Simple question:
Would I get more juice out of a dual mono with Tridents and Placid HD into a single Legato or stick with Buffalo 2 (latest tridents) and lavish some fancy sauce on the I/V stage (PH regs on the Legato, which is already a little tweaked with teflon and polyester caps in various places but currently still running the original Placid BP, non-HD).
May be swings and roundabouts, but looking for the sweetest, mosy dynamic red book reproduction a man can squeeze from the format.
Mark
Would I get more juice out of a dual mono with Tridents and Placid HD into a single Legato or stick with Buffalo 2 (latest tridents) and lavish some fancy sauce on the I/V stage (PH regs on the Legato, which is already a little tweaked with teflon and polyester caps in various places but currently still running the original Placid BP, non-HD).
May be swings and roundabouts, but looking for the sweetest, mosy dynamic red book reproduction a man can squeeze from the format.
Mark
Techically this should be the best configuration:
Buffalo II or III dual mono into 2 x Legato 3.1 --> balanced out into Ventus (if you need unbalanced. Ventus should be installed into or close to the amplifier...) --> unbalanced out to the amplifier.
Probably at measurement and as dynamic range, it is better Ivy III to be used instead of Legato 3.1 in the same schematic above.
All other configurations should be technically inferior.
Legato and Ivy were born for 1 single Buffalo, that inside already has 4 DACs...more than enough according to many users point of view (yes, Accuphase utilizes 16 DACs in parallel per channel...I guess if somebody can hear differences between 4 or 8 or 16 DACs... without mentioning the higher complexity that the I/V stage should have...)
Buffalo II or III dual mono into 2 x Legato 3.1 --> balanced out into Ventus (if you need unbalanced. Ventus should be installed into or close to the amplifier...) --> unbalanced out to the amplifier.
Probably at measurement and as dynamic range, it is better Ivy III to be used instead of Legato 3.1 in the same schematic above.
All other configurations should be technically inferior.
Legato and Ivy were born for 1 single Buffalo, that inside already has 4 DACs...more than enough according to many users point of view (yes, Accuphase utilizes 16 DACs in parallel per channel...I guess if somebody can hear differences between 4 or 8 or 16 DACs... without mentioning the higher complexity that the I/V stage should have...)
Last edited:
I have both the Buffalo II and the original 24bit version.
I've used the iVY and Counterpoint as well as the Legato, currently in lightly modded form, but never had the pleasure of the dual mono.
Just wondering whether investment should go on better regulation or dual mono.
(And Counterpoint III and Asynch USB, of course😀)
I've used the iVY and Counterpoint as well as the Legato, currently in lightly modded form, but never had the pleasure of the dual mono.
Just wondering whether investment should go on better regulation or dual mono.
(And Counterpoint III and Asynch USB, of course😀)
Thanks - done all that. Legato sings sweetly.
No one seems to be able to answer my original question tho!
Is it better to go dual Buffalo, dual Legato or do I get more by focussing on throwing the best regulators at the existing single B11/L111 arrangement.
I have just switched from Exa U2I to WaveIO to feed the dac its bits. That made a surprisingly large improvement in overall dynamics, resolution, tonal accuracy and musicality.
My question is driven by the experience to date: every change has brought improvements. Will the added expense of going dual mono give value for money in continuing that sonic development path?
Dual mono will increase performance. But it's not lineair to the added expense. Value for money is a highly subjective measurement, as it depends on what you think of the increase of performance (and complexity), and the value that has to you.
Fair point - thanks Leon.
I think for the moment I will push on trying to improve the single Buffalo2 with cleaner supplies and regulation, also the Legato3.1. I want to put Salas LV BiB regs in for the I/V supplies shortly and will see what that brings.
Hopefully Russ will find a way to release his new I/v stage that he is happy with.
I think for the moment I will push on trying to improve the single Buffalo2 with cleaner supplies and regulation, also the Legato3.1. I want to put Salas LV BiB regs in for the I/V supplies shortly and will see what that brings.
Hopefully Russ will find a way to release his new I/v stage that he is happy with.
I think he just meant software control.
Isolation is an interesting topic. I am not against it, but it brings some compromises. Including adding phase noise by introducing a modulation frequency to which any signal is synched. That modulator is not in the correct time domain.
Isolation is an interesting topic. I am not against it, but it brings some compromises. Including adding phase noise by introducing a modulation frequency to which any signal is synched. That modulator is not in the correct time domain.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.