the other day i heard an accuphase preamp c2400 http://www.accuphase.com/c-2400_e1.htm beat a pair of SB tvc 102.......didn't think it was possible...???
I am not surprised. Even the best passive preamps do lack a bit in the dynamics and drive department. It is pretty much a question of compromise: do you value transparency and purity more than drive and dense sonic images?
I know it's all system dependent but even when a passive attenuator is presented with an easy load and powerful driver it still sounds a bit 'passive'. There is a lot to be said for the minimalist approach but also agains it
IME it is often that digital sources require an active pre in order to sound convincing.
it was a........................drumrole..............................2
but the interconnects wasn't the same, so i'm not 100% sure......
the sources were the dp75 and a heavely modified krell kps30 - wich btw beat the hell out the former....and the krell has a very capable discrete output buffer too.......
Well, allright, I finished mine 2 weeks ago. I used a chassis from an old integrated amp (a HK1200). Stripped it guts out, except for the inputselector switch, put the TX102's in, and mounted the Seiden switch in the location where the volumepot used to be. Sounds sweet, even with my current setup with a SS integrated amp.
My next project will be a tube-amp kit (SET), so I expect audio heaven when that's finished
My next project will be a tube-amp kit (SET), so I expect audio heaven when that's finished
About time......!!
Hi All,
I whiled a few hours away today putting a simple prototype together. Cheap alu case, inexpensive RCAs, but I used the Seiden - a minor adjustment for 23 positions. 0dB gain, standard wiring, nothing special - I did omit the 0 dB tap, so I could implement a mute (to earth) at the other end of the scale.
No hum, worked fine first time. Didn't cut the wires because I was wondering if that would change the length of the secondaries (unless each channel was cut the same length) - perhaps I'm being a bit precious..... .
First impressions after the 5 mins I had to try them as my system is underneath my kid's room - smooooth, detailed and open. I am intending to take a power amp away with me this coming week and run the TVC with a cd source on repeat - all week! Power amp with no speakers connected and the TVC volume on full. IIRC, this has been suggested as a good way to run the 102s in. Any thoughts??
Thoughts turn towards getting the proper chassis designed - glacially slow but I will get there eventually.........
Just to horrify you with my handiwork, here's a photo:
Cheers
Jon
Hi All,
I whiled a few hours away today putting a simple prototype together. Cheap alu case, inexpensive RCAs, but I used the Seiden - a minor adjustment for 23 positions. 0dB gain, standard wiring, nothing special - I did omit the 0 dB tap, so I could implement a mute (to earth) at the other end of the scale.
No hum, worked fine first time
. Didn't cut the wires because I was wondering if that would change the length of the secondaries (unless each channel was cut the same length) - perhaps I'm being a bit precious..... .First impressions after the 5 mins I had to try them as my system is underneath my kid's room - smooooth, detailed and open. I am intending to take a power amp away with me this coming week and run the TVC with a cd source on repeat - all week!
Power amp with no speakers connected and the TVC volume on full. IIRC, this has been suggested as a good way to run the 102s in. Any thoughts??Thoughts turn towards getting the proper chassis designed - glacially slow but I will get there eventually.........
Just to horrify you with my handiwork, here's a photo:
Cheers
Jon
Attachments
Hi all,
I've read several posts suggesting the TX preamps were perhaps lacking in drive in certain people's systems. I think there was some mention of trying either a gain stage or buffer after the TXs.
Is everyone satisfied with their preamps, or is this something that people are starting to notice as they listen?
I haven't built mine, yet, but I'm trying to decide whether I should build it in a bigger box in case I find this to be true in my system - just so I have room to build a buffer circuit if necessary.
Thanks,
KT
I've read several posts suggesting the TX preamps were perhaps lacking in drive in certain people's systems. I think there was some mention of trying either a gain stage or buffer after the TXs.
Is everyone satisfied with their preamps, or is this something that people are starting to notice as they listen?
I haven't built mine, yet, but I'm trying to decide whether I should build it in a bigger box in case I find this to be true in my system - just so I have room to build a buffer circuit if necessary.
Thanks,
KT
if thats the case, then you'll need to make your source "stronger".....because thats the one really doing the driving......!
i don't have that problem - krell kps20i - but we tried the TVC at a friends place and there it didn't do so well - accuphase dp75v......the krell has a much better output stage.
