XLR or RCA
- Thread starter Penthouse-D
- Start date
the Sp-10 was lush compared to the Sp-9/Sp-14 and sp-11. I recall a few 'philes in my circle that dumped their sp-10s based on HPs review to buy an sp-11 and later regretted it. I lived with an sp-10 mk II for serveral months, like the Sp-8 its now considered a classic, look at what an sp-11 is worth today compared to an Sp-10. at the time, when ARC went hybrid i switched alligances to CJ.
imho, balanced cable/audio circuits seem to be inherently less fussy about cable quality provided its a proper balanced design with separate pos and inverting leg + shield/ground. if you ask messrs conrad and johnson they will tell you balanced cables are a solution looking for a problem.
And another thing while I'm on my high horse-many people who own tube gear may not understand how much SS is inside their *tube* gear. VTL's logo still has the words "Pure Tube" when in reality, I don't think so. VTL amps and preamps have never been "pure tube" to my knowledge. VTL power amps have always had SS power supplies. VTL preamps have always had SS power supplies. Most modern tube preamps not only have SS power supplies and SS voltage regulation, many of them have JFETs on the input of the line stage to increase gain and reduce noise before the signal is handed off to sometimes a single pair of line stage tubes. So the only tube part of many tube preamps is a single pair of tubes. I hardly would call that "pure tube."
The closest preamp that I ever owned that approached "pure tube" status was my Counterpoint SA-5.1. The B+ rectification was performed by a vacuum tube, the voltage regulation was vacuum tubes, the phono section was vacuum tubes, and the line stage was vacuum tubes. So if you have a *tube* preamp that claims to be "pure tube" and it is chock-a-block full of SS devices in the power supply and the line stage, doesn't that really make it a hybrid preamp vice being "pure tube?" I think it does.
The closest preamp that I ever owned that approached "pure tube" status was my Counterpoint SA-5.1. The B+ rectification was performed by a vacuum tube, the voltage regulation was vacuum tubes, the phono section was vacuum tubes, and the line stage was vacuum tubes. So if you have a *tube* preamp that claims to be "pure tube" and it is chock-a-block full of SS devices in the power supply and the line stage, doesn't that really make it a hybrid preamp vice being "pure tube?" I think it does.
My bad, I was thinking of the SP11, I think, but could have been the SP9. Honestly, it has been a long time and I am not likely keeping the models straight.
I do not have any problem with SS power supplies sound-wise as they are not in the direct signal path. That said, HV transistors tend to be unreliable, at least as implemented in many tube audio designs, so a tube-based supply (including rectifier) would probably cause less light-dimming at turn-on and not take out as many SS components every year or two.
Was it the SP6 that used opto-isolators at the outputs?
JFET's are tube-like but cheating, at least a little... MOSFETs are generally poor choices in the audio signal path due to noise.
I do not have any problem with SS power supplies sound-wise as they are not in the direct signal path. That said, HV transistors tend to be unreliable, at least as implemented in many tube audio designs, so a tube-based supply (including rectifier) would probably cause less light-dimming at turn-on and not take out as many SS components every year or two.
Was it the SP6 that used opto-isolators at the outputs?
JFET's are tube-like but cheating, at least a little... MOSFETs are generally poor choices in the audio signal path due to noise.
cj's GAT and TEA1 phono section uses MOSFETs instead of output coupling caps. Among the many improvements is a sizeable drop in the perceived noise floor.
John Curl uses JFETs on the input of his phono stages as does Nick Doshi.
MOSFETs as buffers and DC-restore, after the gain stage? There the noise is reduced by the gain of the input stage... I am not sure how adding them in place of coupling caps can reduce the noise floor, however; I suspect other reasons, though those may include reduced effective noise with a lower-impedance output stage provided by the MOSFETs. MOSFET noise is process-dependent, size-dependent, etc. but hard to get around. JFETs do not have the same noise characteristics. Chopper-stabilized op-amps suppress the noise but have other issues. I am not an expert in their (MOSFET) design, at least not at audio frequencies, just know in the past I've avoided them in low-noise stages if possible or worked around them. My (wideband RF/mW/mmW) designs have mostly had BJT or JFET inputs.
None of which has anything to do with the RCA vs. XLR debate, sorry...
None of which has anything to do with the RCA vs. XLR debate, sorry...
