Toobs

[MiTT]

I'm going to look at all the Toob Pre's that you guys mentioned and I'll be on the lookout for the Jolidas as a possible stepping stone.

Do you guys think that a Toob integrated amp is good enough to push the Summits' panels? Or is the dip to .7ohm at 20khz troubling?

Joey

Joey, I've got a buddy who's driving his SL3's with the BAT VK-300X Integrated with absolutely no problems. The cool thing about the BAT is that it's available with either a SS or two different Toobed front ends (6922 or the SE version with 6H30 Super Tubes). It has a SS output stage that is essentially the same amp as the VK-220, putting out 150W into 8 ohms and 300W into 4 ohms.

You can find them occasionally on Audiogon, and BAT has a great upgrade path - i.e. you could buy the 6922 version and then upgrade to the 6H30 version later.

Worthy of an audition I should think.

EDIT: Joey, just found one on Audiogon for $3100 - it's the SE (Super Tube) version. Heres a link...

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?intatube&1165786323

 

[MiTT]

Hi Joey,

Don't think for one minute that a valve preamp is not a great upgrade for you, however I was just reading over the thread and it seems you were impressed by Cherian's valve CD Player, not amplification.

Is that right? If so, maybe what you heard was the difference when using a better source rather than amplification. To be honest, I've always thought that a source will make a bigger improvement than amplification, however ML requires good amplification.

Just a suggestion - it might be worth having a listen to a few high-end sources as well to see if that will give you more of what you heard in Cherian's system. If you're not prepared to give up the convenience of the Squeezebox, then perhaps Musical Fidelity's TriVista valve DAC would be a good next step?

Just a thought........maybe try listening to both and see what gives you more of that elusive "valve" magic!

Amey01 has an excellent point, and one I've been curious about but not posted publicly.

Not to sound like an audio snob, but here goes...I believe that good source components also make a great difference. I listen to music from my PC (Uncompressed Apple Lossless Encoded), SACD/CD, and LP. I gotta say that on my system there is a noticible difference between music on the PC and the other two. It seems flat and undimensional (no soundstage), there is no air between instruments, there is no "bloom" as the sound emerges from instruments and the throat of human voices, dynamics seem constricted, and the attack and decay of the instruments just isn't "there".

My digital front ends offer a significant improvement in all of these areas, and my analog rig betters the digital set-up still further.

For what it's worth, I have a buddy who brought over his squeezebox and we both agreed that the same issues noted above were still present - although I have no idea what algorhythm he used for loading his files.

Call me a old fart, but I don't get the whole "music server" thing other than the convenience. Personally I rather enjoy the ritual associated with pulling out an LP, placing it on the turntable, cleaning it and carefully lowering the stylus. That's when the magic begins. It's kind of like a zen thing...or foreplay.

 

[amey01]

Agreed with MiTT.......the source really does make or break the system. Call me an old far1 too, (or an audio snob), or both, but there is no denying that there are well documented differences between digital transports and other digital data streams. There are even well documented differences between digital connection methods - most preferring electrical connections over optical.

This said, a computer as a source, especially when playing compressed! music is never going to stand up to a quality source, no matter what the DAC. We may not understand why with our present level of science, but to my ears, it most certainly is the case.

Similarly with Tim, I run an iPod (running Apple Lossless) into my Copland preamp for background music or when I want convenience, however it can't hold a candle to even my old Harman/Kardon CD player let alone my Marantz SACD.

Now on to you Joey - a valve preamp is most certainly a great upgrade for you. The only thing I'm saying is listen to what a decent source can do for you as well - you may prefer it, you may not, thats why all our systems are different.

 

[Joey_V]

I really like how my Squeezebox3 sounds and I dont use my computer straight out as a source. Critical listening comes through the Squeezebox3. Sure, a CDP might be better and a TT would be better... but the SB3 is perfectly fine for me at the moment, for now.

I believe in the lossless concept. Source will come next.

I have time guys... I cant do it all at once.

 

[aliveatfive]

I really like how my Squeezebox3 sounds and I dont use my computer straight out as a source. Critical listening comes through the Squeezebox3. Sure, a CDP might be better and a TT would be better... but the SB3 is perfectly fine for me at the moment, for now.

I believe in the lossless concept. Source will come next.

I have time guys... I cant do it all at once.

At one point, your Polks sounded fine and then you heard Logans. Once you have quality source components in your system, you'll have the same rection to them!

 

[Spike]

I gotta say that on my system there is a noticible difference between music on the PC and the other two. It seems flat and undimensional (no soundstage), there is no air between instruments, there is no "bloom" as the sound emerges from instruments and the throat of human voices, dynamics seem constricted, and the attack and decay of the instruments just isn't "there".

