USB DONE RIGHT: Two magic boxes that let computer audio ...

I have thoroughly enjoyed your two
books: The World of High Fidelity and The
UHF Guide to Ultra High Fidelity. Both
provide an excellent introduction to hi-fi.
You have defined high fidelity as “the
closest possible approach to the original
sound.” This is achieved by equipment
that adds the least (transparent?) to
the sound — a very difficult feat indeed.
Say my end goal in audio is transparency,
aren’t passive preamplifiers designed to
do just that? Yet I do not see them being
used as reference components by professional
reviewers/audiophiles such as
yourself. Is it fair to say that passive preamps
are more silent (transparent) than
active preamps? And shouldn’t reviewers
use passive preamps as benchmark to
review all other (active) preamps? One
of the most “sophisticated” and expensive
passive preamps I’ve come across is
England’s Music First Audio. Do you
plan to review their product?
Hypothetically speaking, given
the time when Messrs.. Rejskind and
Simon are no longer reviewing audio
components, what would your reference
system consist of? Would you be using
a passive preamp with active speakers?
Balanced cable over RCA?
Larry Byrd
CALGARY, AB
It’s hard to say, Larry, because you
are presuming a time when the magazine
changes management, and indeed
owners. It’s hardly up to us to speculate
on what our eventual successors might
or might not do. Most audio magazines
don’t actually have reference systems at
all, as you may know.
That said, theory notwithstanding,
the very best preamps are active, not
passive, though a passive preamplifier
may be a good choice if the budget for
the best (read: expensive) is not available.
Indeed, we have reviewed several passive
8 ULTRA HIGH FIDELITY Magazine
Free Advice
270 rue Victoria
Longueuil, Québec, Canada J4H 2J6
uhfmail@uhfmag.com
preamps over the years, and we have even
had three of them in our Audiophile
Store. We’re speaking from experience,
at least our experience so far.
Balanced cables may or may not be a
good choice, depending on the design of
the balancing circuits in the components
being linked, but we can’t use them in
our reference systems. If we did, how
could we review components that don’t
have balanced connections?
I have very much enjoyed your site
and writing for a number of years now.
You provide an important service to
the audio community, from the beginner
level to the audiophile level, by
your objectivity and straightforward
approach. Your ability to articulate
your listening session experiences is
very much helpful in understanding the
interaction of the components used and
the product you are reviewing.
Most of the audiophile articles and
sites I have read talk about passive speakers.
Curiously, why are active speakers
not as often reviewed/discussed in the
audiophile community? What have been
your experiences with active speakers?
And have you or your friends/colleague
have had a chance to audition them in
recent period — ATC, Focal, Dynaudio,
Meridian, Linn are few high-end
makes that comes to my mind. What
are your thoughts in this technology?
And would you recommend them for
home use given that they’ve come a long
way from its “studio monitor” ancestors?
What do you see to be the biggest
obstacle of active speakers? Do you
foresee the day when an active speaker
would be your reference speaker?
Andrew Lee
TORONTO, ON
To answer your last question first,
Andrew, no, an active speaker cannot
be our reference, and the reason is possibly
obvious. If we had active speakers
(speakers with built-in amplifiers), we
could not review amplifiers. By the way,
for exactly the same reason we don’t use
balanced connectors on our gear. If we
did, how could we review components
without balanced connections?
That said, there are some very good
active loudspeakers available, and we
had one (a Linn Artikulat) on the cover
of UHF No. 80). We liked it. A lot. We
also liked the Aurum Integra system,
which was on the cover of UHF No. 78.
There are major advantages to
active speakers. The amplifier (usually
amplifiers — plural) can be designed
with particular drivers in mind, and the
troublesome speaker cables can be kept
extremely short. The crossover can be
active too, potentially delivering much
better performance than the common
passive crossover. All good. But there’s
a disadvantage to putting the amplifiers
right inside the enclosure, where they are
directly subjected to massive vibration.
In short, this is not an easy technology
to work with, and not all designers pull
it off successfully.
I recently installed new KT88’s into
my Dynakit Mk III amplifiers. One of
the tubes, which is not defective, produces
a mechanical noise, a hum. What
can I do to reduce this mechanical noise?
Walter C. Labys
MORGANTOWN, WV
Actually, Walter, we think the KT88
is defective. If its elements are not tightly
secured, they can vibrate. The culprit in
your case is probably the cathode, since it
is heated, in most amplifiers, by alternating
current (60 Hz in North America).
The tube can’t be fixed, since you can’t
get at its innards without breaking the
vacuum seal, and so the only solution, if
the hum is loud enough to be objectionable,
is to change it.
My husband George is currently
loading up my Mac mini with his music
(nice of me to let him use it, isn’t it?) and
I need some advice. We think we’d like
to try the digital-to-analog converter,
but are curious to know performance
differences (if any?) among: