Shadders

Wammer
  • Content Count

    820
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Shadders last won the day on March 21 2019

Shadders had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

219 Excellent

1 Follower

About Shadders

  • Rank
    Experienced Wammer

Wigwam Info

  • Turn Table
    N/A
  • Tone Arm & Cartridge
    N/A
  • SUT / Phono Stage
    N/A
  • Digital Source 1
    Dune HD Base 3D
  • DAC
    Audiolab 8200AP
  • Integrated Amp
    CambAudio Azur 650
  • My Speakers
    DIY Transmission Lin
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi, Sorry, i should explain : There was some idiot who started a thread about PMC and then started on about ATC, had a demo and purchased them. Who that idiot is i don't know, i just continued their conversation..... Regards, Shadders.
  2. Hi, As per my post, there is a manufacturer that replicated the passive crossover in the active version - which had no difference - so it does happen. I did wonder why they did that, since they could have improved the performance. The ATC 4th order indicates linkwitz-riley (L-R) crossovers, and phase compensation just means that the L-R crossover is doing its job. I do recall that someone took photo's of the active version PCB and there does not seem to be enough opamps to implement a time delay for both woofer/midrange, and midrange/tweeter. Regards, Shadders.
  3. Hi, Do the ATC SCM40A have analogue line level crossovers ?. If they do, do they also have time alignment for their drivers ?. In Hifi News there were the Kudos Audio Titan speakers which were active. The active implementation for the crossover replicated the passive filters in terms of order and type. No time alignment and no preferred filter type (4th order). The speakers were reported to be a near exact replication of the passive implementation - only a very slight difference, if at all. So, is the SCM40A active filters just an implementation of the passive version in terms of filter roll off and type etc ? Regards, Shadders.
  4. Hi, Are the ATC's ported design ?. The PMC should be transmission lines, and will sound different. Maybe try these at home - the bass will be different. Regards, Shadders.
  5. I see you have the sense of humour bypass operation.....
  6. Yeah, like that's gonna give a decent sound......
  7. Hi, So it was yourself. You have 6,000+ posts, can you locate the thread for Phobic ? Regards, Shadders.
  8. Hi, A few years ago, someone on this site started to produce a list of equipment where there was a type of mix and match approach, with description of the sound (subjective) and that person was pilloried significantly. I thought the idea was good, and the criticism was unfounded - so maybe explain what type of sound you want, and people will help with their experience, or maybe they can direct you to the thread they created. It is a starting point. Regards, Shadders.
  9. Hi, Yes, an excellent example. The idea that people can determine whether it is cone breakup or harmonic distortion as to whether the increased resolution, or detail, is due to the system components, is laughable. Human hearing is not that good - class D is often described as precise, clinical, and what you are actually hearing is a rectangular wave passed through a coil of wire. When you realise how easily the ear/brain is fooled, then the entire premise of super hearing of the elites in hifi circles becomes contemptuous. Regards, Shadders.
  10. Hi, Go for the plastic option as it has 1dB loss per metre : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_optical_fiber The following states between 5metres and 10metres is possible, and the latest bitrate is 125Mbits, which exceeds high resolution audio by a factor of 10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOSLINK Plastic is all you need and they do not impart a "sound" to your system, as there is no electrical connection. Regards, Shadders.
  11. Mirrors, although it was not beneficial for audio.......
  12. Hi, Has been used on this forum and many others, and from the objectivists it is often quoted as one of the usual put downs by people : Or here, someone referring to their superiority : There are many more that don't use the word resolving, but infer inferior equipment, or DAC IC, or opamp, or speakers, or amplifier etc. Regards, Shadders.
  13. Hi, I wasn't telling you not to use it - but your deference to others with "more experience" or "resolving systems", may have allowed you to be manipulated. A room may create a low-mid band mode (peak) which masks information in a specific track - you try it on another system - and the mode is not there, so the masking of the information is not there too. So, you may then be guided to use a specific tweak which costs money to make your system more resolving, when in fact, moving the speakers whether away from the wall, toe-in more or less, seat height, may make the difference required. Regards, Shadders.
  14. Hi, Not joking. Resolving is used as a put down, or someone inferring they are elite or superior. The two systems you have could be room issues which make the difference. There could be many factors which affect the interpretation. The point is, your experience is never diminished by someone else's, i.e., they may have "experienced" more systems, but it does not means their interpretation is gospel, more valid or less valid. Regards, Shadders.
  15. Hi, You have taken it out of context to prove a point. You might as well of used a PC speaker with PWM as the example. The only system that could be claimed to be more resolving is that which has the lowest THD. You may not like the system, but it is a near faithful reproduction. The word resolving is generally used as a put down of someone, or someone's equipment. It is also used to elevate some people who think they are elite. Regards, Shadders.