asking for upgrade advice

Share your journey!

Moderator: Staff

beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by beck »

Thank you for the update.
MikeF wrote:guys,

It is just suprising that there exists an attribute like "musical" for technical equipment....
The above quote is a true turning point for all of us. When you realise the above you change your ways with hifi.
Playing cd’s…………
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by lejonklou »

Thanks for the update Michael!
MikeF wrote:So back in with the Ninkas, and honestly, the sound is a bit less Hifi, a bit less impressive at first hand, but then with them the system was really again big fun to listen. Suprisingly even in very bad positions (one sofa is right between the speakers) or from another room, the music remains engaging.
Great to hear that you found this "engagement factor" even with bad speaker positioning.
MikeF wrote:Having two subs in stereo configuration gave a BIG improvement for me, compared with a single one.
This is interesting. It was a good while since I last heard a system with two subwoofers. I hope that none of the 4645C owners are reading this. :D (explanation: because that sub is huge)
MikeF wrote:Ok, it sounds I am building the system from the back, but this just for the moment. A proper preamp (now it would be the Kikkin) will follow at some, later, moment.
I listened to a Kikkin driving a pair of Tundra Mono's just a few weeks ago. It sounded really good! And I assume the Line Out of each Tundra Mono will conveniently link to your two Afekts.
MikeF wrote:Also I have been waiting for the Lejonklou Streamer as a source, but here the project seems to be pretty delayed. So I am not sure now if I should get a KRDS in the meantime. Although I did not get if the Lejonklou Streamer will also reproduce direct from a Computer, as "sound card", because apart from the NAS I also would like to use it for that. Tendency is to go for the KRDS now.
The Streamer project is sleeping and the team dissolved. We'll see what happens. Klimax Renew's are an excellent choice provided you get a good one. They can differ quite a lot in performance.
User avatar
DelNaja
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-12-30 11:22
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by DelNaja »

lejonklou wrote:The Streamer project is sleeping and the team dissolved. We'll see what happens.
Apologies for OT post, but this caught my attention. Fredrik, would you care to elaborate on this in the Lejonklou streamer thread?
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by lejonklou »

I would if there was anything to elaborate upon. :)

Nothing will happen with the streamer project until a new angle is found. Or a new person with new ideas appears.
bonzo
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 268
Joined: 2007-02-02 02:05
Location: Stateside

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by bonzo »

With a passive system you have much more money to spend where it really matters:
At the source.

I couldn’t agree more. What are thoughts when source is at Maximum Level?
lp12, Keel, K Radikal, Urika, EkosSe/1 Kandid KK1/D, JBL 708p
Linn Pekin
User avatar
DelNaja
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-12-30 11:22
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by DelNaja »

lejonklou wrote:I would if there was anything to elaborate upon. :)

Nothing will happen with the streamer project until a new angle is found. Or a new person with new ideas appears.
Thanks for the update. I hope that you have a breakthrough eventually and that the work continues. Best of luck!
MikeF
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 2017-03-01 00:10

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by MikeF »

because that sub is huge)
yes I have seen the pictures.... ;-)

Well I had the thinking back in my head since the start when I went for a comparatively cheap, small sub. Still the effect was bigger than I expected. Now I speculate, maybe a normal sub, mixing L+R channels, will get slightly off-phase signals when the bass note is not exactly centered in the stereo field, washing out the phase in the sum signal. Maybe. If somebody else has some experience would be interesting to know. Or maybe running only one channel in a single sub rather than mixing two is still better?
The Streamer project is sleeping and the team dissolved. We'll see what happens. Klimax Renew's are an excellent choice provided you get a good one. They can differ quite a lot in performance.
I am very sorry to hear this. But I do (and surely many other people as well) appreciate very much your attitude and honesty. Putting your name on a streamer, I guess you could have sold quite a few.

Thing is I do not want to enter the vinyl world, so I will go for a KRDS. Now the bonus question: how do I get a good version?

Concerning volume, with the NInkas I hardly ever touch the "green" range of the Boazu with the DS volume control off. But that is still easy/advanced listening volume, if I was to party harder, then I would use it to the max allowed I guess.
MikeF
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 2017-03-01 00:10

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by MikeF »

beck wrote:
The above quote is a true turning point for all of us. When you realise the above you change your ways with hifi.
yes, and I guess it is safe to say, the only truth is in actually listening....
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by ThomasOK »

I can certainly see that two subs would be the ideal, but I can easily also see that there is absolutely no way they would fit in my room. So I am glad I haven't heard such a system as it is better I don't know what I am missing. It is rather glorious with just the one sub (and it should be noted that this one sub, the 4645C, goes deeper and has more output capability than two Afekts) as a few on here know and one more is about to find out.