No problem here and the combined input impedance of the load(s) is less than optimal ~8,5kOhm (but the sensitivity is goodish)KT said:
Sources are very friendly though: output imps at 22R nominal for the cdp & <100 for the phono.
As tbla notes, the source is doing the driving -- but a commited, hands-on, hard-working, dynamic and enterprising amp also helps. Esp. if it's got good teamworking skills
(Sounds like a job ad, doesn't it
)
Update.........
Having had a few days running constantly, I am pleased to report that the 102s are sounding better and better.
I was very, very impressed by the results of my small "away" system. A NEC Multispin CD source into my DacKit - Arcam Delta 290P amp into the Missio designed speakers that came with my Denon DM31. Brilliant! Holographic imaging and crystal clear delivery. Interestingly, when I used the DM31 as a source, I needed to earth the DM31 to the 102 chassis to stop the hum, but have had no detectable hum when using my DacKit.
Using my Arcam D250 transport with a Black Box 50 and mono 290Ps feeding my modest Mission 780 SEs, the delivery is smoother, but, to my ears, less engaging. I'm going to try the mono 290s with the Denon speakers next weekend when I can get all the kit together.
Overall, excellent and well worth the outlay! The rest of my system is the weak link now!!
Cheers
Jon
Having had a few days running constantly, I am pleased to report that the 102s are sounding better and better.
I was very, very impressed by the results of my small "away" system. A NEC Multispin CD source into my DacKit - Arcam Delta 290P amp into the Missio designed speakers that came with my Denon DM31. Brilliant!
Holographic imaging and crystal clear delivery. Interestingly, when I used the DM31 as a source, I needed to earth the DM31 to the 102 chassis to stop the hum, but have had no detectable hum when using my DacKit.Using my Arcam D250 transport with a Black Box 50 and mono 290Ps feeding my modest Mission 780 SEs, the delivery is smoother, but, to my ears, less engaging. I'm going to try the mono 290s with the Denon speakers next weekend when I can get all the kit together.
Overall, excellent and well worth the outlay! The rest of my system is the weak link now!!
Cheers
Jon
TVC Drawbacks
TVCs sound a little soft to me, which seems their drawback. Every component, to be sure, has some drawback associated with it. Even the best TVC, by virtue of being a component, must detract in some manner from the signal passing through it, which is why if one TVC sounds good, two or three or four TVCs don't sound better.
The "softness" of TVCs considered, I personally wouldn't trade a TVC for a resistive line stage (I've owned a Placette) or an active stage (I've compared my TVC against the latest Emm Labs pre) or a TVC buffered by some or another VS/SS device (but a version of an active stage). For those who prefer a Krell-like sonic presentation, a TVC might not do it.
KT said:
TVCs sound a little soft to me, which seems their drawback. Every component, to be sure, has some drawback associated with it. Even the best TVC, by virtue of being a component, must detract in some manner from the signal passing through it, which is why if one TVC sounds good, two or three or four TVCs don't sound better.
The "softness" of TVCs considered, I personally wouldn't trade a TVC for a resistive line stage (I've owned a Placette) or an active stage (I've compared my TVC against the latest Emm Labs pre) or a TVC buffered by some or another VS/SS device (but a version of an active stage). For those who prefer a Krell-like sonic presentation, a TVC might not do it.
Re: TVC Drawbacks
serengetiplains said:TVCs sound a little soft to me, which seems their drawback.
I wonder what TVC you listened to ?
If you have the opportunity try wiring a TVC as an auto transformer.
In my experience the 'softness' dissapears completely - the sound becomes more 'vital' & 'real' across the bandwidth.
( my experience on S&B 102 mk2 )
mike...
mikelm said:
I have the Audio Consulting version. I agree with your observation that music becomes more real through these critters, but I do hear a certain softening nonetheless, which I don't mind. I might add that my DAC puts out 24dBW and is no slouch for drive power, and I still hear softening with the TVC. My personal preferences lean toward clarity, low-level detail, micro-transients and lack of stridency .... the TVC deals these cards in spades, and satisfies better than anything else I've heard.
What's an auto-former BTW?
Tom