That should be fine unless the Oppo is unusually noisy. Otherwise, break out the soldering iron and connect pins 2 and 3 of an XLR plug together.
What is the recommended method for shorting an XLR input connection?
Is this necessary, If I connect the input to the Oppo UPD-205 (powered on) and muted?
- Rich
They do allow for much higher volume peaks than their continuous power rating would indicate, and sacrifice a small amount of distortion as a result. Most consider this a non issue due to the overall loudness and the fact that the duration is so short that any additional distortion is inaudible."
I own an AHB2 coupled with a pair of electrostatics that are rated at 200W with a specified load resistance of 4 ohms, even though the actual impedance varies from a few kohms at LF to 0.9 ohms at about 30kHz. I've previously used the speakers with a variety of amps, including some class AB ones, most of which boast that they have pretty stiff, if not regulated, supplies with low dynamic droop, so I'm not sure where the extra headroom comment comes from.Policy of Benchmark is obviously a good benchmark (measurements). Limited dynamic headroom won't add distortion, while it will impact the quality nevertheless - it's just distortion numbers won't reveal it.
It might be a personal angle on what the better quality is (lower distortion before dynamic headroom), or it might be a marketing approach where lower measured distortion numbers promote sales to objectivists. Or it might be both. Take your pick. On some things you just can't escape having beliefs simply because you'll never know the truth behind
Or you can have it all, both low distortion numbers and dynamic headroom, when using a power section of a proper headroom. This comes with a price, of course.
Policy of Benchmark is obviously a good benchmark (measurements). Limited dynamic headroom won't add distortion, while it will impact the quality nevertheless - it's just distortion numbers won't reveal it.
It might be a personal angle on what the better quality is (lower distortion before dynamic headroom), or it might be a marketing approach where lower measured distortion numbers promote sales to objectivists. Or it might be both. Take your pick. On some things you just can't escape having beliefs simply because you'll never know the truth behind
Or you can have it all, both low distortion numbers and dynamic headroom, when using a power section of a proper headroom. This comes with a price, of course.
I have no experience with the 115 but the 87 V is excellent. A little pricey at over C$500, but it will definitely do a good job for you on audio stuff.
170 mV is crazy high if there is no inputs even connected. The 115 can measure frequency so I would suggest you do it and see what it shows. Switching frequencies are way too high for such multi-meters but that could be the reason for the crazy reading.
Thank you. My intention was never to say that the AHB2 was bad or anything like that. I just did not find much difference - in practical listening subjective terms.Gain control is not an issue, except the input stage of AHB2 is obviously not smart (or adjusted to variety of input gains). But it's not least problem to adjust it manually. Like @Digital_Thor did as well:
IMO any decent preamd should do its job - some may be bit better, some may be bit worse but you don't need any 'top 5' or hi end preamp to do the job a decent preamp is supposed to do.
If preamp or speakers should not disclose a difference between AHB2 and some other decent amp then one has to think for which system it should pay off to actually pay the money for this power amp. And I'm sorry to say this, but the answer is traditional: test it in your own system and your own room, prior to commiting to it. Otherwise prepare for possible scenario of disappointment (while the objectivist guys will try to explain to you what went wrong and why aren't you thrilled with the result).
Btw. the latter is the reason why I don't want AHB2. There's no 'no' but there's no 'yes' either in my view. I would like to try it prior to forming an opinion.
Thank you. My intention was never to say that the AHB2 was bad or anything like that. I just did not find much difference - in practical listening subjective terms.
I also had the opportunity to try and swap between a Behringer EP4000 and a set of Dan D'Agostino mono blocks on a set of Magico Q7. Cant remember the pre or the DAC - but they were very expensive too. The mono's did sound a little nicer than the EP4000 - which I kind of hoped too, since the price difference is - big. But I think I could live with the Behringer, when I think of the importance of the speakers in comparison with the importance of the amplifier - also with some serious consideration towards my financial situation.
Again - the mono's played really good. But since few of us have the possibility to pay up so easily, then compromises has to be made...
And that is to be as expected. I don't think anyone here has claimed magical sound qualities to the AHB2. IMO if listened to in a bias controled DBT against any number of properly designed amps from the last few decades, you would be hard pressed to hear any difference.Thank you. My intention was never to say that the AHB2 was bad or anything like that. I just did not find much difference - in practical listening subjective terms.
Generally, the better the system, the easier it is to tell poorly recorded sources. I never worried about it, or even noticed how things were recorded, when my source was a fold out suitcase style record player, with detachable speaker. The worst record ever made was the Murray Hill release of Furtwangler's 1950 La Scala Ring. The upside was that you got 40 minutes of horrible sound per LP side. So the portions were large.Another very limiting factor is the quality of the reproduced recordings. As I write many times, with the current commercial music, so badly recorded, it is not necessary to spend a lot of money on the equipment.
That's the double edged sword of becoming a audiophile, the better your system gets, the worse a very large number of your favorite music sounds.Generally, the better the system, the easier it is to tell poorly recorded sources. I never worried about it, or even noticed how things were recorded, when my source was a fold out suitcase style record player, with detachable speaker.
Yes true. But what also happened once I had a fairly good listening setup is it allowed me to enjoy some types of music that were of no interest over the low quality system.Generally, the better the system, the easier it is to tell poorly recorded sources. I never worried about it, or even noticed how things were recorded, when my source was a fold out suitcase style record player, with detachable speaker. The worst record ever made was the Murray Hill release of Furtwangler's 1950 La Scala Ring. The upside was that you got 40 minutes of horrible sound per LP side. So the portions were large.
Indeed.Yes true. But what also happened once I had a fairly good listening setup is it allowed me to enjoy some types of music that were of no interest over the low quality system.
And that is to be as expected. I don't think anyone here has claimed magical sound qualities to the AHB2. IMO if listened to in a bias controled DBT against any number of properly designed amps from the last few decades, you would be hard pressed to hear any difference.
It is a amazing design that has brought together relatively high power with low heat creation and AC power usage. Then added some of the best measurements that have ever been attained in a power amplifier. If your in the market for a new amp and $3k is in your ballpark, you can purchase it secure in the knowledge you now own the very top of the line in modern amp design.
But your absolutely correct that if you have to chose between a $3k amp with a $300 speaker, and a $300 used well designed amp with a $3k speaker, there shouldn't be a moments debate. Spend the big money on a speaker.
That's the double edged sword of becoming a audiophile, the better your system gets, the worse a very large number of your favorite music sounds.
I've been using a Scotch filter for years to handle that sort of thing. It seems to work best if I level match the vintage with album release date.That's the double edged sword of becoming a audiophile, the better your system gets, the worse a very large number of your favorite music sounds.
That's the double edged sword of becoming a audiophile, the better your system gets, the worse a very large number of your favorite music sounds.
Good plan. The Armagnac adjustment also works well, just retesting this to make sure it still works, yep, system sounds magic now.I've been using a Scotch filter for years to handle that sort of thing. It seems to work best if I level match the vintage with album release date.
Please, most 50-60 rock and blues recordings have just about everything done badly that can be done badly..There will be inevitable difference with recordings quality of course, but systems 'punishing' for bad recordings are IMO flawed - they need good recordings to mask their flaws which otherwise become apparent.
More so when that music was new and I was playing them on the tube radio in my 56 Chevy. So smooth sounding even with the vibrator softly buzzing in the background.To be fair, there are recording that sound better in my car