As to the streamer, yes it is sad that we will have no Lejonklou streamer in the near future as I'm sure it would have been wonderful. I am not giving up hope as sometimes when you let a project rest a while new ideas come to you. In that vein, what Fredrik is currently working on is closer to my heart anyway, being the analog guy I am. Meanwhile I would indeed recommend getting a KRDS. It will be a huge performance gain over the Majik DS and they don't lose their value as quickly as the bigger DS units do. If you can get a KRDS/1 I found it to be more musical than the KRDS/0 I owned when I did the comparison. The KRDS/2 (with ExkatLink) is likely to be more of a sideways move so probably not worth the extra money it is almost certain to cost.
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
MikeF
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 2017-03-01 00:10

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by MikeF »

Hi Thomas,

please do not take it wrong, I am far from knowing as much as you guys, but I cannot help to note that quantity and depth of the bass is not what matters most.

Still my system is probably much easier to improve than yours, because it is starting from a much lower point. If no sub or one or two makes sense will depend a lot on the main speakers, the room and how good you can integrate everything. I am just happy to have found a "sweet spot" in my setup. And the improvement was so clear in the overall picture, not just more boom.

The seller of the Monos seems to have got a better offer, so be it. I was anyway not very happy to part with the boazu. So I will first get the KRDS and then see. In difference with the Majik he has only one RCA output, but I assume I can use RCA and XLR in parallel. Anybody is in the position to confirm this? Anybody has a pair of adapter interconnects XLR-RCA available or could make them for me? Since the way to one sub is rather long, I plan to use RCA_RCA for the subs and the XLR -RCA for the Boazu. Unless somebody recommends otherwise. It means to stay with double volume control for the moment, but I found that not so hard after the DS volume control has been switched off. And it allows much finer tuning than the rough steps of Afekt, but for me it is hard to hear the difference consistently. On/off yes, but 2-3 dB more or less, surpisingly not so clearly.

Probably will be still KRDS/2 as it allows to compare passive with exakt in the future. I missed one KRDS/1 at a very good price on ebay last minute because the seller had written "will consider sending to mainland" but my offer was refused by the system based on my spanish address. Bad luck for us both.
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by sunbeamgls »

tokenbrit wrote:
Spannko wrote:I wonder if active systems also suffer from there being so many interconnects and speaker cables that it's almost impossible to maintain absolute coherence between all the channels? Is it possible that each cable is influenced by its own micro environment differently to the others, producing an incoherence which affects the musicality and makes it difficult to maintain consistency between systems? Like most people here, I've heard very few active systems I'd want to own - I've even had an active system I didn't want to own! However, I've heard a few good active systems, and the common denominator appears to have been that either the source and amps have been the best available at the time (which overcomes the loss of coherence with all the cables?), or the speakers and amps are integrated (which perhaps reduces the systems sensitivity to variable external factors?).
I don't know that it's the interconnects and speaker cables themselves, but the inherent complexity that makes it difficult to achieve and maintain the coherence and the musicality. As Thomas indicated, it's difficult to get all channels within an amp to match. You can add the cables to that! Having recently had my Silver interconnects ordered from best to 'less good' to know how to pair them up & where best to use them, and adding that to my experience of the musical variation between channels in multi-channel amps, my personal view is that it's best to keep it as simple as possible... The 2-way 'simplicity' of the JBLs may make them inherently more coherent as long as the engineering is competent - in the case of the 3677s it appears to be more than competent. And this is where my distrust of aktiv (& Exakt) kicks in: that the complexity requires exceptional engineering to implement without compromising the music, and (still) requires meticulous attention to detail to set up at home, to present something truly musically engaging as opposed to something that sounds impressive but fails on connecting with the performance. There's something inherently right about stereo passive when it comes together - into focus, if you like. With aktiv, there's so much more to have to get right that focus becomes more difficult, and the budget is spread across more: crossover cards, channels of amplification, cables, etc. With passive, the budget isn't spread so thin, and can be concentrated in key components from source though amps to speakers, with the coherence maintained & essential musical qualities maintained.
Intresting view in this post and some others. There seems to be an assumption that a passive amp has no channel differences but an active amp does. Of course, it could be the same amp in use in either system. Plus, passive crossovers between a left and right speaker wil be different too. So is it OK for left and right passive speakers to suffer from variances? What reasons are there that would explain that this is less of a problem than those claimed for active systems?
Often, speakers are placed with different room boundaries close to each speaker - I inagine this would have a more significant impact than the small differences in amp channels.
Not saying these views are wrong, just wondering about the magnitude of the impact compared to other faults in systems and installs.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by sunbeamgls »

bonzo wrote:With a passive system you have much more money to spend where it really matters:
At the source.

