I'm having lots of trouble separating fact from fiction and want to see what others think would make the most sense for me. I'll try and edit my question as I go so that, hopefully, others can use this as a resource.
I'm primarily looking for noticeable performance improvements (not subtle) but buying as little gear as possible. At the same time, if there are subtle but inexpensive improvements to be had that allow me to tinker around with my system, I'd also be interested in that.
With that in mind, I have a dizzying array of options, and it's not clear which produce noticeable improvements. My current set-up includes speakers which are capable of being both bi and tri-amped, a four channel amplifier, and a pre-amp with two outputs. I'm powering my speakers in 'bridge' mode instead of using one of the A/B outputs, but I'd like to play around with bi/tri-amping so long as it makes sense. I generally listen to digital music and so run it from a small PC to an external DAC before the pre-amp.
So, one option I could do today would be to bi-amp where I run both outputs from the pre-amp into the amp by essentially mixing the out/in signals - sending both left pre-amp outputs to the A channel input on the power amp and then sending left channel A to the left sub and the right channel A to the left woofer/tweeter (similar for B). However, I'm not really sure this would be any different than what I'm doing now - both drivers on the left side are getting the same signal so I'd be needlessly increasing the number of cables. If not, would there be any gain to tri-amping my speakers by adding (hopefully just one?) new power amp.
The other option I am considering (and will likely do for fun) is putting an active cross-over like one of the miniDSPs between the pre and power amp. Here, especially, is where I'm confused. If I have this set up and properly configured, will I see any benefit from removing my passive cross-overs, and/or what sort of benefit would I gain from tri-amping my speakers? If I bi-amp, would two power amps work better appreciably better than a four channel, and/or if I tri-amp, would I be able to get by using my four channel + two channel, or maybe my four channel + two one channels?
Equipment:
Speakers: Usher S-520/SW-520 6moons audio reviews: Usher S & SW-520
Power Amp: NAD C-245BEE https://nadelectronics.com/wp-conte...ur-Channel-Power-Amplifier-English-Manual.pdf
Pre-Amp: Antique Sound Lab Line one DT Antique Sound Lab Wave Line One tube preamp For Sale - US Audio Mart
DAC: Cambridge DACMagic Cambridge Audio Azur DacMagic D/A converter | Stereophile.com (I also have a PeachTree DAC IT that needs to be repaired. I don't really hear a difference in the two but convinced myself the DAC IT was better at one point in time.)
I'm primarily looking for noticeable performance improvements (not subtle) but buying as little gear as possible. At the same time, if there are subtle but inexpensive improvements to be had that allow me to tinker around with my system, I'd also be interested in that.
With that in mind, I have a dizzying array of options, and it's not clear which produce noticeable improvements. My current set-up includes speakers which are capable of being both bi and tri-amped, a four channel amplifier, and a pre-amp with two outputs. I'm powering my speakers in 'bridge' mode instead of using one of the A/B outputs, but I'd like to play around with bi/tri-amping so long as it makes sense. I generally listen to digital music and so run it from a small PC to an external DAC before the pre-amp.
So, one option I could do today would be to bi-amp where I run both outputs from the pre-amp into the amp by essentially mixing the out/in signals - sending both left pre-amp outputs to the A channel input on the power amp and then sending left channel A to the left sub and the right channel A to the left woofer/tweeter (similar for B). However, I'm not really sure this would be any different than what I'm doing now - both drivers on the left side are getting the same signal so I'd be needlessly increasing the number of cables. If not, would there be any gain to tri-amping my speakers by adding (hopefully just one?) new power amp.
The other option I am considering (and will likely do for fun) is putting an active cross-over like one of the miniDSPs between the pre and power amp. Here, especially, is where I'm confused. If I have this set up and properly configured, will I see any benefit from removing my passive cross-overs, and/or what sort of benefit would I gain from tri-amping my speakers? If I bi-amp, would two power amps work better appreciably better than a four channel, and/or if I tri-amp, would I be able to get by using my four channel + two channel, or maybe my four channel + two one channels?
