[lan]

It's good stuff and you know it man. Less parts on a budget = better. No need to worry about the quality of DAC, interconnects, preamp, etc. Just gimme the bits!

 

[kartik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan Just gimme the bits!

OK. I'll byte!
I agree with lan that the digital amp would be a good buy. Particularly if you plan to use your cd rom as a transport. The panasonic amp is even a PCM digital amp, a rarity in itself, which will avoid the tedious PCM to PWM conversion in other digital amps.

 

[10068]

.

 

[10068]

.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek If i'm going to be doing E-MU -> Gilmore -> Panasonic Digital -> Speakers, would the Panasonic affect the sound any? I've heard that a preamp makes the biggest difference on the sound but i'm just curious.. since i'm in love with the Gilmore and want to make sure that signature stays in my system

That seems like a bad setup. The central advantage of the pure digital amps is that you never have to convert to analog. In the setup you describe, you're converting digital to analog, sending it to the Gilmore, changing the volume, then converting back to digital again, then finally converting back to analog as the amp powers the speakers.

If you plan to keep the Gilmore as a preamp, all you need to get is a power amplifier, not an integrated amplifier. Your best bet is to pick up a vintage NAD (or similar) power amp on eBay. (I've said a lot of negative things about NAD integrated amps in the past, but their power amps are quite good. They haven't changed their basic design in years, so don't worry about buying older stuff.) As a bonus, a real power amp will likely have more "oomph" in terms of power handling than an inexpensive digital integrated amp. Before I get flamed for that, I want to make it clear I'm talking raw power (a power amp worth its salt will double its power output when you move from an 8-ohm load to a 4-ohm load; it's my understanding that the inexpensive digital amps rarely have power supplies capable of this, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong).

 

[10068]

.

 

[halcyon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calanctus Halcyon, when you say "uniformly directive speakers, that have a very steady, but slightly falling power response" are you referring to how the response declines off-axis?

Yes, I'm referring to speakers that attenuate all frequencies evenly when you move off-axis.

When you measure the power response curve of such a speaker, it is essentially flat.

This means that driver/baffle/cross-over directivity characteristics have all been taken care of.

Considering that more than 60% of the sound you hear in non-near field listening is reverbated sound from off-axis output of the loudspeaker, this directivity is a key issue to accurate sound reproduction (both tonality and imaging).

Most good loudspeakers do measure well dead on-axis or even 15/30 degress off-axis, but fall apart after that. This is clearly audible in their sound.

However, I also wrote "slightly falling power response graph", because I've heard loudspeakers that have an almost ruler flat power response graph and they are too bright to listen to (imho).

Why? Because most recording are mixed with not very linear loudspeakers, the response of which falls of rapidly at higher frequencies.

Experienced loudspeaker designers (Gradient, Dynaudio, Amphion, Genelec, etc.) have noticed that due to this, it's better to have a linear, but slowly declining power response curve towards the higher frequencies. Measurements prove this as speakers from aforementioned designers have a uniformly directive dispersion pattern, but the power response graph is slightly attenuating towards higher frequencies (while still remaning as linear as possible).

This way tonality/imaging is portrayed accurately, but current recordings are rendered more naturally as well (i.e. not too bright).

I don't much like omni-directional speakers myself. I like cardioid/hypercardioid dispersion patterns (ala Amphion) better.

Omni-directionals are more of the "let's bring the players into this room by mixing the original acoustic space cues with the space cues of the listening room" school of thought.

This leads to a diffused and inaccurate soundstage. Very pleasing, if the omni-directional speaker is uniformly directive as well (this retains tonal accuracy), but not good in terms of imaging (re: Mirage omni-polars).

However, as in any audio reproduction there are many ways to perceptual happiness and the one that is technically correct isn't always the one that pleases everyone. So Caveat Emptor.

regards,
halcyon

 

[10068]

.

 

[Ctn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek I don't think yours would fit the mold of "budget", which I probably should've mentioned is what i'm looking for

What kind of budget are you looking at?

On a resonable budget, you should try looking at a 2nd hand ME240. One very nice integrated amp which you can pick up for ~US$700.
Once you go ME you will never look for another amp again. There isnt many good amps around. Most of them are about the same in terms of sound quality.

For cdp, dont spend more than US$500. It's not worth the money. Better spent on better speakers and amps.

Dont waste money on speaker cables and interconnects. Buy cheap good quality cables here. It's all that's needed.

Lastly, speakers...depends on what you like really. Too many good speakers to list.

Tell me how much you want to spend all up, and I'll try to recommend you a system that will make your jaw drop unconsciously.

 

[10068]

.

 

[Ctn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek Ctn: What's a good quality, fairly budget, non-snake oil speaker cable? something along the lines of www.Headphile.com, but for speakers. Thanks

Im using 2 runs of 20amp solid core building wire on my system.
Cheap and good