Fireblade

I see. Anyway, any horn-based alternative would have in my case to be within budget constraints, otherwise ...

Interesting, I'm not familiar with horns, but I've heard not everyone likes them. In any event is worth investigating the concept further. But your example is waaaaay to expensive. The classical here would be either model from the Horn Shoppe, but I'm definitely not familiar with the concept, although I can see horns are definitely an alternative for low powered amps. By fast pace, I mean a lower mass single driver is easier to move fast and so connects the listener directly with smaller time response from the speakers. Impedance matching is indeed important, although these days amps are designed more or less following universal compatibility standards, unless these are special one-off designs. But, you're right about the need to match them properly. I need to read about other people's actual hands on experience with low power tube amps either with the candidates in my short list or else. Thanks.

I meant that the cabinet volume sound propagation is already taxed accommodating the sound waves of two or three different frequency band transducers. Adding the complexities of the LF in the same cabinet (i.e., integrating an active subwoofer) is not an easy task. By everything in-between I meant that the pay off of the recessed tails of the frequency distribution is compensated by an enhancement of the available frequency range, with much less compromise, offering meatier broad mids at a faster pace. It's all a tradeoff, what designers try to do is find the less taxing compromises for an overall presentation. Not too many people miss the over 18 K or the under 50 Hz frequencies, most of us just naturally focus on the rest of the scale. As I understand it, tube amps deal with voltage, not current, and usually provide a constant power output in spite of changing frequencies. Part of the load the amp sees is precisely the added path complexities and resistance of crossover devices. I am not knowledgeable about these things either, I just want to make sure I understand the basics so I can make the right decision. Thanks!

Would you care to elaborate? My perception is crossovers waste power and tone. We're talking 4 watts per channel at 8 Ohms, not much juice. Granted, full range drivers may recess the extreme frequencies some, but these also enhance everything in-between, including dynamics. Another possibility is to have a two-way arrangement with a particularly efficient crossover. Besides, having a tower speaker perform active LF duties is really saturating the cabinet design ... a dedicated active Sub should work much better IMO, but I'm open to correction. I should mention that I listen nearfield (i.e., sweet spot at the vortex of an equilateral triangle of between 4 and 5 feet per side). Thanks for your post.

The single most impacting sound quality variable are the loudspeakers. As such, having alternative speaker sets may bring about different sound flavors and attribute profiles, which could re-visit all the room treatments, tube-rolling and DAC/source tweaks we have applied throughout our music listening experience. Unfortunately, there are quite few reasonably priced alternatives for the low-power amplification market segment, like SETs and SEPs. One of them, of course, is the DM 945 group of Decware offerings, a sample of which I've owned for the last two and a half years. My new project is to find an alternative set of loudspeakers to alternate with my DM 945's and refresh my listening stimuli. I'm sure people in this forum have had differing experiences using some of the available products out there, like Omega, Tekton and Zu. I'm particularly interested in learning from this forum's experiences concerning the following short list: 1. Tekton Lore Reference or Lore 2.0 (or anything within the Lore group) 2. Omega Super 3 Monitor line (3i, 3U, Super 7) 3- Hoyt-Bedford Type 1 Monitor. These in particular share two things: Higher tan 94 Db efficiency and a more comfortable 8 Ohm average impedance curve, which would theoretically boost my Mini-Torii's relative power. Since I cannot audition these and my location is far from these markets, I rely on research and consulting from others' experiences. Please feel free to be blunt and candid in sharing your relevant anecdotes. Thanks for the assistance. David.

Agreed. But, finding high-sensitive speakers within a moderate budget is not easy, believe me. Anyway, eyes have been opened and my quest would be for better loudspeakers. Thanks again.

The system sounds great, but every time I upgrade, I get into a higher level of sound quality that I did not know I was missing. It has been like that since the start, which is why I submitted the question. It is difficult to envision the next upgrading potential unless of course you are very familiar with the topic, which I'm not. Thanks to all for your thoughts, sarcasms included.

Yes, I see the bulge, in the graph, I just do not notice anything wrong sound wise in those bandwiths. I must agree with the speakers being a weak link usually, what about the Sub?

Yeah, well, I just use this laptop as a dedicated music server, directly connected to my DAC via USB. The simplest path, the better. The laptop runs on its own battery power and the DAC is self-powered. I suppose a SSD would be better, but the size of my growing 24-192 WAV collection makes this prohibitively expensive. Have heard good things about network streaming, but until now I have considered it a significant investment for distribution convenience and isolation, but at a marginal sound improvement at best? I may be wrong. Thanks for the suggestions.

The manufacturer's specs on this particular tweeter is literally 95 Db 1M/1W with a driver that is 94 Db at 1M/1W. I must say, again, these sound pretty good. Of course, I suppose other speakers can sound better. The thing is how much bang for the buck. The real value-added of the speaker design is not a sum of its components but the voiced synergy involved, IMHO.