Equipment:
Speakers: Usher S-520/SW-520 6moons audio reviews: Usher S & SW-520
Power Amp: NAD C-245BEE https://nadelectronics.com/wp-conte...ur-Channel-Power-Amplifier-English-Manual.pdf
Pre-Amp: Antique Sound Lab Line one DT Antique Sound Lab Wave Line One tube preamp For Sale - US Audio Mart
DAC: Cambridge DACMagic Cambridge Audio Azur DacMagic D/A converter | Stereophile.com (I also have a PeachTree DAC IT that needs to be repaired. I don't really hear a difference in the two but convinced myself the DAC IT was better at one point in time.)
Last edited:
Can you list the actual components and speakers that you have?
If the speakers have their own internal passive crossovers, it's unlikely that
removing the internal crossovers and using an active crossover would give
good results without a complete redesign.
The speakers hopefully were carefully designed for use as a system
with the internal crossovers. If speakers are designed from the beginning
to be used with an active crossover, that's a different story.
Last edited:
Yes, a dizzying array of choices. To advise you, we would probably need more detail of your existing speakers, amp, preamp and (do you have one?) active crossover. You are very correct about the search for truth. Beware of marketing / advertising 
While there is commercial presence here, you will mostly get advice that is without financial goals, and perhaps even helpful. I'm no expert, but I play one on TV
You'll get conflicting advice. For example, Rayma (above) is pretty on the mark. However, there is much debate among audio nuts on whether passive or active x-over is better. What is for the most part not a matter of debate is this: the passive x-over, even in pretty expensive speakers, is likely made of at best mediocre grade components. Even if top-grade components are used, a passive will not offer the end-user the ease and precision of setting his crossover precisely as he wants. Using a Mini-DSP or similar will allow even a novice to easily set the active crossover to be the same as the stock x-over it would replace, at least using the factory spec. No "complete redesign" would be needed, but you can still experiment with different frequencies, slopes, etc. If you have, or are willing to get, simple audio test equipment and software, you can custom-tune your speaker's EQ to your individual needs. No passive x-over can do that. Passive x-overs must have some advantages, but their pimps here seem to be aging technicians with an entire electronics lab, warehouse of capacitors, resistors and inductors, as well as the knowledge to determine component values, at their disposal. With modern tech, it is probably a lot easier to spend $100 or so on the MiniDSP and set the values as you need.
Bi-amping and (I guess) tri-amping does not even necessarily require a crossover. Some speakers let you "bi-amp" by changing existing jumpers (e.g. Magnepan 1.6), usually this would be feeding the woofer with one amp and the mids/highs with a 2nd.
If you definitely want to bi-amp or tri-amp, that may mean "going active." In this case, you'll need to rewire your speakers so that each section can be directly connected to its own amplifier channel. Are you willing to do this? Rarely are speakers factory wired as such. You will need some type of active x-over, possibly in the pre-amp, to feed the set of amps now. All this might be as simple (and, relatively inexpensive), as a home theater receiver. Most of them have 7.1 = 8 outs. However most of them do not, in my experience, do active crossovers "out of the box". Built in EQ, yes, and this might be enough, if you know what you are doing.
Another option is to use a PC-based audio and/or video player solution and software to do your active crossover, EQ and much other signal buggery There are here, too, many confusing options. I have been happy with one that is not free but is reasonable (J River Media Center, costs $50 IIRC). If your PC has HDMI out, you should even be able to directly feed a HTR, thus avoiding the need for USB converters, DACs, etc.
This is just initial advice; I will be glad to tell you my set-up if you'd like, but hopefully others will chime in with their advice, too.
You can "go active" for relatively cheap or you can jump off the deep end and spend as much as your wallet (and lack of common sense ) will allow.
