[Les Strat]

My experience with Aegir as mono block on speakers that are 6 ohms at he lowest point. (measured it myself).
The impedance curve of a speaker is important. What is its lowest impedance and at what frequency? A low impedance at a certain frequency can be much more nasty for the amp than another can.
Also, and I think this is even more important, how well is the dynamics of a recording preserved. I can play heavily compressed music very loud to the point that I have to turn the volume down.
With a good mastered recording however I can be surprised by an amp shut down at points I didn't expect it at all. A high energy impulse at a not comfortable impedance/frequency point can make the amp go into protection. Just 2 cents.

It has been interesting to read the various posts about the difficulties some people have experienced when matching power amps with speakers.

As I understand it, speakers with low nominal impedance and/or low sensitivity, can be the most demanding of a power amp.
My simple solution to this problem was to get active loudspeakers; in my case ATC SCM 100 ASLs.
Each speaker has three built-in power amps of 200W, 100W and 50W, which are dedicated to driving the LF, MF and HF drivers respectively.

I first heard some active ATCs over 25 years ago and I decided there and then, that one day I would have to get some! I finally got mine about 12 years ago.
Paired with the Yggy A2 via its balanced outputs, and fed a good recording, they get pretty close to sounding like ‘real’ music to these ears, and are probably my ‘end game’ speakers.

Active loudspeakers are not ideal for everyone and are more commonly found in professional recording studios than in a domestic environment.
They do offer some technical advantages though, as summarised in ATC’s website.
http://atcloudspeakers.co.uk/active-amplification/

Most importantly, they sound amazing!
I seem to be in good company with this view, judging by ATC’s client list.
http://atcloudspeakers.co.uk/client-list/

(I have no affiliation with ATC whatsoever; I am just a very happy customer, as I am with Schiit)

 

[RickB]

While it's hard for me to articulate how bad I think a lot of CDs made today sound, I can say that pretty much every single CD I purchased between '83 and the mid-90's sound amazing compared to the new ones. Yeah, vastly different genres, artists, etc., but I've been disappointed by what I thought would be "better" because of newer technology, methods, yada yada. I think the most obvious example I have comes from Ozzy Osbourne's catalog. For completeness, I purchased Ozzy's whole "remastered" catalog off of Amazon, because, well, remastered should be better. While I didn't have anything to compare against, those CDs just didn't sound good to me, only moderately adequate. I agree that with services such as Qobuz you can test drive albums before purchasing them and just hope that what you hear streaming matches what the CD sounds like. Just my thoughts.

I've noticed the same thing. I've read some audiophiles complaining about the mastering of 90s CDs, but honestly some of them are my favorites for sound quality. My non-technical way of describing it is that they had a sense of ease and relaxation to the sound that is missing from modern digital recordings (don't know anything about vinyl). Somewhere around 2000, something changed and recordings got harsher and edgier. I play older recordings and it's like they were made for my multibit DAC.

 

[r2muchstuff]

The B Stock list is like the last cookie on the plate and nobody want to eat it

 

[US Blues]

Thanks for this excellent explanation, US Blues.
I hadn't really understood the distinction before reading this!
If I have now understood correctly, it is not necessary to remix an album in order to remaster it , but if an album is remixed it will also require remastering.
I suspect that some remasters were just a cynical ploy by record companies to sell new versions of old albums, and unfortunately, some sounded worse than the originals.
Fortunately, this is not the case with really good mastering engineers, like Bob Ludwig and Steve Hoffman.
I also appreciate the dedication and painstaking work done by individuals who really care about music, where their sole aim is to produce the best-sounding recordings they possibly can.

Thanks for your kind response, Les, I am glad I explained this well.

Here's another piece in regards to remasters: When a remaster is accomplished was the master analog tape used for a new transfer, or was an old transfer of a master analog tape used? (Note: This does not apply to music originally recorded in the digital domain, only things that exist on analog masters.) The first step in sound quality is a clean transfer of a master analog tape into the digital realm. If this is done well with high quality gear on both sides of the equation the mastering engineer, or if going back to the multitrack master reels the remix engineer, is starting with the best possible sonic source. Anything lost in the A > D transfer cannot be recovered in later stages of the process. btw- One of the most highly regarded profession A > D converters was the original GAIN system developed for Mobile Fidelity by Mike Moffat and Nelson Pass. Another is the original Pacific Microsonics workstation that had HDCD capacity.

Once the music is in the digital domain the remastering can end up sounding like ass as @Baldr would say, or can become a real jewel in the right hands. One argument in favor of contemporary remastering is if a better transfer from analog > digital can be accomplished than what was done originally, or if a lost master tape/superior analog source tape is located. In the same way a remix from a properly transferred analog multitrack source tape can provide an improved finished product, a domain where Steven Wilson has gained appropriate acclaim. Wilson does the mastering on his remixes, or remixes can be mastered by someone else. His original remix of Jethro Tull's Aqualung was mastered poorly, and the newer 40th Anniversary edition went back to Wilson's original mastering of his remix.

One recent innovation in regards to A > D transfer is the work of a company called Plangent Processes. They have developed a very high quality transfer system, and then a computer algorithm that can take a recording in the digital domain, and using the bias frequency of the analog tape, digitally eliminate time distortions (wow and flutter) to produce a sonically remarkable end product. The Grateful Dead have had their entire studio album catalog retransferred and remastered using this technology with amazing results. They also use it on a number of their live recordings, some of which were done on a portable Nagra reel-to-reel machine, with excellent results. The entire Bruce Springsteen studio catalog was retransferred and remastered using this system.

Long ramble!