Hi all! I need to tackle the next weakest link in my journey towards a gradually upgraded system. I need your help in defining that best bang-for-the buck next step, so here is my current setup: 1. I listen close range to loudspeakers: Decware DM945's (94 Db at 1Watt/1Meter, 4 Ohms, cross-overless drivers and ribbon tweeters). 2. 4PR Kimber Kable Speaker cables with naked ends, single-wiring with bridged speaker posts (6.5 ft) 3. Mini-Torii dual mono SEP tube integrated amp, single-ended RCA outputs 4. Decware Silver Interconnects (1.5 ft) with single-ended RCA terminals 5. Blue Jeans Bass cables through Mini Torii's line outs into a Velodyne DLS 3500 Sub line level inputs 6. Audio Gd NFB 3 (2014) 32/384 USB, DSD/DXD capable, single-ended output DAC 7. Foobar 2K player, ver 1.3.3 8. Toshiba 64 bit laptop, 6 Gb Ram, Intel core i5, Windows 8.1 and optimized with Fidelizer ver. 5.0 9. Audio Gd stock USB cable or Audioquest Forest USB cable. 10. The system is fed through a 500 Watt Trip-Lite Power conditioner/Isolation transformer 11. Power cord for amp: Hospital grade Jellyfish. Power cord for DAC: Stock Audio Gd My listening room has been covered with 7 polyfoam 2.5" panels appropriately located and speakers are stand-mounted following Cardas's optimal symmetrical positioning relative to walls and listening spot (as per Cardas Diagrams A & B). I have a thick persian floor carpet between the speaker stands and the sweet spot. There are Polyfoam sheets 3/8" thick between the speakers and the stands and between the floor and the stands' bases. All components are placed on top of similar Polyfoam sheets for vibration control. I honestly don't have a suspect weakest link, as I think these components are more or less consistent with each other and belong to the same overall sound quality level. Yet, there must be something I could do to improve it without breaking the bank and start all over again! I'm happy with the sound I'm getting, but I always strive for that extra improvement. Thanks for any ideas/suggestions.

Yes, I'm familiar with that thread, although I may have missed specific references from actual owners of both units relating to their conclusions. That thread covers all the variants in the Concero family, so at least to me it is not yet clear what the interpretation of those reports mean in my decision, yet. I even saw a report that dismissed the HD just because it was less of a bang-for-the-buck than the original. I would not agree with such a linear conception, as it is known there are evident exponential diminishing returns involved in incremental SQ improvements. I may add you're probably right in suggesting the HD at this point. It is also my inclination, but I want to discard possible sterile results brought about when aiming at too much data mining.

Thanks for your feedback, Axiom05. It is difficult to judge how my laptop is in those areas, but I have not sensed anything wrong with its USB output after I installed Fidelizer to kill initial latency issues. When my laptop will eventually be replaced, I'll probably get me a Mac Mini too. Since I'm not that crazy about DSD, the $250.00 difference for the HD relative to the original Concero need be justified in terms of SQ alone. I know it is a more resolute DAC than the original, but some people have reported too analytical/less musical and less forgiving results as compared to the original. My inclination is I like details, but not in excess to the point of making the music listening experience fatiguing as opposed to exciting. I would be very interested in other Original vs HD experiences before I take the plunge. Happy listening.

Hi there! Need your advice, guys. I need to upgrade my DAC and it's come to either the original Concero, the Concero HD or a Schiit Bifrost Uber, 2nd generation. I'm not into DSD, I'm pleased with high resolution PCM and would like to meet the 192 K mark with my new DAC. My system is quite resolving, tube based (dual mono single-ended pentode) with high sensitive speakers. I'm currently using a HRT MSII+ and will never require balanced outputs. Any suggestions? I must add I can't audition stuff and logistics makes it prohibitive to try to return anything, so I need to choose right from the start. This is why I need to rely on your experiences. I like Bebop and acoustic jazz and classical music, so high resolving DACs are good candidates without going to extremes (no sterile excesses). Thanks so much for your assistance.

ipeverywhere, I agree with your reasoning and I think the Gungnir is one great DAC. The only caveat for me is, if I use the USB input exclusively, don't need the balanced option and if I want the best sound I can afford, there are other alternatives that may compete, like the USB-exclusive JKDAC32, which combines the best of both worlds internally, using I2S directly into the DAC and at $200 less than the Gungnir/USB. Of course, one would need to listen to both and decide, as again the analog output stage implementation is essential in the final result. Unfortunately, given logistical constraints, I can't physically demo these, so I have to rely on my own research. In your case, upgrading potential down the road is a good plan with the Gungnir. In my case, I'll probably never require the balanced outputs. Jud, I agree with your reasoning too. I just wonder what would be the main source of sound degradation in my setup, and I frankly don't know. This is why the JKDAC32 approach seemed appealing to me, as a jack-of-all-trades, although it is still $200 more expensive than the Bifrost/USB. Therefore, I also subscribe to your observation that its becoming harder to choose these days, especially without demoing. Thanks so much to both for sharing your valid points.