While there is commercial presence here, you will mostly get advice that is without financial goals, and perhaps even helpful. I'm no expert, but I play one on TV You'll get conflicting advice. For example, Rayma (above) is pretty on the mark. However, there is much debate among audio nuts on whether passive or active x-over is better. What is for the most part not a matter of debate is this: the passive x-over, even in pretty expensive speakers, is likely made of at best mediocre grade components. Even if top-grade components are used, a passive will not offer the end-user the ease and precision of setting his crossover precisely as he wants. Using a Mini-DSP or similar will allow even a novice to easily set the active crossover to be the same as the stock x-over it would replace, at least using the factory spec. No "complete redesign" would be needed, but you can still experiment with different frequencies, slopes, etc. If you have, or are willing to get, simple audio test equipment and software, you can custom-tune your speaker's EQ to your individual needs. No passive x-over can do that. Passive x-overs must have some advantages, but their pimps here seem to be aging technicians with an entire electronics lab, warehouse of capacitors, resistors and inductors, as well as the knowledge to determine component values, at their disposal. With modern tech, it is probably a lot easier to spend $100 or so on the MiniDSP and set the values as you need.
Bi-amping and (I guess) tri-amping does not even necessarily require a crossover. Some speakers let you "bi-amp" by changing existing jumpers (e.g. Magnepan 1.6), usually this would be feeding the woofer with one amp and the mids/highs with a 2nd.
If you definitely want to bi-amp or tri-amp, that may mean "going active." In this case, you'll need to rewire your speakers so that each section can be directly connected to its own amplifier channel. Are you willing to do this? Rarely are speakers factory wired as such. You will need some type of active x-over, possibly in the pre-amp, to feed the set of amps now. All this might be as simple (and, relatively inexpensive), as a home theater receiver. Most of them have 7.1 = 8 outs. However most of them do not, in my experience, do active crossovers "out of the box". Built in EQ, yes, and this might be enough, if you know what you are doing.
Another option is to use a PC-based audio and/or video player solution and software to do your active crossover, EQ and much other signal buggery
There are here, too, many confusing options. I have been happy with one that is not free but is reasonable (J River Media Center, costs $50 IIRC). If your PC has HDMI out, you should even be able to directly feed a HTR, thus avoiding the need for USB converters, DACs, etc. This is just initial advice; I will be glad to tell you my set-up if you'd like, but hopefully others will chime in with their advice, too.
You can "go active" for relatively cheap or you can jump off the deep end and spend as much as your wallet (and lack of common sense
) will allow.
Last edited:
Yes, and when you price those high quality components, you'll see why.
The parts cost (including cabinet) of a commercial speaker is about 20% of the retail price.
Last edited:
Thanks, guys. I've updated my initial post to list the equipment.
Rayma, are you saying you that so long as my cross-overs are sufficiently good, I won't gain anything from bi-amping at all, or are you saying bi-amping is noticeable but there may be no need to remove the passive cross-overs? Can you also clarify your comment about 20% of speaker costs to be parts? I don't have a background in pricing and can see that as saying the parts are a lot when you consider they also have to make up for manufacturing, design costs, etc, but I can also see the opposite - that only a small part of the cost is paying for parts.
Soldermizer, my speakers do allow me to bi-amp. Each driver has a unique terminal post on the back of the speaker with removable metal jumpers between terminal posts. So, I think the first questions I'm wondering relate to the benefits of bi-amping without using active cross-overs. In other words, do all these extra outputs, either through a single amp with several channels or through several mono-block amps, provide any benefit if they're all basically fed the same signal?
Either way, I'll likely get something like a miniDSP because it would be kinda fun to play with for not much money. I'm not sure what model would be best or if there are other options available.
I suppose your set-up has some sort of software doing the DSP which is then fed to a sound card that outputs several channels? These options are intriguing, as well, but I'd have to decide between going that route and having to reconfigure a lot of the signal chain after the PC or by staying with what I have and adding components (x-over, amps) at the end.
FYI, I opened the speaker terminals and posted pictures here. As you can see, the sub has two posts each with two sets of terminals, but only one internal wire connected to each of the posts. What is the point of having the two sets of terminals on each post if only one is wired to anything?
