to go for Paul Abdul. On loop. Only the finest $60k power cables to enhance the vocal stylings of MC Skat Kat I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Nostrum posted:Are you content living your life, believing that $10k power cables is all there is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
So somehow the video played fine via my YouTube app on my phone, but the comments got mixed up with something else. I think it may be Cuntry Boner by Puscifer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:For what it's worth, between that and his thread about power cables, and the community's reaction to him, I believe this guy's just trolling. Those little roman pillars everywhere were hilarious. Also, using tap water for water cooling is a big nono. He went out of his way to just be ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
I just scored a NAD C320BEE and an older Vector Research VA-1450 power amp off some dude for ~$100, because the guys at his local hi-fi store convinced him that he needed a bigger amp to power his Cerwin Vega floorstanders in his tiny living room. If neither a C320BEE (2x50W RMS) nor a VA-1450 (2x75W RMS) can meet your demands in that sort of setup, you're probably stone drat deaf already, you really hate your neighbors, or you have some ridiculously inefficient speakers. NADs like this one usually go for at least twice that around here, especially in this good a condition. Only thing missing are preamp to power amp jumpers, but he agreed to a reduced price because of it. I honestly don't think he even considered just putting an ordinary signal cable on there, for some odd reason  Vector Research is not a brand I've heard of before, but the amp is seriously heavy for a 2x75W unit, which I take as a good sign. From what I can read online, it's supposedly a copy (or rebrand) of a contemporary (late 80s/early 90s) NAD power amp. It certainly seems like a quality item. From looking at everything, I think the guy bought into a bunch of audiophoolery, courtesy of the local hi-fi store. He had really expensive-looking speaker cables and interconnects, but apparently he didn't know even the most basic things about how integrated amps can have separate preamp and power amp circuits. I dunno, it just seemed odd to me, but I'm certainly not going to complain. That NAD will replace my old Pioneer amp just fine, and the Vector will be useful in bridged mono for a passive sub. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
My first "proper" amp was a C320 and it lasted me about 10 years before one channel needed to be kicked in by cranking the volume. Apparently this was common and had an easy fix. Really like the build quality on NAD stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
I really like the build quality and the no-nonsense looks. There are no flowery descriptions of various features emblazoned on the front with cursive gold lettering, no weirdly-shaped plastic or unnecessarily-bright blue LEDs, just a clean and simple straight-forward layout that'll still look unobtrusive in your living room 10 years from now. Stereos really should be heard, not seen. Contrast this with my Pioneer CD player, which proudly boasts "Legato Link Conversion". What does that even do? Who cares? From what my dad tells me (he's worked with electronics for ~40 years), NAD's PCB layouts are easy to follow as well. Everything is built using discrete components and laid out sensibly, so it should be possible to fix if anything ever goes wrong. E: On the other hand, some of the cheesy stuff is so over-the-top that it loops around and becomes even more awesome. Especially vintage hifi components like the Marantz 2500 reciever, which had a drat oscilloscope built into it, for some reason. And wood paneling.  27kg. $1600 in 1977. 250 very real watts per channel. One hell of a beast. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I really like the build quality and the no-nonsense looks. There are no flowery descriptions of various features emblazoned on the front with cursive gold lettering, no weirdly-shaped plastic or unnecessarily-bright blue LEDs, just a clean and simple straight-forward layout that'll still look unobtrusive in your living room 10 years from now. Stereos really should be heard, not seen. I REALLY want that receiver for my living room (the room is mid century modern, and it would fit perfectly), but the only one on ebay is $2400 BIN. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:
Of you don't want an oscilloscope on your receiver, you're dead inside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I REALLY want that receiver for my living room (the room is mid century modern, and it would fit perfectly), but the only one on ebay is $2400 BIN. There's one for sale locally for ~$1650. Still quite a lot, but definitely more reasonable. I just found out that it actually had a bigger brother, the 2600. 2x300W in your living room, the second-most powerful receiver of the "monster receiver" era in the late 70s. Sansui made one that was 2x330W 
KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 09:02
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:
That is beautiful. And this is mental... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/21/heres-why-you-should-convert-your-music-to-432hz/ quote:We all hold a certain vibrational frequency, not to mention our bodies are estimated to be about 70% water… so we can probably expect that musical frequencies can alter our own vibrational state. Some may call this ‘pseudoscience,’ however the science and patterns shown above don’t lie. Every expression through sound, emotion or thought holds a specific frequency which influences everything around it—much like a single drop of water can create a larger ripple effect in a puddle.   I WILL KILL YOU  quote:“Music based on C=128hz (C note in concert A=432hz) will support humanity on its way towards spiritual freedom. The inner ear of the human being is built on C=128 hz” – Rudolph Steiner Olympic Mathlete fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
