Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up

[sublime9]

That is right. Like I said I m not looking to use in bridged/dual Mono mode where technically the Voltages/current added/multiplied to get more power. I m told elsewhere that this will make them (amps) heated up and recommended to avoid.

I like Balanced & RCA. However a real stereo vidar+ built with lots of muscle with minimum 250W. Love if its 300W. I m okay if its built true Mono 300W.

You need a pair of Bob Carver Ravens at 350W into 8 ohms with 6 KT120's. A teensy bit more expensive than the Vidars. One more thing, they do get kinda hot. Hotter than a bridged Vidar.

 

[leeperry]

Good grief! Loki Mini for $149? Please charge a little more so you make a little more $$ faster

Like $149 is not enough for an EQ with 4 knobs and unbalanced input/output? $249? Like $499 maybe?

Bablering aside, 2 more days and that new gizmo will be unveiled, patience is a virtue huh

 

[valiant66]

@Pietro Cozzi Tinin The sound and finesse is great. The power is very disappointing in conjunction with the ESL 63's.
I play at step 120-128 of the 128 steps attenuator of the Freya in JFET mode to get 80 dB.

I'm very confused by this.

The Quad ESL 63's were originally rated for a MAXIMUM 100 watts per channel, and were reviewed very favourably with 25 wpc tube amps.

Here's some extracts from Stereophile's review(s) of the 63s (https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/416/index.html)

Quad's loudspeakers do not reproduce very deep bass and will not play at aurally traumatizing volume levels,

Many audiophiles like to play all recordings at very high level, sometimes because the loudspeakers are "slow" and seem to prevent the sound form escaping from them, sometimes simply out of a wild and crazy desire to feel the music (footnote 3). And hard-rock enthusiasts are notorious for playing their systems at ear-shattering levels for no better reason than Because.

The Quads are not designed for that kind of abuse.

The new protection board is essential to ensure that the Quads will not eventually distort while using the wideband amplifiers common in the US. It still does not allow you to ignore Quad's 100W power-limit specification. Buy the best 100Wpc amplifier you can get; more power is not only a waste of money, but it can break down even the new protection circuits.

Could the speaker stand up to some heavyweight, high-power solid-state amps? I would hope so, for opening up the gain on my 100Wpc Threshold Stasis III (which clips at 125Wpc) quickly shuts down my early-model '63s, and the '63's "crowbar action" neatly takes out the Threshold's rail fuses in the bargain.

So I am really confused as to why someone would need 300 wpc amps to drive these speakers?

That is right. Like I said I m not looking to use in bridged/dual Mono mode where technically the Voltages/current added/multiplied to get more power. I m told elsewhere that this will make them (amps) heated up and recommended to avoid.

I like Balanced & RCA. However a real stereo vidar+ built with lots of muscle with minimum 250W. Love if its 300W. I m okay if its built true Mono 300W.

For what it's worth, the Vidar's are designed from the ground up to run mono block when driven by a balanced signal: I don't know where reviewers are saying the Vidar's run overly hot when bridged, or recommend against running them bridged.
.

 

[wout31]

I'm very confused by this.

The Quad ESL 63's were originally rated for a MAXIMUM 100 watts per channel, and were reviewed very favourably with 25 wpc tube amps.

Here's some extracts from Stereophile's review(s) of the 63s (https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/416/index.html)

Quad's loudspeakers do not reproduce very deep bass and will not play at aurally traumatizing volume levels,

Many audiophiles like to play all recordings at very high level, sometimes because the loudspeakers are "slow" and seem to prevent the sound form escaping from them, sometimes simply out of a wild and crazy desire to feel the music (footnote 3). And hard-rock enthusiasts are notorious for playing their systems at ear-shattering levels for no better reason than Because.

The Quads are not designed for that kind of abuse.

The new protection board is essential to ensure that the Quads will not eventually distort while using the wideband amplifiers common in the US. It still does not allow you to ignore Quad's 100W power-limit specification. Buy the best 100Wpc amplifier you can get; more power is not only a waste of money, but it can break down even the new protection circuits.

Could the speaker stand up to some heavyweight, high-power solid-state amps? I would hope so, for opening up the gain on my 100Wpc Threshold Stasis III (which clips at 125Wpc) quickly shuts down my early-model '63s, and the '63's "crowbar action" neatly takes out the Threshold's rail fuses in the bargain.