Rayma, are you saying you that so long as my cross-overs are sufficiently good, I won't gain anything from bi-amping at all, or are you saying bi-amping is noticeable but there may be no need to remove the passive cross-overs? Can you also clarify your comment about 20% of speaker costs to be parts? I don't have a background in pricing and can see that as saying the parts are a lot when you consider they also have to make up for manufacturing, design costs, etc, but I can also see the opposite - that only a small part of the cost is paying for parts.
Soldermizer, my speakers do allow me to bi-amp. Each driver has a unique terminal post on the back of the speaker with removable metal jumpers between terminal posts. So, I think the first questions I'm wondering relate to the benefits of bi-amping without using active cross-overs. In other words, do all these extra outputs, either through a single amp with several channels or through several mono-block amps, provide any benefit if they're all basically fed the same signal?
Either way, I'll likely get something like a miniDSP because it would be kinda fun to play with for not much money. I'm not sure what model would be best or if there are other options available.
I suppose your set-up has some sort of software doing the DSP which is then fed to a sound card that outputs several channels? These options are intriguing, as well, but I'd have to decide between going that route and having to reconfigure a lot of the signal chain after the PC or by staying with what I have and adding components (x-over, amps) at the end.
FYI, I opened the speaker terminals and posted pictures here. As you can see, the sub has two posts each with two sets of terminals, but only one internal wire connected to each of the posts. What is the point of having the two sets of terminals on each post if only one is wired to anything?
If the speakers are built to allow biamping, you can certainly try that with no cost or risk.
If your amp is marginal using one channel, using both channels and biamping may help.
Unless you want to learn how to design speakers, I wouldn't remove the internal passive
crossovers. They do a lot more than just divide frequencies, and you would lose all that.
Selling audio in a store usually means mfg cost is about 20% of the retail consumer cost.
The rest of the retail cost is divided about equally between the mfr profit and the retailer profit.
Last edited:
I'd suggest that multiamping thru a set of passive XOs will gain you little. That said i would guess that 70w bridged might be a little underpowered for the Ushers.
From the sounds of it there are binding posts to directly access the drivers with no XO, so one coule easily grow things step-by-step.
1/ Get a bigger amp to drive the bass and then compare driving the top with the bridged 70w amp or passive bi-amp it with 2 x 35 w.
2/ get something like the miniDSP (i am a bit averse to the ones that force an analog singnal thru an ADC) and try properly bi-amping the bass & satellite. Direct access to the drivers would be indicative of Usher helping you with XO slopes and any PEQ needed so that you do not need to remove the passive XOs and try to reverse engineer what they do.
If you get the digital in miniDSP you may need a 2nd DAC
3/ when you get the miniDSP probably best to do it just once, so make sure it supports active tri-amping, so taking that extra step becomes easy, with the possibe exception of having to add a 3rd DAC.
Keep in mind that an active XO can add its own kind of elevctronic grunge and you may like th epassive XO better. Do note that as you get below 300 Hz (article indicates a 200 Hz XO) it makes more and more sense to actively amplify as the XO parts get big and expensive and are a place compromise is often made. As well at near these frequencies the impedance curves have there there wildest swings so a passive XO gets really hard to make work properly.
dave
From the sounds of it there are binding posts to directly access the drivers with no XO, so one coule easily grow things step-by-step.
1/ Get a bigger amp to drive the bass and then compare driving the top with the bridged 70w amp or passive bi-amp it with 2 x 35 w.
2/ get something like the miniDSP (i am a bit averse to the ones that force an analog singnal thru an ADC) and try properly bi-amping the bass & satellite. Direct access to the drivers would be indicative of Usher helping you with XO slopes and any PEQ needed so that you do not need to remove the passive XOs and try to reverse engineer what they do.
If you get the digital in miniDSP you may need a 2nd DAC
3/ when you get the miniDSP probably best to do it just once, so make sure it supports active tri-amping, so taking that extra step becomes easy, with the possibe exception of having to add a 3rd DAC.