I agree with your "PC vs high-end digital source" statement. But that's because the PC is noisy to begin with. What with the fan and the cheap, noisy disk drive catering to the home-theater, IPod/MP3 generation instead of the finicky high-end...snobs like myself That said, I seriously think that one can build a real high-end, memory-based source/server on par with the best digital sources today. I have been involved with building several embedded computer with Linux OS running on DRAM, no disk drive involved. This same concept can be carried over to the high-end music source in the form of an fanless, embedded (memory-based) computer with LOTS of flash-based memory for caching. For example, the current crops of micro-drives of 4-8GB can be deployed readily as temporary storage on the music front-end. With USB or Ethernet interface, one can connect the huge hard-drive remotely in another room to get completely isolated from the noise. I particularly like to have the 4-8GB cache so the 'play lists' are always available and ready to play. If I need to refresh its content, I can always update the play lists with tracks from the remote hard-drive. Heck the computer could be made smart enough to stream the data into this cache area while other tracks are playing. The possibilities are many. Once the data made it to the cache, the computer server will then pump out digital stream to a high-end DAC via USB interface to keep jitter in check. One can take it even further and provide I2S and word-clock interface but that's optional. Being that the digital data is cached onto solid-state memory before clocking out to the high-end DAC, I seriously think that this silent server can rival any high-end CD transport available on the market. Of course, this does take quite a bit of work to build and will not be cheap, costing around $3k ball-park. Hmm, I gotta give this idea some more thought and time one of these days when I much less busy...

Spike

 

[Joey_V]

At one point, your Polks sounded fine and then you heard Logans. Once you have quality source components in your system, you'll have the same rection to them!

Of course... that's what's fun about the hobby.

It never ends.

Though I will say, at the moment, I am in audio nirvana. Sure it can get better, but even if it doesnt... I'm A-OK!

 

[MiTT]

I really like how my Squeezebox3 sounds and I dont use my computer straight out as a source. Critical listening comes through the Squeezebox3. Sure, a CDP might be better and a TT would be better... but the SB3 is perfectly fine for me at the moment, for now.

I believe in the lossless concept. Source will come next.

I have time guys... I cant do it all at once.

Understood Joey, we're just all excited to help you spend you're money!

We're all just addicts, every one of us.

 

[MiTT]

I agree with your "PC vs high-end digital source" statement. But that's because the PC is noisy to begin with. What with the fan and the cheap, noisy disk drive catering to the home-theater, IPod/MP3 generation instead of the finicky high-end...snobs like myself That said, I seriously think that one can build a real high-end, memory-based source/server on par with the best digital sources today. I have been involved with building several embedded computer with Linux OS running on DRAM, no disk drive involved. This same concept can be carried over to the high-end music source in the form of an fanless, embedded (memory-based) computer with LOTS of flash-based memory for caching. For example, the current crops of micro-drives of 4-8GB can be deployed readily as temporary storage on the music front-end. With USB or Ethernet interface, one can connect the huge hard-drive remotely in another room to get completely isolated from the noise. I particularly like to have the 4-8GB cache so the 'play lists' are always available and ready to play. If I need to refresh its content, I can always update the play lists with tracks from the remote hard-drive. Heck the computer could be made smart enough to stream the data into this cache area while other tracks are playing. The possibilities are many. Once the data made it to the cache, the computer server will then pump out digital stream to a high-end DAC via USB interface to keep jitter in check. One can take it even further and provide I2S and word-clock interface but that's optional. Being that the digital data is cached onto solid-state memory before clocking out to the high-end DAC, I seriously think that this silent server can rival any high-end CD transport available on the market. Of course, this does take quite a bit of work to build and will not be cheap, costing around $3k ball-park. Hmm, I gotta give this idea some more thought and time one of these days when I much less busy...

Spike

Spike, I consider myself at least somewhat capable when it comes to working with computers, but I'll be damned if I understood 40% of what you just shared with us.

That being said, if it sounds as good as you say it does, you may want to do exactly what you just said in a more formal manner and get some Intellectual Property protection in place, with the help of a good patent attorney.

 

[Joey_V]

Yup yup... I got my first TOOB preamp here!

Check it out!

However... check my "Toobs Part 2" thread for additional stuff.

 

[miljac]

I agree with your "PC vs high-end digital source" statement. But that's because the PC is noisy to begin with. What with the fan and the cheap, noisy disk drive catering to the home-theater, IPod/MP3 generation instead of the finicky high-end...snobs like myself That said, I seriously think that one can build a real high-end, memory-based source/server on par with the best digital sources today. I have been involved with building several embedded computer with Linux OS running on DRAM, no disk drive involved. This same concept can be carried over to the high-end music source in the form of an fanless, embedded (memory-based) computer with LOTS of flash-based memory for caching. For example, the current crops of micro-drives of 4-8GB can be deployed readily as temporary storage on the music front-end. With USB or Ethernet interface, one can connect the huge hard-drive remotely in another room to get completely isolated from the noise. I particularly like to have the 4-8GB cache so the 'play lists' are always available and ready to play. If I need to refresh its content, I can always update the play lists with tracks from the remote hard-drive. Heck the computer could be made smart enough to stream the data into this cache area while other tracks are playing. The possibilities are many. Once the data made it to the cache, the computer server will then pump out digital stream to a high-end DAC via USB interface to keep jitter in check. One can take it even further and provide I2S and word-clock interface but that's optional. Being that the digital data is cached onto solid-state memory before clocking out to the high-end DAC, I seriously think that this silent server can rival any high-end CD transport available on the market. Of course, this does take quite a bit of work to build and will not be cheap, costing around $3k ball-park. Hmm, I gotta give this idea some more thought and time one of these days when I much less busy...

