Phil Leigh;518065 Wrote:
I'm not personally convinced that 4m of good quality screened cable is
really long enough to warrant balanced connections (30m - yes)
Unlike Phil, I *am* convinced that properly balanced connections are
worthwhile, even for short runs. I believe it has little to do
cliveb;519452 Wrote:
Unlike Phil, I *am* convinced that properly balanced connections are
worthwhile, even for short runs. I believe it has little to do with the
common mode noise rejection, and more to do with isolation of grounds.
The Analog Devices SSM2142 is a bit long in the tooth
Phil,
Thanks for the information. I will check out the chip.
Overall I would agree with your analysis about the balanced leads. In
my case, the Krell processor is at the heart of a 5.1 home cinema system
and with the best will in the world it is virtually impossible to keep
the audio leads
Andy8421;518055 Wrote:
Kevin,
I have my power amps located remotely from my processor / DAC,
primarily for reasons of heat dissipation and keeping the speaker cables
short. This results in signal leads of 4M or so from processor to amps.
My system (Krell) is fully balanced throughout
Andy8421;518150 Wrote:
Phil,
Thanks for the information. I will check out the chip.
Overall I would agree with your analysis about the balanced leads. In
my case, the Krell processor is at the heart of a 5.1 home cinema system
and with the best will in the world it is virtually
Kevin,
I have my power amps located remotely from my processor / DAC,
primarily for reasons of heat dissipation and keeping the speaker cables
short. This results in signal leads of 4M or so from processor to amps.
My system (Krell) is fully balanced throughout which minimises any noise
issues
Andy8421;518055 Wrote:
Kevin,
I have my power amps located remotely from my processor / DAC,
primarily for reasons of heat dissipation and keeping the speaker cables
short. This results in signal leads of 4M or so from processor to amps.
My system (Krell) is fully balanced throughout
It is fairly trivial to design a balanced output from a single-ended
output. It is a matter of impedance matching and it is not necessary
to have a inverting/non-inverting signal to gain the advantages of
balanced circuit design. I would imagine they didn't do it on the
Touch because of space
FWIW...Since my Transporter constitutes the entire front end of my
system...I've simply used the internal jumpers in my TP to reduce output
by -10db. This in turn allows me to have the TPs digital volume
control in the 75-100 range for normal to loud listening levels. More
than adequate.
I'm
Hi,
So many of us have been patiently waiting for the new Touch.
Beta testers have lived with the Touch for awhile and also been through
new software changes and some of you have experience with the TP, own
dacs, have very nice systems and have likely formed opinions. Yes, I
have read through
Have there been advances in the digital volume control on the new Touch
to help with the problem of not losing resolution when running straight
to amp? (I know there are pros and cons to preamp or no preamp)
What do you mean? If you lower the volume, you have to truncate bits.
Its a feature.
I don't have a transporter but have done a comparison on someone elses
system with a transporter. I actually preferred the Touch. Its
definitely going to be a personal thing, some will think the Touch
sounds better, some the Transporter.
On the volume control front, the Touch does about as good
My two cents on the use of volume control on the transporter. I have
been back and forth a few times - using it, then not using it. What is
clear to me at this point is that my system sounds better when the
volume control is defeated!
I know it probably may not make technical sense. I dont
13 matches
Mail list logo