Oh that 432hz crap again. I'd say synthesizers kind of disproved that one. Of course, this is the most insane version of it I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Anything that Rudolph Steiner was involved in is automatically horseshit. Seriously, google him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
That 440Hz image is clearly displaying harmonically pleasing hexagonal resonance, see crystals above. Meanwhile the 432Hz image looks like a Terminator's eye, and those will kill you. QED I think
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
I have a friend who is a relatively successful producer (electronic rather than band) who is totally sold on this emotional frequency stuff and has actually been using it as the basis of his music for some time. I've agreed to stop arguing if he'd stop trying to ask me to let him practice his sonic vibrational therapy on me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
That doesn't even make sense. Most synthesizer setups have no oscillator running at the base frequency to begin with (because tweaking the things usually ends up in turning all knobs), often even with LFOs and envelopes tweaking pitch, too. And the relative relationship between notes is always the same, whether A is 440hz or 432hz.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
I recently replaced my amplifier and decided I wanted something nicer-looking than the low table it currently shares with my PC. The PC's case will be replaced with a more hifi-looking unit as well, so I wanted something that could hold both the amp and the PC. Naturally, my first though was to build a Lack Rack. For those not already in the know, IKEA's Lack side tables are ridiculously cheap at less than $10 for the smallest 55x55cm one in black, and they happen to fit most hifi equipment and 19" rack hardware perfectly. So naturally, people have been hacking them up, stacking them and building decent-looking hifi furniture for very little money for a while now. So far so good, and while I have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to do, I wanted to get some more inspiration, courtesy of Google. Initial findings weren't too bad, plenty of interesting ideas. Then I found a couple of sites that claimed great benefits from using a Lack table as a turntable stand, because of the lightweight paper core construction that supposedly cancels out vibration really well. Well OK, that's not completely unrealistic, right? Perhaps there's some truth to it, and loud bass can definitely cause the needle to jump out of the groove. Then it got worse. http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/hacking-the-ikea-lack-table.266708/ quote:It's pretty much ideal for my Sondek. And most electronics. quote:They can be close enough, in a line, or as convenient. Try different components on the table if you have to stack them or use fewer stands. Cables should hang free in the air if possible. For me, it was definitely turntable first and the second, surprisingly, was the heavy power amp. I was happy setting the pre on top of the power, selecting the side for least noise. Power amp on the floor, under the Lack, not as good. quote:I've tried the Lack as a base for various components and I just don't like the sound. Less bass. Esp with a cd player. Maybe there's a way to improve the Lack for audio components, but I've not read the all the links above. On one hand, it's complete and utter audiophoolery. On the other, it's just a $10 side table, not a $5000 power cable. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
Most websites don't document very well that they changed the design a while back so only the top one or two inches of the leg is now solid wood where it attaches to the table top. It's a shame because I have some rack equipment that needs a home and I am also a cheapskate. You only really have  to lose by trying I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Yeah, I know the legs are mostly hollow now, I'll probably just work around that by gluing some wood inside the legs where the screws are going to go. Incidentally, a 1.75" square dowel is supposedly a perfect fit. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
I built an AV rack and speaker stands out of a couple of Lack tables and angles to hold them together, bottom table is network and power, middle is receiver and top is laptop and soon a PS4. Pretty much a perfect fit for any reasonable piece of 19" AV equipment. All the wires are routed on the back of the legs with sticky tape cable-tie holders, it's pretty bachelor but I like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Now it's my turn to hit the sighted listening test and placebo effect pitfalls. Since replacing my 35wpc Pioneer amp with a 50wpc NAD amp, I could swear my speakers have gained approximately a shitton of bass response. Before, I was considering adding a sub to my system, now I'm wondering why that thought even crossed my mind. I've double-checked everything, EQ in my player is off and the tone controls on the amp are defeated (and have always been defeated on every amp I've owned) I know NAD amps have loads of headroom built into them, but additional headroom in an amp can't possibly have that much of an effect at normal listening volumes, can it?
KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
Do a double-blind test between the two components.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 13:10
|
|
|
If the old amplifier had a low damping factor (i.e. high output impedance) then you may have improved the linearity of the system by changing to a better amplifier. I wouldn't do a double blind test since they're a pain to set up, but I'd use my acoustical calibration app on the phone and a measurement mic to check if the two amplifiers produce different acoustical outputs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
The old amp is a relatively decent Pioneer from the mid-90s, I can't imagine they'd have screwed up the design that much. Sure, it's likely to happen on a $25 mostly-air plastic job with lights in the speakers, but not on their main separate components stereo line of products. With the CD player and tuner, it was an $1800 stereo back in 1996. I'm satisfied with just concluding that it's all in my head. If nothing else, I've rediscovered how great my speakers sound 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
As already mentioned I'd get an iPhone/android SPL or RTA app and get some data to back it up - there are perfectly passable free options and the fact it's not going to be calibrated won't matter as you're only using for a relative measurement from a to b. There's a good chance the amps just have different voltage gains and you're putting more watts into the speakers than before. Damping factor is another possibility too, it can vary wildly from amp to amp even at a level of 'decent'. Also look at what class of amp design they are, your pioneer could say be a cheap class d circuit and the NAD a class a mono block which naturally has a 'warmer' tone with fatter bass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Neurophonic posted:Also look at what class of amp design they are, your pioneer could say be a cheap class d circuit and the NAD a class a mono block which naturally has a 'warmer' tone with fatter bass. That doesn't really make any sense, you're screwing up the terminology. A class D amplifier is isn't inherently worse than a class A amplifier, it's not a ranking system. A class D amplifier uses pulse width modulation with a really high frequency, so it's 'digital' in a way. It's also a hell of a lot more efficient than an analog amplifier, but it's also very hard to design properly and requires extremely precise component tolerances. Class D amplifiers generally cost more than traditional analog amplifiers, but just like analog class A amplifiers, they avoid the crossover distortion that badly-designed class AB amplifiers suffer from. Class D has a completely different set of issues to work around, though. Refer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplifier#Power_amplifier_classes I know for a fact that the NAD has a class AB power amp just like the Pioneer (and like 99,9% of all audio amplifiers). However, it does have a class A preamp. I have now idea which kind of preamp is in the Pioneer. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
The NAD probably has a superior power cable, resulting in a warmer soundstage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:The NAD probably has a superior power cable, resulting in a warmer soundstage. It's also silver with black text and green LEDs, and the Pioneer was black with gold text and red LEDs. Major difference right there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Or get an SPL meter and put some sine waves through that sucker. Edit: I should refresh the page before posting. It's probably got more to do with you not listening to the amp before, just the music, but now you've made a change you're really listening hard to see if the sound has changed. Also if the speakers had been connected to the amp for ages you might have got a build up of corrosion at the terminals but I have no idea how much (if any) resistance this would cause. A Lone Girl Flier fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
I figure it's a great example of how fickle our judgment can be on these kinds of subjects. Even though I'm fully aware of the placebo effect and the fact that we tend to hear a difference where there is none, my brain is still telling me there's a difference, simply because the new amplifier more more expensive and slightly more powerful, and I *know* it. I didn't set out to "prove" to myself that it's better than the old one, but unconsciously it's still happening because I spent money and effort swapping it out, so my brain expects a reward of some kind, and makes one up if there isn't one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:That doesn't really make any sense, you're screwing up the terminology. A class D