Spike

Well, Spike, I'm just working on a similar system.
Mine is a server/LAN/embedded Linux music client with I2S fed into the NOS DAC.
All music material is on the backend servers and retrieved from network.

Expect to have a proof of concept by end of October

regards

miljac

 

[sleepysurf]

Interesting to hear about these "next gen" music server ideas, particularly employing a large capacity flash memory cache, fed from a larger remote hard disc server. *Theoretically* they should outperform *any* mechanical transport, but I don't think we're *quite* there yet. I previously thought my Squeezebox/Benchmark DAC combo had achieved that level of perfection. However, since getting my Summits (even more revealing than the Aerius), I can hear a slight loss of fidelity with the Squeezebox, versus using my Toshiba DVD player as a transport feeding the Benchmark. Not sure where the "problem" lies... perhaps the Squeezebox power supply (although I am using the Elpac linear PSU), less-than-ideal cables, or something else. I am closely following the discussions/early impressions about the new Slimdevices Transporter, which seems to have racheted up performance to a new level.

Regardless, the emerging competition in this music server niche bodes well for all of us in the long run. Once you experience the convenience of server based music, internet radio, and time-shifted content via podcasts, you can't ever go back! We just need to keep demanding more LOSSLESS content, rather than low bit-rate rubbish.

 

[MiTT]

Interesting to hear about these "next gen" music server ideas, particularly employing a large capacity flash memory cache, fed from a larger remote hard disc server. *Theoretically* they should outperform *any* mechanical transport, but I don't think we're *quite* there yet. I previously thought my Squeezebox/Benchmark DAC combo had achieved that level of perfection. However, since getting my Summits (even more revealing than the Aerius), I can hear a slight loss of fidelity with the Squeezebox, versus using my Toshiba DVD player as a transport feeding the Benchmark. Not sure where the "problem" lies... perhaps the Squeezebox power supply (although I am using the Elpac linear PSU), less-than-ideal cables, or something else. I am closely following the discussions/early impressions about the new Slimdevices Transporter, which seems to have racheted up performance to a new level.

Regardless, the emerging competition in this music server niche bodes well for all of us in the long run. Once you experience the convenience of server based music, internet radio, and time-shifted content via podcasts, you can't ever go back! We just need to keep demanding more LOSSLESS content, rather than low bit-rate rubbish.

Sleepysurf, your comment about direct comparison of the Squeezebox combo with the Toshiba as a transport was pretty much what I was saying.

In my case we were comparing my VPI Aries/Grado Statement/Aesthetics Rhea analog rig against my Esoteric DV-50S direct (RDOT + FIR filters engaged; sampling at 1411.2Khz) and as a transport via my Dodson Audio DA-217 DAC against his Squeezebox via the Dodson. The analog rig was in a completely different league, easily besting all 3 digital setups - but that's a whole different discussion.

The Esoteric direct and via the Dodson sounded very similar tonally. There was a bit more detail and dynamics with the Esoteric direct, imaging was also a bit more distinct. Soundstage was about the same overall, but with the Esoteric it started at the speaker plane and went through the back wall. With the Dodson converting the bits the stage was about 4 feet in front of the speakers and a bit wider. With the Squeezebox feeding the Dodson that forward presentation was gone. The music emerged from the front plane of the speakers, but there was absolutely no depth. Nor were the images themselves as solid and fleshed out. There was localization, but no "air" around the individual instruments or voices as with the Esoteric. The analog rig takes this even a step further in that not only is there a real sense of instruments or bodies in space, but as the sounds emerge there is the sense of a volume or column or bubble of air eminating from a real throat or bell of an instrument or skin of a drum as point sources with that bubble of air expanding out from the source equally in all directions.

I am not saying that music servers and digital media can't sound good, only that I don't believe that they are nearly there yet as they are still in their infancy - much like the Class D amplifier thread elsewhere on this forum. I am certain that all those using such methods as sources on this forum are very happy with the results in their systems. What I am suggesting is that as our systems are capable of ever higher levels of resolution by the introduction of carefully considered components and accessories, we will notice the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) differences and nuances that make one setup sound more "real'" than another. My experience with things audio is that everything matters - components, accessories, setup, room etc. Bits may be bits, but they do in fact sound different from one method of processing to the next, and that is the fun in exploring as we enjoy this hobby.

As far as the convenience factor is concerned I'm inclined to think it would be similar to my experience using a DVR in my home theater. I will never go back to video tape, and love the random access to everything stored on the hard drive. This much I'm sure I would grow to utilize in a server based setup. Still, there is something wonderfully engaging about handling my records, placing them on the platter and having that tactile experience. I can see myself one day enjoying both - but not at the cost of fidelity.