Just because a person has technical credentials doesn't mean everything they do has scientific validity.
When these improvements can be verified by a statistical number of blind tests, only then can it be called science.
I'm neutral on the 1200/400 debate. If the following is of no interest just disregard it.
So far I've no complaints nor desire to upgrade my NC400. Of the many great amps I've auditioned, the 400 is lively, musical, and the most cost effective, the latter by a huge margin. System is Trinaural requiring three amps, so value is even greater concern vs. stereo.
The more I read about the 1200 the more I suspect I read about the specific amp/load interface, which we all know is amongst the most critical in the entire reproduction chain (far behind bass modal effects, but possibly only second to that). IOW, the more difficult the load the greater is the 1200s real and/or potential advantage over the 400.
My NC400 mono block-powered main speakers are global active high-pass crossed 2nd order @ 80 Hz, employing two monitors per channel, each 8 Ohm nominal, in a unique Toole-LeJeune-inspired Ambiance/Mode-Cancelling Array, about 88.25 dB sensitivity. Symmetrical room is about 3000cf. I have the rare option of wiring the two identical monitors either series (10.6 Ohm minimum) or parallel (2.65 Ohm minimum).
The 400-mono blocks site as close as possible to the speakers, allowing the shortest possible speaker cables. The first speaker wire was Stan Warren's Quad-twist 12AWG, dual 12AWG per polarity. With 9AWG equivalent, I much preferred the series load resolution and musicality over the parallel, in spite of the former making only 1/4 the power (125W vs. 500W). The difference was not subtle.
Remember, the series and parallel loads are identical except for impedance.
When I changed the wire to 4AWG + 30AWG, results inverted, favoring the parallel load. The higher the playback level the greater is the parallel advantage. At live levels the parallel advantage is phenomenal. Prior to this I did not know my 950W sub amp (1/3rd duty cycle) had peak indicator LED (subs 91.5 dB). Now the peak indicator lights, and once or more the sub amp clicked off till it cooled (Cream Live @ Albert Hall, dual-use system). Now I consider Behringer's DCX-2496 crossover and Bruno's 2500W amp for sub duty.
It's no wonder one owner of MBL's Radialstrahler 81 dB subs prefers his 1200 over the 400.
So far I've no complaints nor desire to upgrade my NC400. Of the many great amps I've auditioned, the 400 is lively, musical, and the most cost effective, the latter by a huge margin. System is Trinaural requiring three amps, so value is even greater concern vs. stereo.
The more I read about the 1200 the more I suspect I read about the specific amp/load interface, which we all know is amongst the most critical in the entire reproduction chain (far behind bass modal effects, but possibly only second to that). IOW, the more difficult the load the greater is the 1200s real and/or potential advantage over the 400.
My NC400 mono block-powered main speakers are global active high-pass crossed 2nd order @ 80 Hz, employing two monitors per channel, each 8 Ohm nominal, in a unique Toole-LeJeune-inspired Ambiance/Mode-Cancelling Array, about 88.25 dB sensitivity. Symmetrical room is about 3000cf. I have the rare option of wiring the two identical monitors either series (10.6 Ohm minimum) or parallel (2.65 Ohm minimum).
The 400-mono blocks site as close as possible to the speakers, allowing the shortest possible speaker cables. The first speaker wire was Stan Warren's Quad-twist 12AWG, dual 12AWG per polarity. With 9AWG equivalent, I much preferred the series load resolution and musicality over the parallel, in spite of the former making only 1/4 the power (125W vs. 500W). The difference was not subtle.
Remember, the series and parallel loads are identical except for impedance.
When I changed the wire to 4AWG + 30AWG, results inverted, favoring the parallel load. The higher the playback level the greater is the parallel advantage. At live levels the parallel advantage is phenomenal. Prior to this I did not know my 950W sub amp (1/3rd duty cycle) had peak indicator LED (subs 91.5 dB). Now the peak indicator lights, and once or more the sub amp clicked off till it cooled (Cream Live @ Albert Hall, dual-use system). Now I consider Behringer's DCX-2496 crossover and Bruno's 2500W amp for sub duty.
It's no wonder one owner of MBL's Radialstrahler 81 dB subs prefers his 1200 over the 400.
Last edited:
I am glad I am not your neighbour
But yes, nc's definitely benefit from thick and short cables to the speakers.
I am glad I am not your neighbour
But yes, nc's definitely benefit from thick and short cables to the speakers.
The dedicated sound room is a basement, fully below grade, quality new construction completed Dec 2006, only one light well. The wall of the nearest neighbor comprises her garage, laundry room, and master closet. She's 80+ and moved to her other home near Hearst Castle over a year ago. The house remains vacant till it sells. Her family has so much wealth that the house is priced about $90k over comps.
Anyway, I tested SPL, outside, on the grade level, in the vicinity of the sound room light well. Remarkably, playing Peter Gabriel close enough to live levels on a 70 lb custom table, SPL was moderate by the time I got to her wall. It might not penetrate past her wall.
I'll bring the meter up next time.
One of the many pure joys of a Distributed Sub Array is almost complete absence of bass mode effects, not just at the sweet spot, but throughout the entire room, +/- 3 dB 20-100 Hz including corners, to be exact (-1.5 dB @ 20 Hz), with absolutely no EQ and no acoustic treatment. I can only presume employing EQ to boost mode troughs results in 15-20 dB peaks at locations away from the sweet spot, which modes might cause neighbors to make up new curse words.
Excuse me, did you complete your enclosure? (I have a few pages to read yet).
I want to build my nc400 in non metal enclosure and wire it class 2 as well.
I disagree. Unless you hear only to redbook material without any kind of upsampling or oversampling.
"At high frequencies the bones of the middle ear, and the tissues joining them, form a filter which effectively prevents the transmission of sound at frequencies above about 20 kHz." - Dr W. Tempest
- Status
- Not open for further replies.