amplifier is isn't inherently worse than a class A amplifier, it's not a ranking system. Fully aware what the different topologies refer to. I wasn't saying that the topology itself was directly to blame, but there's no denying that early and some modern, cheaper class D designs sound a bit thin even at a supposedly professional level. A case of bad design implementation rather than the topology itself, sure, but still something to bear in mind when diagnosing a problem/oddity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Neurophonic posted:Fully aware what the different topologies refer to. I wasn't saying that the topology itself was directly to blame, but there's no denying that early and some modern, cheaper class D designs sound a bit thin even at a supposedly professional level. A case of bad design implementation rather than the topology itself, sure, but still something to bear in mind when diagnosing a problem/oddity. Great, we agree completely then. It's just exceedingly unlikely that any amp that was part of an $1800 stereo in 1996 would be class D, or anything other than class AB, really, which is what tripped me up. I figured that either you missed the "mid-90s" description or you didn't know the different topologies from each other
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
I thought this was a great post from Head-Fi today:quote:Originally Posted by earfonia View Post PS: He's talking about the FRD80 and FXD80, headphones from JVC that differ only in that one has a microphone, and one doesn't. Same driver, same housing, same impedance, same sensitivty, etc. But hey, apparently "trained audiophile ears" can hear differences that don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
grack posted:I thought this was a great post from Head-Fi today: Honestly though I have had one of those mini TRS jacks with the mic ring be hosed up but it was more like "one ear can't hear poo poo," than ~VEILED SOUNDSTAGE~
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
grack posted:I thought this was a great post from Head-Fi today: Ignoring the audiophile ears bullshit, his conclusion that tolerances in manufacturing may account for minor changes in sound is pretty rational. Of course the same can also be said of his tiredness, wax buildup, background noise, etc etc, so it's hardly empirical, but still a lot more reasonable than most.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
Neurophonic posted:Ignoring the audiophile ears bullshit, his conclusion that tolerances in manufacturing may account for minor changes in sound is pretty rational. Of course the same can also be said of his tiredness, wax buildup, background noise, etc etc, so it's hardly empirical, but still a lot more reasonable than most. Oh, I understand that but the "trained audiophile ears" and "my friend is totally a sound engineer and he agrees with me" were more than enough for me to ignore whatever remotely rational poo poo he posted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
Well now, this is something neat. A fully open-source USB DAC: http://www.qnktc.com/i02.php Shame about the audiophoolery, though. quote:This is what people say about its sound character:
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
My tosspiece of a housemate will be pulling his tiny little cock over that thing then. He loves to talk for hours about poo poo that doesn't make any loving difference to sound, saying he's going to do this, this and this with a dozen separate amplifiers and amp stages, it'll do this thing which is amazing and it'll be the best thing ever... ...and then never does anything about it. It's pretty annoying. The most hilarious part of it all being he made some speakers and they sound so loving weak it's unreal. Like you could buy a pair of $50 garage sale speakers and they'd sound better than these things he spent weeks and hundreds putting together. They're not even remotely accurate but because he assembled them they're the best thing ever. He likes to ignore the fact I've got $$$$s worth of custom PA kit with a stack of RTA/EQ equipment sat around and so know what a pair of flat speakers sounds like. Audiophools are the worst.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
And it's like $170 and only has a USB connection. The FiiO D3 I'm using right now admittedly doesn't have USB, but it has toslink and coax SPDIF, which are offered by basically every onboard sound card since the first Pentium 4. It's $32 on Amazon right now. I have to applaud them for going the open source hardware route, that's pretty cool and I think more products should be like that, but does it have to be so overpriced and do they have to sell it using audiophool wankery? KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:50
|
|