The circuitry of the GAT Preamplifier is elegant in its simplicity. The audio circuit consists of a single amplifier stage incorporating one composite triode comprised of paralleled sections of a high-transconductance miniature dual triode vacuum tube. This amplifier stage is coupled to the preamplifier outputs through a high-current MOSFET buffer, which achieves a very low output impedance, making the GAT extremely flexible in the choice of interconnect cables and amplifiers. DC voltage is supplied to the circuit by our latest discrete voltage regulator that isolates the audio circuit from the power line by maintaining negligible impedance across the audio frequency band. Infrasonic noise is minimized by operating the tube filaments (heaters) on a dc voltage supplied by another discrete regulated power supply.
Guys...STOP! This is a Spectral question in the Spectral forum. Maybe you could "slug it out" in the cable section...
Sorry, I come in through the "new posts" tab and rarely notice what sub-forum I am in, just go by thread title. I'm out.
Would one of you lucky Spectral owners fill me in here. I'm trying to deceide on buying this gear, but my Esoteric K-03 works better with the XLR outs. I'd like to do it correctly the fisdt time......
I am using RCA (MIT Oracle-MA-X) for both my CD player to DMC-30SS-2 and DMC-30SS-2 to DMA-260. I did not have the chance to compare RCA vs XLR for CD player to Pre. But I did compare RCA Vs XLR version of Oracle MA-X for pre to power for an extended duration. I prefer RCA over XLR.
BTW, Spectral CD Players come with only RCA outs. Did Esoteric specified that K-03 works better with the XLR outs? If so, I guess following manurfacturer recommendation might be a safer choice....though sometime the XLR design might be just a marketing tool.
BTW, Spectral CD Players come with only RCA outs. Did Esoteric specified that K-03 works better with the XLR outs? If so, I guess following manurfacturer recommendation might be a safer choice....though sometime the XLR design might be just a marketing tool.
I remember I asked my Spectral dealer several years ago the same question and I was told to use rca terminated interconnects for source components into a Spectral preamp and to use balanced terminated interconnects from the Spectral preamp to the Spectral amp.
Hi guys,
Oh about a year ago I was speaking with Richard Vandersteen about his model 7 speaker which is very pleasing to listen through especially with vinyl recordings. When I asked about the pairing of his design with that of Spectral's he pointed out for that reason it was not such a great fit. Spectral idea of a "balanced design" is just inherently so, not a true excution of this feature. Some other folks have commented on the difference between the two modes and some prefer RCA just because it sounds better; and about 4 years ago in the T.A.S. article by Mr. Harley, Spectral was noted as recommending the unbalanced route for the same reason.
Oh about a year ago I was speaking with Richard Vandersteen about his model 7 speaker which is very pleasing to listen through especially with vinyl recordings. When I asked about the pairing of his design with that of Spectral's he pointed out for that reason it was not such a great fit. Spectral idea of a "balanced design" is just inherently so, not a true excution of this feature. Some other folks have commented on the difference between the two modes and some prefer RCA just because it sounds better; and about 4 years ago in the T.A.S. article by Mr. Harley, Spectral was noted as recommending the unbalanced route for the same reason.
I can not believe it.
I spoke also to Spectral and they told me that their equipement is mainly engineered for the use of RCA.
But i tryed an XLR between a DMC30SS and DMA260 (advice from dealer).
This was a big improvement in sound not subtle (faster more live).
Sorry Kee!
I spoke also to Spectral and they told me that their equipement is mainly engineered for the use of RCA.
But i tryed an XLR between a DMC30SS and DMA260 (advice from dealer).
This was a big improvement in sound not subtle (faster more live).
Sorry Kee!
Strange, this is exactly the opposite to my findings. I tested both version of Oracle MA-X for an extended duration and eventually chose the RCA version. I knew of another user of DMC30SS/DMA-260 drawn the same conclusion. Do you use very long interconnect? Mine are 2meters.
By the way Adimon, which model of MIT or spectral inter-connects did you try? What was the aritculation setting did you set to? (I am assuming you were using MIT Oracle MA-X). I preferred 3rd click for CDP to Pre and 2nd click for Pre to Power. The articulation setting is likely system dependent but it does impact the sound quality quite a bit.
My speaker is Avalon Indra and my room size is about 11'x23' treated with Realtraps, RPG Abffusors & BAD panels.
The voltage is 230VAC, unlikely due to that. Maybe there are more interference at you area, which XLR would be better in handling that.
The voltage is 230VAC, unlikely due to that. Maybe there are more interference at you area, which XLR would be better in handling that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |