Norton

  • Content count

    931
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Norton

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. If it was me, I'd be looking at the new Klipsch Forte llls. I think they are sub $4k and as high sensitivity speakers I would have thought a good candidate to be driven directly by the 2Qute if you wanted to, as suggested above (not something I've done myself).
  2. Chord DAC64.
  3. For bicycle components, the old adage was that Shimano wears out and Campagnolo wears in, meaning that Shimano kit was optimum performance out of the box and if anything, could only deteriorate with use. Not sure that particular comparison is true anymore, but interested if there are any HIFi manufacturers who go out of their way to advise that their kit doesn't need "breaking in"?
  4. I'm a "break in" agnostic, but why not just listen to it for the 30days? I can't imagine buying a new piece of kit and choosing not to listen to it. For me if something is worth having it should already sound better than your existing kit even without being "broken in". So you get to enjoy it for 30 days and if you believe in such things it will be well on the way to be being broken in by then.
  5. Other than certain specific circumstances (e,g.low power amps and sensitive speakers) I'm sceptical of the need to match components. Surely components offering a neutral uncoloured sound will work together in any combination, matching suggests a process where one shortcoming is offset by another ( e.g rather than taming a "bright" DAC with a "warm" amp, just start with a neutral DAC)
  6. Are we are even allowed to talk about this on CA...? If so, my suggestions would be a deck from Well Tempered (Simplex?) or a s/h Townshend Rock7 if you can find one (preferably from a dealer who can support). I have the latter and IMHO it's a rare example of HIFi kit that genuinely performs beyond its price. A well sorted Garrard 301 or 401 would be great too, if you can avoid paying over the odds. Alternatively, the higher end Origin Live TTs (Resolution and upwards) can be great value s/h. I recommend the Well Tempered simply by repute, but I've owned the rest. Cartridge-wise in the sub £500 bracket I'd personally go for an AT OC9, but this is a moving coil that majors on detail and dynamics, not a good choice if you want a "warm" sound. I'm not that up on separate phono stages, but I guess something from Tom Evans would be good? Maybe your Avid is pretty good already? I think you may have made a mistake in your post though, surely it's your digital library that supplements your analogue set-up..?
  7. My experience over the last 7 years of ripping is that vs. the original CD, rips sound different and generally for the better, when compared using the same machine both as a standalone CD player and as a DAC. Rips sound consistently brighter, airier, more detailed. Very occasionally this tips over into being unlistenably bright. I also find that SACD rips sound better than the original. I'd be quite happy playing discs, but I mainly choose not to precisely for these SQ reasons rather than convenience.
  8. For fellow fans of English classical music, I'm really enjoying this on repeated listens at the moment. Lots of big, noble tunes and v. decent SQ.
  9. When you can't remember when you last spent some quality time with your oscilloscope.
  10. I borrowed a DAVE for a few days. I also used to own a Hugo. DAVE was astonishingly good, but as you say a lot of money. I see Atlantic +HQP as. a possible cheaper, more future proof and maybe even better alternative. There is though Hugo2, out this week.
  11. There is a futility in asking for a proven fact in what is simply an Internet discussion of opinion. For every such example someone suggests, someone else will claim that it is measurable. But whether it is readily measurable and whether there will always be such a measurable difference between any two products that are perceived as sounding different in that way is a different matter. Mostly cited already, but I would suggest that it is likely that there will be at least one case where two products differ in perceived sound in one of the following examples, but where no readily measurable difference occurs: 1.speed (I never understood the term, until I heard my current amps) 2. PRaT (I'm thinking more Garrad 301 rather than the usual cliche examples here) 3.Transparency 4.sound staging/imaging 5.fullness/solidity/texture of sound (that "reach out and touch" sense of realism) 6. Slam (which I define as 1+5) There is also the much used characteristic "Musicality" which I personally find meaningless but maybe for others has some bearing on your quest for examples. ps I'm not anti measurement, I'm very happy that manufacturers use measurements to help develop and test products, it's just not information that I would use to choose between audio products as a consumer. In terms of actual consumer behaviour, even amongst self-identified audiophiles, I suspect I'm in the majority in that respect.
  12. Do I take it that the big thing the DSD512 option brings is chipless conversion? From the above, is there then any relevence in having the clock options with a DSD only machine? Anyone listened to Atlantic vs DAVE in their own system? Thanks
  13. It was my understanding that , in the UK at least, HIFi journalism went through and then abandoned a measurements-dominated approach precisely because so many amplifiers (in particular) measured the same, yet sounded different. Of course, it's possible that pressure from manufacturers of expensive amplifiers that measured the same as cheap ones may have played as much a part in this, as the genuine shortcomings of relying solely on measurements. Most probably didn't make interesting reading either.
  14. Do you know if you can similarly get a DSD512 only version of the Tube rectified Atlantic Plus for the same price as 256/PCM version?
  15. Isn't the point though that your test didn't provide for a third option to listen without either device present and for you to prefer that option? You might have preferred G simply because at best it had no effect on SQ whatsoever, while M had a clearly perceptible negative effect.