'The Great Digital Amp Shootout 2007'
(http://www.stereomojo.com/SHOOTOUT2007INTEGRATEDS.htm)
--
TCM
'Squeezebox 3' (http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_squeezebox.html) -
'Trends Audio TA-10.1'
(http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/trends/ta10.html) - 'QLN QuBiC
121'
TCM;192497 Wrote:
'The Great Digital Amp Shootout 2007'
(http://www.stereomojo.com/SHOOTOUT2007INTEGRATEDS.htm)
Good to see the little Trends amp did so well. Shame the presentation
of the report is such a shambles.
I didn't see any mention of the source, but the implication is that
they
TCM;192497 Wrote:
'The Great Digital Amp Shootout 2007'
(http://www.stereomojo.com/SHOOTOUT2007INTEGRATEDS.htm)
The $139 15W amp wins - that's hilarious. Too bad they didn't do a
test to see whether anyone could actually tell the difference between
any of them - that would have been more
opaqueice wrote:
TCM;192497 Wrote:
'The Great Digital Amp Shootout 2007'
(http://www.stereomojo.com/SHOOTOUT2007INTEGRATEDS.htm)
The $139 15W amp wins - that's hilarious. Too bad they didn't do a
test to see whether anyone could actually tell the difference between
any of them - that
Robin Bowes;192575 Wrote:
???
It appears to me that was *exactly* what they were doing? Are you
suggesting that the testing was flawed?
That's not at all what they were doing. They played some musical
selections on two amps (invisible to the listeners), labelled A and B
or something,
jimmyfergus;187811 Wrote:
I tried one track for a (blind) test to compare FLAC to mp3 (lame -V0
VBR, avg ~240kbps), and the difference was instantly and clearly
apparent.
I have to correct myself here in my mp3 vs flac tangent-upon-a-tangent
on this thread.
What I actually used was lame
jimmyfergus;189257 Wrote:
I have to correct myself here in my mp3 vs FLAC tangent-upon-a-tangent
on this thread.
What I actually used was lame --alt-preset extreme, which is supposed
to be equivalent to -V0. However, I also used a version of lame that is
not current (3.91). I downloaded
Indeed the is it an amp question is purely technical and irrelevant to
the end user. Even if it isn't, most people will call it an amp for
convenience if nothing else. We've probably done that to death here.
The interesting technical point is that there is no analog gain stage
in the unit.
Mark Lanctot;187321 Wrote:
Isn't it supposed to run hot though?
There may be problems putting it into a confined space with little or
no ventilation.
It get a little warm, though it's not that hot. I believe it will
generate a lot less heat than a conventional class A/B amp, because
it's
P Floding;187587 Wrote:
Anything that amplifies is an amplifier, no matter how it's done. So,
yes, they are all amplifiers.
Nothing in the Panasonic amplifies... The direct output of a DAC in
the Panasonic is connected to speakers. There is no point, buried
within a chip or in an external
jimmyfergus;187590 Wrote:
Nothing in the Panasonic amplifies... The direct output of a DAC in
the Panasonic is connected to speakers. There is no point, buried
within a chip or in an external component, where a low level analog
signal is converted into a higher level one. Unless digital
jimmyfergus wrote:
P Floding;187587 Wrote:
Anything that amplifies is an amplifier, no matter how it's done. So,
yes, they are all amplifiers.
Nothing in the Panasonic amplifies... The direct output of a DAC in
the Panasonic is connected to speakers. There is no point, buried
within a
P Floding;187591 Wrote:
So the panasonic doesn't accept an analogue input?
Yes, for analog input, if you consider the unit as a whole, as with the
T-amps, it is arguably an amplifier in the abstract sense, even though
at no point does amplification actually occur internally. Internally
jimmyfergus;187609 Wrote:
Sorry, no. By that logic a relay is an amplifier. All the transistors
in the Panasonic amp are used as switches - they -all- are either on or
off, just like in a computer CPU. Nobody argues a CPU is full of
amplifiers.
Also, by that logic, a DAC is an
jimmyfergus;187609 Wrote:
by that logic, a DAC is an amplifier.
A DAC does have op-amps (operational amplifiers) to produce usable
analog output. They could be considered pre-pre-amps. Some people argue
that they are the most critical amps in the entire audio reproduction
process for digital
My original intention was to highlight the interesting quirks of the
technology and possibly initiate some edifying discussion. That
doesn't seem likely to happen. I'm sorry I got onto the issue of
terminology - I just thought it was an amusing semantic quirk.
P Floding;187629 Wrote:
You measure the total power level going in and the total going out. If
the latter is greater than the former there is gain. You have an amp.
The fact that the Panasonic also has a DAC doesn't really change that.
If that was the case then a standard amplifier with a digital input
(feeding a DAC)
regalma1;187649 Wrote:
You measure the total power level going in and the total going out. If
the latter is greater than the former there is gain. You have an amp.
The fact that the Panasonic also has a DAC doesn't really change that.