I couldn’t agree more. What are thoughts when source is at Maximum Level?
I think ThomasOK's post earlier in the thread covers this well.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by lejonklou »

sunbeamgls wrote:Intresting view in this post and some others. There seems to be an assumption that a passive amp has no channel differences but an active amp does. Of course, it could be the same amp in use in either system. Plus, passive crossovers between a left and right speaker wil be different too. So is it OK for left and right passive speakers to suffer from variances? What reasons are there that would explain that this is less of a problem than those claimed for active systems?
Often, speakers are placed with different room boundaries close to each speaker - I inagine this would have a more significant impact than the small differences in amp channels.
Not saying these views are wrong, just wondering about the magnitude of the impact compared to other faults in systems and installs.
A passive stereo system has two channels. Any difference between them will make left speaker sound different from right.

An aktiv stereo system has four, six, eight or ten channels (I don't yet know of any system with 12 or more). Any difference between them will make 1) left speaker sound different from right, and 2) drive units within each speaker sound different from other drive units. 2) is a bigger problem than 1), as 2) makes the speaker sound disintegrated.

Regarding the magnitude of room boundaries versus amp channel differences, I don't see how they are related.
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by sunbeamgls »

^ Thanks Fredrik, that makes sense, but will still depend on the magnitude of the differences, with big chunky passive components not being that closely matched. Being further down the chain they will have a proportionately lesser impact.

Of course, a passive crossover causes 'disintegration' of drive units too. I think there are different compromises involved and generalisation of one versus another in generic terms isn't really possible. A well designed active system can outperform a poor passive system and vice versa.

As for room boundaries, it is not related from a technical perspective. What I meant was that there are plenty of people who live with differences between speaker outputs that can have much larger impacts on speaker output imbalance than some very small amp channel differences.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
tokenbrit
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2012-03-22 19:47
Location: New England

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by tokenbrit »

sunbeamgls wrote:^ Thanks Fredrik, that makes sense, but will still depend on the magnitude of the differences, with big chunky passive components not being that closely matched. Being further down the chain they will have a proportionately lesser impact.

Of course, a passive crossover causes 'disintegration' of drive units too. I think there are different compromises involved and generalisation of one versus another in generic terms isn't really possible. A well designed active system can outperform a poor passive system and vice versa.

As for room boundaries, it is not related from a technical perspective. What I meant was that there are plenty of people who live with differences between speaker outputs that can have much larger impacts on speaker output imbalance than some very small amp channel differences.
What "big chunky passive components" would they be? I thought we were talking about amps and they're also used in an active system... The point that previous posts were making that you seem to have ignored in those & largely dismissed in Fredrik's reply are the real complexity & matching of multiple channels vs 2. There are compromises but, again, the complexity of multiple channels inherently means more compromises unless you have a bigger budget ... even then, the variance in the performance between individual components & channels would be more to consider in an active system, if only numerically.
The problem with your generalisation about passive vs active systems, however well designed, is that you don't listen to the design. What you listen to is the production & installation of that design, and that is inherently more complex with active than in a 2 channel system, especially when you actually acknowledge & consider the "[not] very small amp channel differences", but you have a significant investment in your system, so I can understand why you might want to play down those differences, or ignore them, and keep arguing against passive and about room boundaries.
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by sunbeamgls »

tokenbrit wrote:
sunbeamgls wrote:^ Thanks Fredrik, that makes sense, but will still depend on the magnitude of the differences, with big chunky passive components not being that closely matched. Being further down the chain they will have a proportionately lesser impact.

Of course, a passive crossover causes 'disintegration' of drive units too. I think there are different compromises involved and generalisation of one versus another in generic terms isn't really possible. A well designed active system can outperform a poor passive system and vice versa.

