Jump to content

Exeric

  • Posts

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Freshman Member
  1. Well, perhaps it was an urban myth that I too easily took as true. My friend bigfoot says I'm too gullible, but he only says that when I've put back one more than I should.
  2. I prefer Kaspersky Anti-Virus. It has a setting to run at low priority, game mode and quite a lot of other configuration flexibility on when and what kind of tasks to perform. Thanks, I'll look into it. ;-)
  3. Miska, Very interesting. Might I ask what anti virus software you prefer as far as one package being less invasive than others? Also, perhaps you could give a clue about the speed of the processors you are using with the AV. Thanks very much in advance. I'm a pc guy. Best,
  4. I know there are good reasons to avoid installing antivirus software in a server. It interrupts vital processes and causes great harm to the sound. This is especially true in fanless low power designs like caps v1/2. What I'm wondering is this same thing true in designs using the latest and fastest Sandy Bridge designs? Does anyone out there have experience with i7 motherboards with installed antivirus software and how, or if, it affects the sound? The l7 processors have benchmark speeds generally about 10 times as fast as caps 1&2 processors. A new Ivy Bridge I7 processor is coming out in April that only consumes 45 watts! I figure that might be the cats meow for simplifying and tidying up everything into a simple one box solution. Plus, there's one other really good reason to go for high speed processing: the new 64 bit integrated convolver in J River MC eats processors speed for breakfast. If you are antipating using multi channel digital room correction a fast processor is required anyway. I just want to know if AV software can also be integrated in that solution. Any personal experience anyone?
  5. Yeah, you are right. But a good one one like a Shunyata power snake can set you back $600 for just one. I know because i own two of them. They work. But I would argue that there are many ways to solve power supply problems. And I think you can argue that a fairly high power low voltage supply can provide huge bang for the buck that largely overlooked. It can hugely improve even mediocre products, and not just one at a time. A low voltage linear power supply is the counterpart to the ac power conditioner or regenerator. If one cares enough to own one of them then you should get the other.
  6. "Good point, Chris, I think that the benefit of a linear PS feeding a computer is from the elimination of the noise that the SMPS puts back into the AC circuit." Yeah, that is the main point. Even though there is switching done right on the MB, as Chris said, the linear power supply pretty much eliminates that from feeding back into other boxes.
  7. Here is something to consider if you think you might opt for a linear regulated power supply. First , like others have said "it's a good thing" as Martha Stewart would say. Second, maximize your investment. Though Bolder undoubtedly makes a good PS I think you should consider going outside of the audiophile manufacturer community when you opt for a power supply. There are many good manufacturers that make them for high accuracy instrumentation that I'm sure would meet your needs, and would do it for a good price. The Bolder specifies 3.5 amps output. At 12 volts that equates to 42 watts for around $600. I recently ordered a 12 volt power supply from Acopian that puts out a minimum of 14amps and it costs $500. That power rises to 21 amps if you have a fan or air circulation that keeps it's temp below 40C. It has a maximum rated output ripple voltage of .00025 volts. Because it puts out so much power I I'm maximizing its use. Besides powering my 12volt motherboard it will also power outboard hard drives, and a streaming video device (WD live hub) that now use 12volt wall warts. The benefit of this is that all the switching power supplies feeding your music system can be eliminated and you can plug the new ps directly into the line feeding your main music system. I haven't wired the plugs and cords from those wall warts into the new power supply but that is the next part of the project. Just some more options. If you go this route just make sure all those other devices also use the same voltage and make sure you wire the plugs with the correct polarity to the new ps. Edit: I also have an audio video switcher that acts like the control function in a preamplifier. I use it for everything with video except for jrmc. It also has digital/analog audio format converters in it for these secondary sources so it deserves a good power supply. In fact, often the difference between a mid-fi device in this category and a hi-fi device is mainly the power supply. I selected one that also uses a 12volt wall wart. It will be wired into the ps also.
  8. You had a good idea there at the start. Unfortunately it does not conform to conventional thinking so it is written off prematurely by many, including most manufacturers. Many people think that often power amplifiers don't really sing unless they are driven by a really good preamplifier stage. Presumably this is because the preamplifier acts as a buffer that minimizes electrical interactions between the source and the main amp. In theory a well executed integrated "should" be better than a pre/power because it eliminates much of the variables in selection by the purchaser of mismatched pre/power/interconnects. It also perfectly matches the buffering circuits of the pre with the drive requirements of the power amplification stage(s). Again, this can be a very good thing because part of designing separate pre/power boxes is extra complexity of circuits required for for variability of different power amplification stages the user might select. You can getter a much simpler but better interface by building an integrated amp. Simpler really is better for sound as long as all requirements for the interfaces between voltage and power amplification stages are met. I argued in an earlier thread that the only reason this is not viewed as the high end approach is because there is not as much money to be made in building integrateds. It was not taken kindly By many here that I think that. But I still think that reason, along with the snobbish appeal that you always have to spend more to get more, is the reason both consumers and manufacturers don't put more energy into that approach.
