ATI AT2000 amps

[Irvrobinson]

The reason you feel the way you do about that CD player is the CONVERTER, IT'S CONFIGURATION/software/microcode and the line driver!

If what you guys say is true about AVR-990 converters etc and converters and line drivers are all basically the SAME...

THEN EXPLAIN WHY YOU FEEL THE WAY YOU DO ABOUT THE EMO CD PLAYER!

Is it in your head! Placebo!

I THINK NOT

My issues with the ERC-2 are not related to sound, they are related to build quality and ergonomics. Such as:

- Emotiva chose a clunky, slow, and inflexible Toshiba CD drive. It is noisy and cheap-sounding, and it has an immediate play operation on every disc load that can't be defeated. The drive is also a bit temperamental on loads, and once or twice has made think it scratched a disc.

- The front panel function buttons are so cheap that they require just the right sort of touch pressure, which means I often have to push them twice.

- The remote control is needlessly heavy, being machined from billet aluminum. That would normally be a very nice touch, but then Emotiva used the same cheap button assemblies as the front panel uses. The machined edges of the remote are not radiused, so they're actually sharp, and the battery cover on the back is cheap-looking.

As for sound... I haven't done an apples-to-apples comparison with the Benchmark DAC-1 HDR I use, that jinjuku likes dismissing. While I think the differences are admittedly very subtle, and I haven't done a DBT, I prefer using the HDR as a DAC to driving the HDR analog input with the analog output of the ERC-2. If there is an audible difference it is likely caused by the extra amplification stage in the signal path. Whatever, the HDR may be on its way out anyway, if I order the DEQX Grant has been talking me into.

[jinjuku]

As for sound... I haven't done an apples-to-apples comparison with the Benchmark DAC-1 HDR I use, that jinjuku likes dismissing. While I think the differences are admittedly very subtle, and I haven't done a DBT, I prefer using the HDR as a DAC to driving the HDR analog input with the analog output of the ERC-2.

I think it's an over priced, over hyped, DAC by a long shot.

So does MarkK at AudioHeuristics.org.

The HDR doesn't do any better than my EMU or the RME Fireface 400 that I compared it to. This was on a pair of Mackie HR824mk2 studio monitors.

[Irvrobinson]

I think it's an over priced, over hyped, DAC by a long shot.

So does MarkK at AudioHeuristics.org.

The HDR doesn't do any better than my EMU or the RME Fireface 400 that I compared it to. This was on a pair of Mackie HR824mk2 studio monitors.

I'm not impressed. For one thing, I've heard the Mackies, and I wouldn't exactly call them reference-class transducers. Frankly, I find them fatiguing.

Nonetheless, I didn't buy the HDR purely for sound quality. I bought it because in addition to having sound quality beyond reproach, it has build quality beyond reproach, and Benchmark's customer service is equal to the best I've experienced. The RME is built like a cheap piece of junk by comparison, though I suspect the two would sound indistinguishable in A/B testing.

There's more to a buying decision, for me at least, than sound quality and low price.

[Solid-State]

OK

I'll use one word

SORRY

From there I'll say thanks for the last couple posts. Very informative! That RME is a great piece for sure! I'd love to hear it compared to Kingwa's DAC/pre!

AGAIN

I'm very sorry for my tone with ALL OF YOU.

RME are arguably the best DAW recording products available outside of EMMlabs. Ed's stuff though is a whole other class IMHO just like Kingwa's Ref 10.2 compared to AVR or that Benchmark DAC. Heck they aren't even in the same universe!

Again guys it's just my opinion!

I'm curious what you guys think of Burson's drop in opamp replacements considering prior comments and my perceived beliefs I think you guys hold.

Again opinion here...

I think anyone that would purchase the Benchmark DAC or Antelope Audio DAC for example must not be aware of Audio GD or Kingwa.

Irvrobinson for the same reasons you use to justify the Benchmark couldn't be applied for AcuDef regarding the Audio GD Reference 10.2 ?

Kingwa's piece is such a better deal with just TOP NOTCH quality I've seen in very feel audio electronics AND it's a preamp as well so you kill two birds with one stone.

Do you seriously believe Irvrobinson that this at $1,895.00



Is worth more than this for $1,850 and sounds on par and costs $35 MORE!



If so I have some swap land for sale in Florida you might be interested in!