As for room boundaries, it is not related from a technical perspective. What I meant was that there are plenty of people who live with differences between speaker outputs that can have much larger impacts on speaker output imbalance than some very small amp channel differences.
What "big chunky passive components" would they be? I thought we were talking about amps and they're also used in an active system... The point that previous posts were making that you seem to have ignored in those & largely dismissed in Fredrik's reply are the real complexity & matching of multiple channels vs 2. There are compromises but, again, the complexity of multiple channels inherently means more compromises unless you have a bigger budget ... even then, the variance in the performance between individual components & channels would be more to consider in an active system, if only numerically.
The problem with your generalisation about passive vs active systems, however well designed, is that you don't listen to the design. What you listen to is the production & installation of that design, and that is inherently more complex with active than in a 2 channel system, especially when you actually acknowledge & consider the "[not] very small amp channel differences", but you have a significant investment in your system, so I can understand why you might want to play down those differences, or ignore them, and keep arguing against passive and about room boundaries.
You question why I mention big passive components - that's very simple, active vs passive has to consider all the components required, not just the amps. Its a system, not isolated components.

I'm not dismissive at all, just putting forward some alternative and balancing questions and thoughts. In fact, my post acknowledges that a passive system can out perform active exactly because I'm not suggesting sweeping generalisations. The post says quite clearly that one can outperform the other and vice versa. I've provided an example in my own system below. Its just that its unreasonable to consider some of the inherent failings of one approach whilst pushing only the benefits of the other. Looking at the pros and cons of each is more helpful.

As it happens, my system has been passive, then active, then back to passive in the past, the latter being from active Majik to passive Klimax amps, so lots of experience of both approaches in my own system and those of others too. Both have merits and disadvantages which are worthy of debate. I would not have gone from active Majik to passive Akurate as that is just a different set of compromises whereas passive Klimax was clearly better.
My current system was actually a lower investment than the previous passive set up. Its probably got a few errors and issues, but delivers better music than the errors and issues in the last passive set up.
Im planning to soon hear an active system with Lejonklou amps and very much hope it will be a great experience.

Any notion that any of us have the perfect system, regardless of its configuration, is of course unreasonable, and I include my own choice of system in that. If we just accept every post as being correct because it aligns with our own view, it would be very dull.
Last edited by sunbeamgls on 2018-01-23 18:26, edited 1 time in total.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
matthias
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 2007-12-25 16:47
Location: Germany

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by matthias »

sunbeamgls wrote: I'm not dismissive, just putting forward some alternative and balancing questions and thoughts. In fact, my ppst acknowledges that a passive system can out perform active exactly because Im not suggesting sweeping generalisations. Its unreasonable to not consider some of the inherent failings of one approach whilst pushing only the benefits of the other.
If you agree on the source first principle, which Thomas worked out in his great post on page one of this thread, then your "alternative and balancing questioning" does not make sense at all.

Matt
Matt

MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by sunbeamgls »

matthias wrote:
sunbeamgls wrote: I'm not dismissive, just putting forward some alternative and balancing questions and thoughts. In fact, my ppst acknowledges that a passive system can out perform active exactly because Im not suggesting sweeping generalisations. Its unreasonable to not consider some of the inherent failings of one approach whilst pushing only the benefits of the other.
If you agree on the source first principle, which Thomas worked out in his great post on page one of this thread, then your "alternative and balancing questioning" does not make sense at all.

Matt
Not really - having an active crossover in front of the amp could be very much considered as more source first than one in the speaker - dealing with the separation of frequencies early in the chain, in the most accurate way possible and therefore preserving the signal as much as possible as close to the source as possible, is more source first than doing it more approximately in the speaker. Giving each amplifier less work to do and focussing it on less work could also consider to preserve the source signal more accurately than asking the amp to do more work and for it to have to deal with the passive crossover in the way between it and the drivers.

But hey, I don't expect everyone to agree with that interpretation.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
matthias
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 2007-12-25 16:47
Location: Germany

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by matthias »

Yes, you are right, I disagree with your interpretation.