Keep in mind that an active XO can add its own kind of elevctronic grunge and you may like th epassive XO better. Do note that as you get below 300 Hz (article indicates a 200 Hz XO) it makes more and more sense to actively amplify as the XO parts get big and expensive and are a place compromise is often made. As well at near these frequencies the impedance curves have there there wildest swings so a passive XO gets really hard to make work properly.
dave
This is really helpful and makes it much easier. Sounds like I should consider an amp regardless of all these other considerations and so the outline planet10 has makes a lot of sense and sounds fun. I'm really not sure what I should listen for to tell if my amp is not sufficient, but I'll open a separate thread in the amplifier section for that.
I do share your reluctance to introduce an ADC into the chain, but I don't know if there are good alternatives. It seems that putting a quality analog cross-over after my pre-amp will be expensive or require me to build one (well beyond my current skill but something I'd like to try in the future), and if I don't want to do that, I can do the signal processing prior to the pre-amp, but then I'm having to get extra pre-amps for those new outputs.
Assuming I go with some sort of ADC after the pre-amp (certainly open to other alternatives), do you have any thoughts on what I should go with, including other brands? Seems like I can get a 2x4 for about $100, but if I want 6 out, I have to get the 2x8 which is only available in a kit and almost three times the price. If I wanted to play around with room correction software, too, will these be able to do both at once, or does that require a separate box?
Again, though, I do appreciate all the input I've received so far.
I do share your reluctance to introduce an ADC into the chain, but I don't know if there are good alternatives. It seems that putting a quality analog cross-over after my pre-amp will be expensive or require me to build one (well beyond my current skill but something I'd like to try in the future), and if I don't want to do that, I can do the signal processing prior to the pre-amp, but then I'm having to get extra pre-amps for those new outputs.
Assuming I go with some sort of ADC after the pre-amp (certainly open to other alternatives), do you have any thoughts on what I should go with, including other brands? Seems like I can get a 2x4 for about $100, but if I want 6 out, I have to get the 2x8 which is only available in a kit and almost three times the price. If I wanted to play around with room correction software, too, will these be able to do both at once, or does that require a separate box?
Again, though, I do appreciate all the input I've received so far.
May I suggest you read what I consider an excellent opinion piece? May you be "rich" but not the "idiot" he writes against
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/103872-geddes-waveguides-49.html#post1377671
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/103872-geddes-waveguides-49.html#post1377671
That's great, and although not the point of your posting the link, I really agree with the comment about find a market then an idea. The million fads you see come and go over the years always make me think there are so many people begging someone to take their money, I'm just not the one clever enough to figure out how to do it.
The high-end audio market is ridiculous and only makes it harder for those with some sense to find what they need. I've done pretty well working on the assumption that so long as the parts used are sufficiently ok, you're not going to be disappointed. I don't see the point in spending enough to buy a decent used car to chase a subtle change in your home audio quality.
The high-end audio market is ridiculous and only makes it harder for those with some sense to find what they need. I've done pretty well working on the assumption that so long as the parts used are sufficiently ok, you're not going to be disappointed. I don't see the point in spending enough to buy a decent used car to chase a subtle change in your home audio quality.
Hey Mark. I've been where you are at right now and it's a challenge for sure.
Long time ago I found explanations on Elliot Sound Products to be very convincing Active Vs. Passive Crossovers
At the time my system was mostly analogue and I struggled with the side effects analogue xo would bring into the system, and also the cost/benefit of upgrading to a bigger and better (single) amp vs biamping for the same cost.
Over time I shifted more towards digital as the main source. Later came across these two articles:
Acourate Digital Room and Loudspeaker Correction Software Walkthrough - CA Academy - Computer Audiophile
Advanced Acourate Digital XO Time Alignment Driver Linearization Walkthrough - CA Academy - Computer Audiophile
What you are really interested in is the second one, but need to read the first one to understand what is discussed on the second.
After reading this the light went off: build an optimized digital driven, active system by absolutely optimizing a computer as audio source, creating digital xo inside software, outputting 6 or 8 channels to a multichannel DAC, having multiple amps, and done. Of course removing passive xo. And a measuring mic is needed too.