If that was the case then a standard amplifier with a
jimmyfergus;187666 Wrote:
It doesn't also have a DAC, it -is- a DAC. That is the point. The
digital PCM input is converted to a PWM stream in the digital realm,
and then the pulses are smoothed out directly for the speaker output.
This is definitely an over-simplification, as I originally
TimothyB;186332 Wrote:
I'm looking to power two pairs of speakers in my kitchen ceiling. Maybe
a pair of these amps would do the trick.
Alternatively, if you can stump up to about $200, and don't mind giving
it the space, I'd recommend a Panasonic SA-XR55 receiver. My
experience of the
jimmyfergus;187307 Wrote:
Alternatively, if you can stump up to about $200, and don't mind giving
it the space, I'd recommend a Panasonic SA-XR55 receiver.
Isn't it supposed to run hot though?
There may be problems putting it into a confined space with little or
no ventilation.
--
Mark
A little more info:
The two pairs of speakers are at opposite ends of the (long, narrow)
kitchen. One pair is over the breakfast bar, and the other is near the
dining room.
One thing I'd like to do is to be able to balance one pair of speakers
vs. the other. I was thinking about getting a
TimothyB;187381 Wrote:
One thing I'd like to do is to be able to balance one pair of speakers
vs. the other. I was thinking about getting a 5.1 amp and wiring the
speakers as front rear sides.
You'll have to make sure it isn't sending only rear speaker sounds to
one room, while front spk
Thanks, Skunk,
[Re using a 5.1 amp] Since the SqueezeBox is going to be my only signal
source, I was kinda figuring that the left channel would go to left
front and rear and the right to right front and rear. That way I could
balance/fade between two pairs of stereo speakers. Using two amps,
TimothyB;187425 Wrote:
Thanks, Skunk,
[Re using a 5.1 amp] Since the SqueezeBox is going to be my only signal
source, I was kinda figuring that the left channel would go to left
front and rear and the right to right front and rear. That way I could
balance/fade between two pairs of
courtesy Roger Russell:
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#resistancehigh
18 AWG TWO CONDUCTOR Copper
8 feet max 2ohm
16 feet max 4ohm
24 feet max 6ohm
32 feet max 8ohm
Also, it occured to me that optical might be a better connection
digitally in-wall, as it's not a big antenna and may
Is there a place to get one of these for $30?
On Amazon, I saw a battery powered portable amp for about $32, but then
I'd need to buy an AC adaptor?
I'm looking to power two pairs of speakers in my kitchen ceiling. Maybe
a pair of these amps would do the trick.
-- Timothy
--
TimothyB
So, the wife was out and the baby asleep last night, and I got a chance
to do a more extended listen. Each amp swap was a few minutes of
messing around with cables, so it was less than ideal. All my
impressions were long gone from my short-term memory by the time I got
to listen to the other
I had my ELAs driven by the T amp for a few weeks. It wasn't too bad
actually but I never played at loud volumes.
--
gusi
gusi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3801
View this thread:
adamslim;184080 Wrote:
but don't expect miracles
Depending on what I decide after a proper listen, I was probably
suckered in by 'reviews like this'
(http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/trends/ta10.html): this $100 amp
sounds better [snip] than the $10K+ single-ended triode pre and power
amp
I have a Super-T, and it really offers incredibly detailed reproduction
for the cash.
My advice would be to put it into some speakers that have decent
low-end reproduction. I'm running mine into a pair of little Quad L-ite
speakers, and while there is lots of detail and a surprisingly good
Well, I got the TA-10.1 T-amp, and tried a quick test with my best
speakers (EPOS ES-12) - unfortunately they are very hard work for the
T-amp. They're not particularly sensitive, and I read something about
them being demanding of an amp and later versions (M12, M12.2) were more
forgiving.
It
You really need some efficient speakers with those amps, or they will
sound 'underwhelming' :)
Some names that come to mind are LothX, Omega, Zu, Totem, older
Klipsch, and of course all the single driver DIY speakers (fostex,
hemptone, visaton, lowther or anything cheap on ebay with a whizzer
I have a T-amp in my computer system and use it for very casual
listening. It's fine (i.e. surprisingly good) at low power but can't
drive speakers properly - you'd need 90++ dB/W speakers to get sensible
levels, IMO.
In general I'd say the T-amps are a true hi-fi bargain in that they
offer
Has anyone tried 'the Trends Audio TA-10 (or 10.1) amp'
(http://www.trendsaudio.com/EN/Product/TA-10_desc.htm)? It seems like
a great fit for the Squeezebox. It can be jumpered to bypass the
volume control and simply be a power amp. I've ordered one so will be
trying it out.
It's a Tripath
jimmyfergus;183699 Wrote:
The TA-10.1 is a much better put together unit, with better components
and power supply, for the heady price of $120 or so.
While I don't doubt the Trends uses better parts and construction, I
found it interesting that I preferred the sound of my original $30
36 matches
Mail list logo