[Solid-State]

I'm not impressed. For one thing, I've heard the Mackies, and I wouldn't exactly call them reference-class transducers. Frankly, I find them fatiguing.

Nonetheless, I didn't buy the HDR purely for sound quality. I bought it because in addition to having sound quality beyond reproach, it has build quality beyond reproach, and Benchmark's customer service is equal to the best I've experienced. The RME is built like a cheap piece of junk by comparison, though I suspect the two would sound indistinguishable in A/B testing.

There's more to a buying decision, for me at least, than sound quality and low price.

Build quality beyond reproach?

ahh hahahhahahahhahhahahahah

OK please explain this... I want "measurements" and explanations using EE design theorem. Heck this is what you guys demand of me!

[Irvrobinson]

Oh come now, Solid-State, do you seriously believe that sound quality can be judged by the number of components in a circuit topology? I have no idea what the Kingwa sounds like. In fact, until this thread occurred I didn't even know it existed!

Even so, the hype on the web site, like the focus on discrete components rather than VLSI parts and the use of zero feedback, would probably drive me away anyway. On a parts cost basis the Kingwa does superficially look like a better value... but do I really believe it would sound better than the HDR? No. For one thing, how could that be? In *every* measurable parameter the HDR's performance is hardly measurable at all. How would the Kingwa improve upon hardly measurable?

[jinjuku]

I'm not impressed. For one thing, I've heard the Mackies, and I wouldn't exactly call them reference-class transducers. Frankly, I find them fatiguing.

They are studio monitors that are extremely revealing and unforgiving of goofs in the mix. If you can't discern differences on a $1400 pair of studio monitors...

They aren't fatiguing at all, I have never heard anybody else say that about the 824's. The fact that 10 hour days have been spent mastering on them and ears aren't bleeding is a testament.

Nonetheless, I didn't buy the HDR purely for sound quality. I bought it because in addition to having sound quality beyond reproach, it has build quality beyond reproach, and Benchmark's customer service is equal to the best I've experienced. The RME is built like a cheap piece of junk by comparison, though I suspect the two would sound indistinguishable in A/B testing.

RME built like a piece of junk? Oh brother

[Irvrobinson]

Build quality beyond reproach?

ahh hahahhahahahhahhahahahah

OK please explain this... I want "measurements" and explanations using EE design theorem. Heck this is what you guys demand of me!

You're so tiresome.

I'm sitting here looking at an HDR, I've been inside the thing, and I can't imagine how it could be substantially improved, except for perhaps some thicker cabinet sheet metal. Personally I would have also preferred it be a full rather than half rack-width form factor, so there would be more room for more balanced inputs, but that's a quibble.

As for measurements, read the owners manual. Here's a link:

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/sites/...ual%20RevI.pdf

[jinjuku]

Looking at the pic of the Benchmark internals and then calling into question the build quality of the RME is close to outrageous. The Fireface 400 eats the Benchmark alive in functionality also. Sorry but paying $900 - $1800 is just throwing away $$.

IMO the other pre while maybe fully balanced looks way parts heavy. For a counter point:



http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...nternal_3k.jpg this URL links to an extremely hi-res image.

$599 and the build quality is top notch. Much better than the Benchmark. Sorry Benchmark is trading on reputation as far as I am concerned. Swappable op-amps.

[Irvrobinson]

They are studio monitors that are extremely revealing and unforgiving of goofs in the mix. If you can't discern differences on a $1400 pair of studio monitors...

They aren't fatiguing at all, I have never heard anybody else say that about the 824's. The fact that 10 hour days have been spent mastering on them and ears aren't bleeding is a testament.

RME built like a piece of junk? Oh brother

Yes, studio monitors are meant to be revealing, not necessarily accurate. And they have to play really loud, because that's how a lot of engineers like to monitor.

I'm not following you about why I should be impressed with a pair of $1400 (street price) active monitors. How much do you think was spent, cost-wise, on the cabinets and drivers? At $900 each, MSRP, and assuming a 5:1 retail price to parts cost ratio, that's $180-$200 for the cabinet, drivers, amp, packaging, etc.

Nonetheless, I already said the RME & Benchmark probably sound identical.

And, yes, I think the RME is built more cheaply by comparison. It is also ugly. Even if the RME did have the same quality as the HDR I would still pay the price difference not to have such a gaudy thing in my family room.