I have since been doing that. I use Acourate as described in the articles, just to measure and create the xo, time alignment and digital room correction. That feeds thru USB to a Lynx Hilo, which feeds: a) two powerd subs, b) two Hypex UcD sorta-DIY amps for midbass, c) a tube amp for tweeter/midrange (this last passive xo I haven't yet removed as I need another amp).
Bottom line: my system sounds better than ever before and the total $ invested in the system is less than before as I removed my beloved Lamm pre and the added components aren't worth as much. From what I learnt in the journey I know I won't be going back to passive, and now working on a DIY speaker to be fully active and so I can sell my B&W speakers that will be worth more to others than to me.
The downsides I see:
a) restricted to digital. There are ways around it, but I'm not doing. No biggie for me anymore.
b) complexity. Figuring it out, setting it up is complex. Once you are done, you are done. Unless you have a burning need to tweak, in which case possibilities are endless.
Hope this helps!
Long time ago I found explanations on Elliot Sound Products to be very convincing Active Vs. Passive Crossovers
At the time my system was mostly analogue and I struggled with the side effects analogue xo would bring into the system, and also the cost/benefit of upgrading to a bigger and better (single) amp vs biamping for the same cost.
Over time I shifted more towards digital as the main source. Later came across these two articles:
Acourate Digital Room and Loudspeaker Correction Software Walkthrough - CA Academy - Computer Audiophile
Advanced Acourate Digital XO Time Alignment Driver Linearization Walkthrough - CA Academy - Computer Audiophile
What you are really interested in is the second one, but need to read the first one to understand what is discussed on the second.
After reading this the light went off: build an optimized digital driven, active system by absolutely optimizing a computer as audio source, creating digital xo inside software, outputting 6 or 8 channels to a multichannel DAC, having multiple amps, and done. Of course removing passive xo. And a measuring mic is needed too.
I have since been doing that. I use Acourate as described in the articles, just to measure and create the xo, time alignment and digital room correction. That feeds thru USB to a Lynx Hilo, which feeds: a) two powerd subs, b) two Hypex UcD sorta-DIY amps for midbass, c) a tube amp for tweeter/midrange (this last passive xo I haven't yet removed as I need another amp).
Bottom line: my system sounds better than ever before and the total $ invested in the system is less than before as I removed my beloved Lamm pre and the added components aren't worth as much. From what I learnt in the journey I know I won't be going back to passive, and now working on a DIY speaker to be fully active and so I can sell my B&W speakers that will be worth more to others than to me.
The downsides I see:
a) restricted to digital. There are ways around it, but I'm not doing. No biggie for me anymore.
b) complexity. Figuring it out, setting it up is complex. Once you are done, you are done. Unless you have a burning need to tweak, in which case possibilities are endless.
Hope this helps!
Thanks for the links. I'll read those and see if that helps narrow down some of my options.
I see the appeal in your set-up, but from my perspective, the big draw-back is the expense and extra components required. I'd have to get a new DAC capable of 6-8 channels, and for each pair of channels beyond 2, I'd have to get a new pre-amp. (I'd likely need to replace my current pre-amp, as well, since it probably wouldn't make sense to have unmatching pre-amps.) Besides the money, I really don't want that many components...
I am looking to see if I can find a good, used home theater multi-channel pre-amp, and if not, I think I will try something like an analog-digital-analog DSP to put between my pre and power amps...for $200 bucks and the minimal footprint, it's at least worth the shot.
I see the appeal in your set-up, but from my perspective, the big draw-back is the expense and extra components required. I'd have to get a new DAC capable of 6-8 channels, and for each pair of channels beyond 2, I'd have to get a new pre-amp. (I'd likely need to replace my current pre-amp, as well, since it probably wouldn't make sense to have unmatching pre-amps.) Besides the money, I really don't want that many components...
I am looking to see if I can find a good, used home theater multi-channel pre-amp, and if not, I think I will try something like an analog-digital-analog DSP to put between my pre and power amps...for $200 bucks and the minimal footprint, it's at least worth the shot.