 

[myquealer]

The B Stock list is like the last cookie on the plate and nobody want to eat it

Has the B-Stock list ever been totally empty? Maybe they add a new 4490 Jotunheim automatically so there's always something there. Anyone want to buy the last one (for science)?

 

[DACattack]

That hasn't been my experience. I initially emailed Schiit asking about monoblock Aegirs for my 4 ohm Tekton Double Impacts and was told it would probably be fine. And after nearly 9 months of running the monoblocks I have never once had any problem. No overcurrent/no thermal shutdown. Seem stable enough to me.

And I've been running mono Aegirs with Tekton Design Electron SEs and I've been problem free as well.

 

[DACattack]

And I've been running mono Aegirs with Tekton Design Electron SEs and I've been problem free as well.

I think the key is to use high efficiency speakers with Aegir. That's the real ticket. I wouldn't run them, especially in mono, in most setups with 89 db efficiency or lower. Just mho.

 

[DACattack]

Speaking of Steven Wilson remixes, another gem he's done is Chicago II.

 

[CL14715]

@Jason Stoddard you guys need to make a DAP and call it the schiit box.

 

[Les Strat]

Thanks for your kind response, Les, I am glad I explained this well.

Here's another piece in regards to remasters: When a remaster is accomplished was the master analog tape used for a new transfer, or was an old transfer of a master analog tape used? (Note: This does not apply to music originally recorded in the digital domain, only things that exist on analog masters.) The first step in sound quality is a clean transfer of a master analog tape into the digital realm. If this is done well with high quality gear on both sides of the equation the mastering engineer, or if going back to the multitrack master reels the remix engineer, is starting with the best possible sonic source. Anything lost in the A > D transfer cannot be recovered in later stages of the process. btw- One of the most highly regarded profession A > D converters was the original GAIN system developed for Mobile Fidelity by Mike Moffat and Nelson Pass. Another is the original Pacific Microsonics workstation that had HDCD capacity.

Once the music is in the digital domain the remastering can end up sounding like ass as @Baldr would say, or can become a real jewel in the right hands. One argument in favor of contemporary remastering is if a better transfer from analog > digital can be accomplished than what was done originally, or if a lost master tape/superior analog source tape is located. In the same way a remix from a properly transferred analog multitrack source tape can provide an improved finished product, a domain where Steven Wilson has gained appropriate acclaim. Wilson does the mastering on his remixes, or remixes can be mastered by someone else. His original remix of Jethro Tull's Aqualung was mastered poorly, and the newer 40th Anniversary edition went back to Wilson's original mastering of his remix.

One recent innovation in regards to A > D transfer is the work of a company called Plangent Processes. They have developed a very high quality transfer system, and then a computer algorithm that can take a recording in the digital domain, and using the bias frequency of the analog tape, digitally eliminate time distortions (wow and flutter) to produce a sonically remarkable end product. The Grateful Dead have had their entire studio album catalog retransferred and remastered using this technology with amazing results. They also use it on a number of their live recordings, some of which were done on a portable Nagra reel-to-reel machine, with excellent results. The entire Bruce Springsteen studio catalog was retransferred and remastered using this system.

Long ramble!

'Ramble On' US Blues
Thanks for another really helpful explanation.
I must have been lucky with my Aqualung CDs. I bought two 40th anniversary editions- one for me, and one as a present for an old friend who also enjoyed the original album when it came out, back in 1971!
I notice that Qobuz have both of the Steven Wilson Aqualung remixes in their library.

Edit: I have the 30th anniversary edition of Born to Run. I think it was remastered by Bob Ludwig. I don't know if this version used the Plangent Process, but it sounds very good!

 

[A Jedi]

And I've been running mono Aegirs with Tekton Design Electron SEs and I've been problem free as well.

Those guys are like 97db sensitivity or something like that. Very little required from an amp to get high volumes/dynamics.

 

[srserl]

And I've been running mono Aegirs with Tekton Design Electron SEs and I've been problem free as well.

That's nice to know...I just received my Electron SEs yesterday and currently running them with a single Aegir that is destined for my office system. The Aegir is very special at its price point, and it will be difficult for me to go back to the Ragnarok 2 when I move the Aegir to the office. I may have to replace the Ragnarok with a Freya+ and a new Aegir. Then I could try mono Aegirs to see if I have a preference for one or two.

 

[GumbyDammit223]

I've noticed the same thing. I've read some audiophiles complaining about the mastering of 90s CDs, but honestly some of them are my favorites for sound quality. My non-technical way of describing it is that they had a sense of ease and relaxation to the sound that is missing from modern digital recordings (don't know anything about vinyl). Somewhere around 2000, something changed and recordings got harsher and edgier. I play older recordings and it's like they were made for my multibit DAC.

I've recently found an addon to Foobar2k called StereoTool v3 which shows a song's stereo image realtime (and more flashy lights ). It's been interesting watching the display as great sounding FLACs from yesteryear play followed by stuff from this century. My ears weren't lying, the stuff from today that I thought sounded like a$$ really is a crap recording - heavily compensated and grossly inflated loudness. *sigh*

 

[Charente]

Putting Class D inside a speaker could be good, because you can tailor the output filtering to the load

Yes ! ...I recently bought a Naim Mu-so QB 2 single speaker for a small room ... on board Class D amplification matched to each of the 5 active speakers, for a total of 300 watts ... a collaborative project between Naim (electronics) and Focal (speakers) ... for a single speaker it really is very good.

 

[tincanear]

Coax rg-59 RCA vs toslink (between old Sony CD/DVD player and Bifrost OG). IMO, the Coaxial RG-59U (video) RCA sounds better (especially noticeable with vocals) like Mike has always maintained.

anyone have different results?