You'll be wanting a miniDSP flex thenWith that responsiveness cherry on top - this is certainly my way to go forward. Just looking for a DAC+preamp that has a configurable sub out and dirac that matches well with this now.
You'll be wanting a miniDSP flex thenWith that responsiveness cherry on top - this is certainly my way to go forward. Just looking for a DAC+preamp that has a configurable sub out and dirac that matches well with this now.
Bruno Putzeys explains below at 33:04 time-stamp.People claimed that OPA1612 measured slightly better than OPA1656 in the DIY Audio thread I linked, but that people seem to prefer the sound of the 1656..
Either way, I believe both are more transparent than the NCx500ST, so besides subjective preference it shouldn’t matter.
Bruno Putzeys explains below at 33:04 time-stamp.
On paper the OPA1612 is better but the OPA1656 has higher and more linear input impedance which in a number of applications performs better.
PS: boXem has been using OPA1656 since the beginning.
Have been for several years now.Are OpAmps the next tube swap fad?
Meters though.Anyone buying the Soncoz over this?
Was going to say, this has been a thing for a few years, and very similar to tube rolling. I'm not quite sure whether to believe people are hearing a difference or wanting to hear something.Have been for several years now.
Input Buffer for Hypex NC500 and Purifi Audio 1ET400A
CUSTOMIZABLE Input buffer for Hypex and Purifi Audio ✔ HOW IT WORKS ✔ Design Process ✔ Technical Specifications ✔ Spectral densityatm-audio.com
Several threads were created about this already.
“THE POWER OF ORIGINAL SOUND”Meters though.
Was going to say, this has been a thing for a few years, and very similar to tube rolling. I'm not quite sure whether to believe people are hearing a difference or wanting to hear something.
...
Have a look at the Buckeye NC252MP ... US$570.Not bad! Now are there options for half the power at roughly half the cost with equivalent performance?
Al-Lu- minimum. What?In fairness to Amir, it might have been confusing for him to see it spelt correctly...
(I joke I joke, please don't come after me)
Thanks, how about the regular 8 ohm, and 4 ohm continuous (so called) test, what would be the test duration? If user selectable, what's the test duration you would typically use for those so called continuous power output tests.Actually, all the measurements there are using burst mode now. This is compliant with CEA-2006/490A. Here is the description from AP manual:
The PowerCube has a rating of just 200 watts for continuous but jumps to 2 KW for burst and hence my modifications of the test to use this. This is the same measurement method I have been using on the right for each amp:
As you see, for class D amps it typically doesn't help the amplifier much but does ease the load on the dummy load.
Commercial Of The Shelf but with "features".The graph entry should just be the COTS part.
My Nonna used to call it amulinium! But who cares about a typo. Right?Al-Lu- minimum. What?
Wish there were a thumbs down option for stuff like this.It'd be great to just lump amps built with commodity parts in one graph entry unless they're significantly different than reference.
The graph entry should just be the COTS part.
reviewing the model is fine. But when it's graphed it should be lumped for long-term clarity.Wish there were a thumbs down option for stuff like this.
Without reviewing each model, you can't verify that the reference design was implemented well, and you wouldn't have any remarks on the fit and finish or unique features added by the company.
Respectfully disagree. Let's keep the current format.reviewing the model is fine. But when it's graphed it should be lumped for long-term clarity.
Results of those two PowerCube graphs @amirm provided speak for themselves.This made it easy to measure with PowerCube:
Isn't the output of a powerAmp's linearity (being able to drive most loads) much more important than linear input impedance?On paper the OPA1612 is better but the OPA1656 has higher and much more linear input impedance which in a number of applications performs better.