Sure. Multiple stereo preamps don't make sense to me. Even if you were willing to have that many boxes I don't think it would perform well.
Why do you need a preamp?
I took the pre out of my system. While I'm still transitioning my system, when I'm done it should be only 4 boxes on the rack: a PC (that looks like a hi-fi component), DAC, two stereo tube amps, two speaker towers with midbass amp inside, two powered subs, a power conditioner. You could have one stereo amp for mid/treble and use a passive xo between those.
A $200 A-D-A converter is certainly a good way to test the water. Only caution I would suggest having is around the conclusions of the sound quality you can achieve since the cheap device doing so much is likely to degrade the signal both when converting to digital and then again converting to analog.
I might misunderstand the purpose of a pre-amp or how things work in digital vs analog. I'm just thinking of something to attenuate the volume. My understanding is the DAC takes the line-level out from the PC and converts that to an analog line-level signal. The pre-amp is needed to set the output volume...is all this incorrect or able to be worked around through your setup? If so, that does give me a lot more options, but judging from your DAC at least, potentially expensive.
But you're right about the ADA converter and my hesitation...if I don't like it, it doesn't tell me anything because I can't rule out the component itself being the problem. For that reason, if I were to go down that road, I'd get something cheap with the idea that it's more to tinker and play with....
But you're right about the ADA converter and my hesitation...if I don't like it, it doesn't tell me anything because I can't rule out the component itself being the problem. For that reason, if I were to go down that road, I'd get something cheap with the idea that it's more to tinker and play with....
I control the volume from the software inside the PC. From a remote app in my phone or ipad (the PC is headless). These days those software volume controls are good quality, unlike years ago - but many still think they suck because they did in the past.
So volume is controlled at the software level and if you don't use any analog sources...there is no real need for a preamp. Some people believe preamp-less sounds best and some believe the opposite. In my mind it's a matter of implementation, and in my case also bang for buck. I did away without an expensive pre and a CD player, focused the money on a very good PC built for music and a DAC, and I don't regret it one bit.
There are cheaper DAC options that the Lynx Hilo. Look into Focusrite lineup, for example. But above all, read the computeraudiophile articles I linked to!
cheers
Right now I use Roon plus Tidal in a general purpose computer (because I wanted to have Tidal access) that also holds the music library, feeding HQPlayer inside the audio computer. Inside HQPlayer I run the digital crossovers, and this computer connects thru USB to the DAC. I use Roon phone app to control Roon.
Until about 6 months ago I was using JRiver in the audio computer, which then also held the music library, connected to the DAC. JRiver also ran the digital crossovers. And I was using JRemote app on ipad and phones to control JRiver. I moved away from this because JRiver didn't have a good solution for integrating Tidal.
FWIW, the computeraudiophile articles walk you though the JRiver setup, so it was easier to get it up and running.
Hello, the first thing I'd recommend you is to get a USB calibrated microphone and use REW on a laptop so test your system and acoustic. normally the biggest problems are on the room acoustics.
going active 3 way with your system most likely will require you to remove all passive crossovers in your speakers.
you will need amplifiers with attenuation on input, those active crossovers like minidsp have a considerable noise floor so a proper gain structure is paramount.
Thanks
going active 3 way with your system most likely will require you to remove all passive crossovers in your speakers.
you will need amplifiers with attenuation on input, those active crossovers like minidsp have a considerable noise floor so a proper gain structure is paramount.
Thanks
While nobody can settle the price versus quality question for you, I think an approach like LewinskiH01 outlines to be the clear path for the future (and other good things he's said too). I can't imagine running without a DSP ever again (such as the inexpensive Behringer DCX2496).
As previously suggested, you need to start with a mic and REW. Even using the mic in your laptop will give you wonderfully helpful guidance.
B.
Agreed.
But before going on a buying spree take the time to read, ask, learn, outline a plan. A USB mic has the advantage of being plug and play, and the disadvantage of having a built in (and generally not very good) analog to digital converter that naturally has its own clock. If you use DSP you are better off using the same clock for ADC and DAC, so your DAC/soundcard.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.