Here it goes correctly:
ThomasOK wrote: And it also brings us to the third problem, the active crossover. For the active system to work properly the active crossover would have to musically be superior to the Tundra Mono 2.2 amps. Do such things exist? Iffy. It looks like Linn may still make the Klimax Tuneboks for the Komri, K350 and A242 and they might be good enough. But they only work with those speakers and the crossovers may not be around for long. If you have any other speaker it is unlikely you could get an electronic crossover good enough to make this work. At least until Fredrik decides to make one and I'm afraid that is pretty far down the list of things he wants to do.
And that, in short (OK, not really short at all) is why you don't see a lot of active devotees up here. It is a great way to sell multiple amps and active ready speakers but it really doesn't produce more musical results unless done very, very well.
Matt
Matt

MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
anthony
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 786
Joined: 2007-02-04 22:39
Location: UK

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by anthony »

When I listened to Kudos 707 well setup at Signals hi fi show, I actually preferred 1 Naim 500 passive to 2 Nap 300 active. Apparently the Kudos passive crossovers are very minimilistic, perhaps that helps?
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by sunbeamgls »

matthias wrote:Yes, you are right, I disagree with your interpretation.

Here it goes correctly:
ThomasOK wrote: And it also brings us to the third problem, the active crossover. For the active system to work properly the active crossover would have to musically be superior to the Tundra Mono 2.2 amps. Do such things exist? Iffy. It looks like Linn may still make the Klimax Tuneboks for the Komri, K350 and A242 and they might be good enough. But they only work with those speakers and the crossovers may not be around for long. If you have any other speaker it is unlikely you could get an electronic crossover good enough to make this work. At least until Fredrik decides to make one and I'm afraid that is pretty far down the list of things he wants to do.
And that, in short (OK, not really short at all) is why you don't see a lot of active devotees up here. It is a great way to sell multiple amps and active ready speakers but it really doesn't produce more musical results unless done very, very well.
Matt
Quite rightly, Thomas raises the question. And assumes Fredrik's would be better. He uses terms like 'maybe', 'might', 'unless' as all of this is speculative and quite right too. Its not definitive, lots of caveats as its a realistic view.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
matthias
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 2007-12-25 16:47
Location: Germany

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by matthias »

sunbeamgls wrote: Quite rightly, Thomas raises the question. And assumes Fredrik's would be better. He uses terms like 'maybe', 'might', 'unless' as all of this is speculative and quite right too. Its not definitive, lots of caveats as its a realistic view.
Neither Thomas nor Fredrik are questioning the Source First Principle. They stand firmly on its foundation. On this basis you can raise as much questions as you want. What about you?

Matt
Matt

MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by sunbeamgls »

matthias wrote:
sunbeamgls wrote: Quite rightly, Thomas raises the question. And assumes Fredrik's would be better. He uses terms like 'maybe', 'might', 'unless' as all of this is speculative and quite right too. Its not definitive, lots of caveats as its a realistic view.
Neither Thomas nor Fredrik are questioning the Source First Principle. They stand firmly on its foundation. On this basis you can raise as much questions as you want. What about you?

Matt
Of course source first is correct.

Source first says that it is important to keep the information as accurate as possible as long as possible in the chain. I propose that an active crossover could preserve the accuracy of the signal early in the chain compared to the effect of a passive crossover makes later in the chain, which, if true, adheres to source first. But it is presesnted as a possibilty much like Thomas's post presents the opposite as a possibility. Neither position is presented as a definitive nor empirically evidenced.

The posts you have made treat Thomas's posts as definitive statements which the example you use clearly is not. There are questions and doubts. I raise similar questions and doubts from a different angle. Choose your bias as you wish.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
sunbeamgls
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1087
Joined: 2012-04-04 15:19
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by sunbeamgls »

anthony wrote:When I listened to Kudos 707 well setup at Signals hi fi show, I actually preferred 1 Naim 500 passive to 2 Nap 300 active. Apparently the Kudos passive crossovers are very minimilistic, perhaps that helps?
And there were others that reported the opposite, although Im more likely to respect your feedback based on previous experience.

I found that the same system but using 2x 250DR vs 1x 300, the active system was more enjoyable. But then again, in passive systems the 300 seems like poor vfm compared to a 250DR.
KSH/0; KEBox/2; 3x Tundra Stereo 2.5; PMC fact.12. Blogger. Exakt Design. SO measuring.
matthias
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 2007-12-25 16:47
Location: Germany

Re: asking for upgrade advice

Post by matthias »

sunbeamgls wrote: Source first says that it is important to keep the information as accurate as possible as long as possible in the chain.
No, it says that any piece of equipment is more important than the one that comes after it.

Matt
Last edited by matthias on 2018-01-23 23:02, edited 1 time in total.
Matt

MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
Post Reply