  9. This whole ridiculous thing happened because I mentioned an analog switch on a dac. It was simply to illustrate moving the control from preamplifier to dac. Earlier in the thread, go back and reread if your determined, I had said that you should not move the analog input to the dac because you wanted to isolate analog circuits from the dac. It's true. I said that. I assumed everyone had read that so when I said later about putting the analog inputs on the dac it was just to emphasize THE CONTROL being moved. I get annoyed when I see people who do not know me assuming I'm ignorant. And Chris, maybe Barrows has been polite and courteous to you but he certainly wasn't to me. If he had paid attention to my earlier remark in the thread he would have figured out the second remark about analog switching at the dac was for illustration purposes only - not that I was technically ignorant. That part was 5% of the subject I was talking about. It's the same old thing where someone doesn't like what you say even though it is correct. So they employ the age old strategy of going to the periphery of the argument far from the main argument and attacking a vulnerability there. Finally the main message is attacked by inferring and concluding the messenger can't be reliable because the minor sub argument was in error. Does anyone actually even understand what I was saying about why some power amplifiers can't be driven reliably even from good dacs, like dcs models? Didn't think so. Maybe Jim Smith understands.
  10. You always seem to nitpick what the thrust of what I'm saying is. If you don't like the example I gave that is fine but I worked over 20 years working on avionics. I have a good understanding of electronics. Not that this is at all important to what I have been saying. I think your main problem is that what I'm saying regarding how to think about amplification is unconventional. For some reason it causes you to feel so much discomfort that it requires you to not only argue on the merits but to try to discredit the messenger. I think it is not necessary for either of us to wear our credentials on our sleeve. If you find it necessary, as you seem to, it indicates to me you have an ego problem. Bit it is alright with me if you want to blather on about PS audio this and PS audio that and then take a small "for instance" and say I don't know what I'm talking about. I think what I said about customers with more money than sense was a little too true for your liking.
  11. SandyK, I had a feeling we weren't that far separated. It was more a matter of which parts we were choosing to emphasize. Other than that we seem to agree. Ziggyzack, line level sources seem to have a defacto standard of 2 Volts output give or take a volt or so. What they don't have is a standard drive capability. This is basically what the pre part of an amplification package provides for. It can be contained in the preamplifier or in the front end electronics of an integrated amp. There isn't any good way to enforce a minimal drive standard for the myriad line level equipment manufacturers. So why not leave the compensation for that lack where it is today - in the front end of amplification. I'm just arguing for a clear understanding why straight in to a power amp doesn't work and trying to disentangle that concept from the need for an amp that will universally work with Those line level sources, but does not have any control features. Actually volume control still might be good in an otherwise headless integrated design.
  12. I don't really think anything that you said contradicts what I said in my post previous to yours. You already have three separate inputs into your dac. The manufacturer could have easily added 3 more analog inputs and route them through switching that is isolated from digital input to get low cross contamination. All the control features would then be in the dac. I think you may not be getting what I said previously. ALL the pre amplification gain structure could be incorporated into a headless integrate amp. This is really the purist way of doing things because the manufacturer has complete control of how that amplification sounds going into the speaker. And you would avoid putting in an incompatible interconnect between pre and power. When a manufacturer can control all things in the amplification between control and speakers he can generally do a much better job. And get the control features out of amplification unit because it does not belong there. I think it is not that difficult to build a supremely high quality headless integrated amp in a reasonable size. It definitely is much easier than when you also have to incorporate control features.
  13. It seems to be obvious by now that preamplifiers do much more than just add control features to the amplification process. That is the reason why many power amplifiers just do not work optimally without a dedicated preamplifier. The power amplifier in these cases are not a complete unit electronically without the pre. This is a whole separate issue from the control features in a preamplifier. I think where the industry needs to go is to educate consumers on this subtlety. Once that is done then you can start building headless integrated amplifiers. This would be an amplifier that is just as complete electronically as an integrated amplifier is, but without the control features. This is a pretty subtle distinction from a pure power amplifier and right now consumers would not get it. To them it would be a distinction without a difference. Once this concept of completeness in the electronic amplification process is fully understood by consumers you could change the demarkation from pre/power to control/amplification. The control could then be in the dac and you could use any wimpy output from it as long as you had volume control and digital input that are selectable within it.
  14. Several people now have said the amp manufacturers build what people want to purchase. I agree. But the probable majority demographic for people most wanting to buy separates are older people, like myself (age 58). But it is no longer technically appropriate to divide duties between an amp and preamplifier for non-active speaker systems. So when I say the amp makers know that their customer base for separates has more money than sense I feel i'm correct. It's silly to still be building separates when you can better control the quality of the audio with an integrated. Today's culture seems to be politically correct about the dumbness of the public about some things and to mindlessly say that the corporacracy has no complicity in it. I'm here to say that these products wouldn't still be nearly as big if companies and interconnect companies did not make more money from the arbitrary division between amp and pre. I'm not going to call out individual companies. That is more of a tactic by Chris to enlist more defenders of the corporate faith to weigh in against me.
×
×
  • Create New...