So I am really confused as to why someone would need 300 wpc amps to drive these speakers?



For what it's worth, the Vidar's are designed from the ground up to run mono block when driven by a balanced signal: I don't know where reviewers are saying the Vidar's run overly hot when bridged, or recommend against running them bridged.
.

I'm also very confused.
I do not need 400 wpc, I just wanted to stay balanced to be able to place the amps close to the speakers. The only way to do this with Vidar is mono block. If that means 400 watt that's fine with me. I expected I needed to buy inline attenuators.
I don't want to play very loud, I just want to have enough head room to be able to play the amp in a relaxed way as I think that improves the sound quality.
My "old" Quad 520F is rated at 2x105 watt into 8 ohm, was fed with the same balanced output from Freya as the Vidars now. The 520F played at the same volume or even a little louder at the same volume control point on Freya. As this was close to max I thought I could use some extra headroom.
I don't agree with @belgiangenius and @hornytoad that that's what tube mode is for. Yes, tube mode has a higher gain but gives a different sound colouring, and some noise (don't say no, it does), I prefer either passive or JFET mode as I find them more relaxed and less fatiguing.
I must admit that tube mode sounds better with Vidar than it sounded with the 520F, but still on most tracks not my turf. I only use tube stage on some fifties and sixties recording that are not from major labels. Replaced the stock tubes with matched Tungsol 6SN7GTB. (no tube discussion, I don't want to spent more than the price of the Freya on tubes as I find that ridiculous)
I know that doubling the wattage of an amp gives only a 3 bB increase in volume, so I didn't expect anything to play very loud. But I'm still puzzled by the output the 2 Vidars produce in comparison to the 520F.
As to the sound quality: It is phenomenal. So much more detail. WOW. It blows the 520F away. The Vidars never run more than hand warm even if I play at close to 80 dB for a long time.
The ESL's protection did shut down when I tried the Ragnarok on them some time ago, but with the Vidars the protection doesn't need to kick in. That's another ?? at the output at almost maximum volume control setting on Freya.
The Freya is fed with a balanced input signal from the Gungnir MB. The Gungnir MB is fed with a BNC digital signal from the RME soundcard in my PC. As mentioned same line up that was used on the 520F.
Always open for ideas and useful input on the matter. Thanks

 

[HumanFly]

I'm also very confused.
I do not need 400 wpc, I just wanted to stay balanced to be able to place the amps close to the speakers. The only way to do this with Vidar is mono block. If that means 400 watt that's fine with me. I expected I needed to buy inline attenuators.
I don't want to play very loud, I just want to have enough head room to be able to play the amp in a relaxed way as I think that improves the sound quality.
My "old" Quad 520F is rated at 2x105 watt into 8 ohm, was fed with the same balanced output from Freya as the Vidars now. The 520F played at the same volume or even a little louder at the same volume control point on Freya. As this was close to max I thought I could use some extra headroom.
I don't agree with @belgiangenius and @hornytoad that that's what tube mode is for. Yes, tube mode has a higher gain but gives a different sound colouring, and some noise (don't say no, it does), I prefer either passive or JFET mode as I find them more relaxed and less fatiguing.
I must admit that tube mode sounds better with Vidar than it sounded with the 520F, but still on most tracks not my turf. I only use tube stage on some fifties and sixties recording that are not from major labels. Replaced the stock tubes with matched Tungsol 6SN7GTB. (no tube discussion, I don't want to spent more than the price of the Freya on tubes as I find that ridiculous)
I know that doubling the wattage of an amp gives only a 3 bB increase in volume, so I didn't expect anything to play very loud. But I'm still puzzled by the output the 2 Vidars produce in comparison to the 520F.
As to the sound quality: It is phenomenal. So much more detail. WOW. It blows the 520F away. The Vidars never run more than hand warm even if I play at close to 80 dB for a long time.
The ESL's protection did shut down when I tried the Ragnarok on them some time ago, but with the Vidars the protection doesn't need to kick in. That's another ?? at the output at almost maximum volume control setting on Freya.
The Freya is fed with a balanced input signal from the Gungnir MB. The Gungnir MB is fed with a BNC digital signal from the RME soundcard in my PC. As mentioned same line up that was used on the 520F.
Always open for ideas and useful input on the matter. Thanks

I read this thread were someone used the wrong speaker outputs on the back of Vidar. No idea if this is relevant here. But I hope it is because that would be an easy fix .
I will try to find the actual thread for you later. From just reading it, not having a clear picture of the lay-out, it sounded like a mistake that I would easily make myself.
Anyway, in balanced mode you have to hook up your speakers differently. Or so I gathered.

