AmDismal

Wammer
  • Content Count

    9,325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

AmDismal last won the day on November 23 2015

AmDismal had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About AmDismal

  • Rank
    Wammer
  • Birthday October 3

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The crossover is second order for both LF and HF. I would leave the inductor as it is (it will have a resistance that has probably been accounted for), but you could see if you could get a decent 14uF cap if you can find the value. A decent one might not need the 0.01uF bypass, but you could get something anyway. Don't spend much here. You could replace the lamp network with a single resistor, just measure and replace. And again replace the 3uF and its bypass if you like, and leave the inductor. The HF is probably more sensitive to improvement in components. Changing the values will change the crossover points. Sure you can make it more 'airy', but that is just more output in the crossover region, and will measure poorly and get annoying soon. Best results will come by using a couple of t-amps and a computer set up as a digital crossover - just get an old 5.1 or 7.1 soundcard and use J River. Then you can experiment with different crossover points and slopes, and levels of HF vs LF. You'll be surprised how much 'character' is actually just differing frequency response. Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk
  2. I agree with Serge, the analogue volume control will end up giving sub optimal results for a high price. I don't have much of a problem using a digital volume control, despite listening at a range of volume levels, compressed pop and quiet classical. Just set the digital volume max to your max listening level, assuming that you have gain controls on each amp. If you don't have volume controls on each amp, you can end up with significant digital attenuation on some channels. This is to be avoided if possible, although it may not be audible. Choose your amps wisely! If you are desperate to have a quiet/loud setting, I would use a simple attenuator system, which used L-pads to switch in 10 or 20 dB of attenuation onto each channel. This way, a single switch would change the level. Such a system would be easy to build. Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk
  3. AmDismal

    Big TDLs

    I thought they were OK - the deep bass was nice, but the mid bass lacked impact iirc. Be OK for a three-figure comedy punt, or maybe a swap to active, but don't expect your last speakers ever
  4. Bugger, I thought DVA meant Denise Van Auten* had bought the Wam. * I know
  5. Agreed, although it's not normally corruption that is the problem, but user error. Most data loss is because someone deleted it by accident, or buggered it up in some way (MP3Tag actions anyone?). Raid provides no protection against this, whereas a daily backup, with a weekly archive, and a quarterly long term archive, should sort you out. Then the worst that can happen is that you lose today's stuff.
  6. On the basis that it's been 100% twats so far, it'll be a twat
  7. It's actually not possible to make anything better
  8. AmDismal

    Issue

    If you agreed to buy them, and sent across the money, then you have a contract, I would say. If then the vendor agrees to keep hold of them and send them to your purchaser, to save postage, it seems reasonable. I don't really see how you can claim you didn't have a deal.
  9. Beethoven put tempo markings into his scores. I'm pretty sure that every single conductor looks at them, has a bit of a think, and ignores them. We should lynch them all!
  10. What a bizarre comment. Anyone knowledgeable can comment about the quality of performance. The whole purpose of a performance is to provide an interpretation of the music, adding something to the composer's intention - otherwise we'd not bother with new performances, we'd just scan the music in to playback software and hit play! As for comparing conductors, I don't think anyone would say one was better than another, but certainly you would say that one had a superior interpretation of a particular piece. You should listen to building a library on radio 3 Saturday mornings, they go through all the available performances of a piece and compare their various strengths, coming up with a recommendation. It's usually fascinating.
  11. The quality of performance is a musical aspect, so generally subjective/personal, I agree. But the extent to which the HiFi allows the quality of performance to be assessed is what I was getting at. Although I don't see how it can be readily measured.
  12. I'm not sure I quite understand the question. A commonly asked/disputed question is, "should a HiFi sound nice, or be accurate?" To which the answer is that the best HiFi should be the most accurate, but the most enjoyable may not be so (although there is usually a high correlation between accuracy and enjoyment). Each individual chooses his preferred position on the accurate/nice scale. Your question also puts me in mind of the HiFi News record reviews, which had separate scores for recording and performance - some stuff sounds great but isn't actually that interesting musically (pop) or brilliantly performed (classical). But that is music, not HiFi. I think that your question is around how a system presents the nuances relevant to musical insight, versus those that provide the audible clues to feeling like "you are there". The thing is, I think that these are very similar things from a HiFi perspective. You are looking for micro- and macro-dynamics, primarily, together with a very wide frequency range and low noise threshold - all the things that define high fidelity really. But this may not be the "nicest" system to listen to.
  13. My local timber merchant does 25mm from stock, but the next size down is 18mm
  14. Oh I just assumed you would. Just add a soundcard to any old thing and it should be fine unless it's a real dinosaur.