It's no different with the opamp. With the SIL-994, it runs in pure class A yet has gobs of headroom for the transients as well. It's basically idling at all output levels like a train pulling a wagon.
It's true for everyone who has listened to it. But I have noticed that you mentally block out any positive customer feedback.
He said nothing of the kind. I said its bias in stock form (without CCS loading) was probably under 1mA.
Nord One Up with SI994 is better then NC400 or any other implementation of based on NC400/NC500 i have heard. And certainly better then the LM4652 in the implementations i have heard it. And i have actually heard some of them extensively (i haven't heard the hypex buffer tho), unlike many of the people discussing here. I admit, i don't have the technical insight why that is, but it doesn't mean i am wrong.
Most people here are just assuming stuff up about things they aren't very familiar with. Especially the technically proficient people discussing here are just trying to catch the other party making wrong technical claims and putting the credibility on the line. This discussion is more like the US presidential campaign than an effort trying to get to the truth 😀.
Most people here are just assuming stuff up about things they aren't very familiar with. Especially the technically proficient people discussing here are just trying to catch the other party making wrong technical claims and putting the credibility on the line. This discussion is more like the US presidential campaign than an effort trying to get to the truth 😀.
Last edited:
Does a modern source like a CD player or a DAC could drive it without buffer ? With a 1:1 high quality isolation transformer à la Lundhal ?
(atenuation made in the outputt analog domain of the source or in digital domain with 24 or more bits DACS ?)
Plus de Buffer et voilà ?
Is it because of symetric conception than people are talking about current impedance adaptation ?
(sorry : not tech at all I am ?!)
About duck & trumpet... have you benchmark your Nord with a MC2 English amp (high value for the money, switching PS too) ???
No i haven't. First time i hear about MC2 amps. Any link? These? http://www.mc2-audio.co.uk/
I am not that familiar with studio gear in general.
I am not that familiar with studio gear in general.
MC2 Audio Amplifiers - Premium Pro Audio Amps some compare it with Chord product but 100 x less expensive : you can have one second hand at 1 000 pounds from an excellent quality and drive anything with a highly rated sound by consumers... althought to be honnest have no heard one but have a Chord amp myself !
Technically proficient people which prove wrong technical claims to be wrong are very much needed on forums like these.....
Just to differentiate between reality and dreamland....
Now it seems however that the reality is already set (which is Nord with SI994 is very good combination), but the technical people who don't even own the hardware, nor have worked with it, nor have even simulated it, are trying to make the reality look like a dreamland.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone disputes that the Nord with SI994 is very good. The nc400 is also very good, so is the nc500 with the stock buffer.
The issue is that some people make odd claims, and back them up with pseudo-technical gobbledygook that they can't defend or explain.
Really depends on the output stage of your CD player or DAC. A transformer might be troublesome, as it gives a pretty high series resistance.
No, it really has nothing to do with symmetric/balanced or not. It is just that the unbuffered input stage of the nc500 has a reasonably low impedance (to control noise and other reasons) compared to a typical amp input.
Last edited:
The thing is tho, Nord with SI994 seems to be better than NC400. I can't say anything about the NC500 with stock buffer, since i haven't owned one. Have you owned/tested one, since you can? Or are all your facts based on a datasheet?
That is why i am asking the technical person about his technical findings. If there is something he has first hand knowledge about. Other than a blind belief in a datasheet without even seeing the other hardware. And i will be as subjective as i like, and i will be too. If someone does not like my subjective findings, they can ignore my posts. I don't mind.
I am a software person. I don't know about hardware that much, but in order to have an opinion about two different software implementations you can't just base everything on some general knowledge of things, but actually profile and test both implementations and then tell which is better and why.
I am a software person. I don't know about hardware that much, but in order to have an opinion about two different software implementations you can't just base everything on some general knowledge of things, but actually profile and test both implementations and then tell which is better and why.
Last edited:
That is one subjective opinion. Others might or might not agree.
No, "all my facts" are not based merely on a data sheet - but a data sheet tells a fair bit if you know how to read it.
Trying to declare differences in "sound quality" with technical arguments is one the biggest pitfalls in audio. Very tempting but opposite any scientific approach.
More important is to be aware of pitfalls.
Audio is one big playground of subjectivism, which is perfectly OK and makes it interesting.
However when claims are made one has to be careful.
I really don't care, i have my answers already. But maybe you should. You are the hw genius.
Yes, It does seem like you do.
Yes, I do (unlike some people here) care for the accuracy of the data sheets. And it doesn't take a genius for that.
The problem is that even if those with the required technical expertise and experience point out obvious errors in supposedly technical descriptions, many people here a) don't have the knowledge and understanding required and b) have already made up their minds based on their beliefs, and won't let facts interfere.
You have expressed your subjective preference, and it has been noted. Can we move on now?