Edit:
Just looked at the Vidar manual and wondered how someone could F that up. Please ignore my post, I was not out to insult your intelligence.

 

[wout31]

Just looked at the Vidar manual and wondered how someone could F that up. Please ignore my post, I was not out to insult your intelligence.

No offence taken. Always good to check, but yes the speaker leads are on the 2 top posts for balanced use. Sorry, no easy fix .

 

[hornytoad]

No offence taken. Always good to check, but yes the speaker leads are on the 2 top posts for balanced use. Sorry, no easy fix .

I agree with you that in Jfet mode , the Vidars ( I hahave two in mono config too) seem underpowered .

 

[jimmers]

I'm also very confused.
...
My "old" Quad 520F is rated at 2x105 watt into 8 ohm, was fed with the same balanced output from Freya as the Vidars now. The 520F played at the same volume or even a little louder at the same volume control point on Freya. As this was close to max I thought I could use some extra headroom...

It's comparing the two amplifiers is not a matter of maximum output but of gain, the Quad needs 0.5V for 100W output a gain of around 55, Vidar gain is 22.
As the Quad has a single ended input on XLR, the cold is connected to audio ground, the same 0.5V balanced signal connected to Vidar would give 0.25V to each amplifier (relative to audio ground) for a noticeably lower power output.

Doesn't explain why you are not having plenty of input to the Vidar, with an attenuation of only 5dB (120 of 128 max), from an input of 4V (?)

 

[US Blues]

The Freya is fed with a balanced input signal from the Gungnir MB. The Gungnir MB is fed with a BNC digital signal from the RME soundcard in my PC. As mentioned same line up that was used on the 520F.

Always open for ideas and useful input on the matter. Thanks

Are you using your PC software to control the volume of the music, or are you feeding a full signal to the Gungnir?

 

[Pietro Cozzi Tinin]

Are you using your PC software to control the volume of the music, or are you feeding a full signal to the Gungnir?

If you do one of this two then there's a way to boost that signal.

 

[JohnnyCanuck]

I'm also very confused.
I do not need 400 wpc, I just wanted to stay balanced to be able to place the amps close to the speakers. The only way to do this with Vidar is mono block. If that means 400 watt that's fine with me. I expected I needed to buy inline attenuators.
I don't want to play very loud, I just want to have enough head room to be able to play the amp in a relaxed way as I think that improves the sound quality.
My "old" Quad 520F is rated at 2x105 watt into 8 ohm, was fed with the same balanced output from Freya as the Vidars now. The 520F played at the same volume or even a little louder at the same volume control point on Freya. As this was close to max I thought I could use some extra headroom.
...

The Quad 520F has 35 dB voltage gain (from its user manual) whereas the Vidar has 27 dB voltage gain. That would explain the difference in your output levels.

JC

 

[wink]

Like $149 is not enough for an EQ with 4 knobs and unbalanced input/output? $249? Like $499 maybe?

Blabbering aside, 2 more days and that new gizmo will be unveiled, patience is a virtue huh

Patience is only a virtue if you don't plan on buying until at least a few months after they are released......

 

[wout31]

The Quad 520F has 35 dB voltage gain (from its user manual) whereas the Vidar has 27 dB voltage gain. That would explain the difference in your output levels.

@JohnnyCanuck That looks like a plausible explanation. Thanks for pointing this out. Checked it in the 520F manual and on the Schiit website.

 

[wout31]

As the Quad has a single ended input on XLR, the cold is connected to audio ground, the same 0.5V balanced signal connected to Vidar would give 0.25V to each amplifier (relative to audio ground) for a noticeably lower power output.

My 520F had the balanced unit modules placed inside (Q52FINP), so the XLR was connected as true balanced. Quad manual quote: "The balanced input module (Quad part number Q52FINP) provides each channel with an insulated transformer input."

 

[jimmers]

My 520F had the balanced unit modules placed inside (Q52FINP), so the XLR was connected as true balanced. Quad manual quote: "The balanced input module (Quad part number Q52FINP) provides each channel with an insulated transformer input."

That's very good, the "Active Floating Input Module" will protect the output of the preamp, but makes no difference to the gain.