Upgrades are best - when their free !!!

Posted by: Naheed on 21 October 2002

The following findings were based upon a suggestion made by Ron Toolsie, regarding an alternative method to wire your snaxo, if your using a 52 but no TT connection.

The findings were based upon comparing two set-ups.

(1) 52/Supercap/Snaxo/Hicap (not using TT inputs)
(2) Parasitized 52 Supercap/Snaxo (the snaxo utilises input 1, with the supercap/52 by burndy)

(2) Initial thoughts, better PRaT, I believe this to be an effect of the bass being more in control, the bass was so much tighter and easier to follow. There was an increase in detail, BUT all in all I was not initially convinced after a days listening. The treble was harsher, kind of spitty, which was annoying.

Anyway I reverted back to the snaxo/hicap (1), to my shock it sounded dreadful, it just seemed to have lost its PRaT control, and the bass was all over the place (very muddled), but the top-end higher frequencies were much sweeter. After half a day I gave up and went back to the Parasitized 52 Supercap set-up (2).

This set-up (2) makes so much more sense, and the improvement is quite substantial, though I do believe it does remove some of the 52s top-end sweetness, it more than makes up for it in terms of bass and PRaT improvements.

For anyone in this position (1), this has to be a must, the improvement is nothing short of startling, and for anyone thinking of treading the active path, it offers a cheaper option with one less box.

naheed
Posted on: 21 October 2002 by Naheed
Sure did, with a 5 Way Hydra, but soon to become a Roy Style Hydra set-up.

naheed
Posted on: 21 October 2002 by Ron Toolsie
Naheed... glad your findings mirror mine. I would guess that a parasitized supercap allows maybe 80-90% of what a dedicated supercap can do for a Snaxo, both using a Snaic5. Using a dedicated Scap and Snaic 17 (aka Burndy) for the Snaxo is another story (and another 5 kilobucks) altogether.
A Snaxo/dedicated hicap would be running in the 50-60% league. The differences are pretty much what one expects to find in any Hcap vs Supercap comparison... the Hcap is dynamically compressed sounding with truncation of both frequency extremes. The fact that a Hicap may sound 'sweeter' may reflect that is rolling off some harshness that is intrinsic to another part of the system. The Scap speaks more of the truth, although you may not always like to hear it.
These observations are diametrically opposed to the theoretically expected results, and may be an indication of how much quieter the cherry picked regulators in the supercap are over those within a Hicap, even though the former is operating under less than optimal conditions.

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo


Posted on: 22 October 2002 by Naheed
Ron: your were sooooooooo right, the only problem now is I want a Supercap (Burndy) for the Snaxo. To be honest anyone in this situation would be 'mad' to buy a flatcap or hicap to power the snaxo. Even more so, many forum members out there have 52/Supercap/250s, this is an ideal opportunity to go active on the cheap.

Mark: I thought the snaxo sucked more juice than the prefix...

Marco: The Hydra is just pure naim, the MWorks is powering my AV System at the moment. Funny actually, rather than selling old wires (Chord Solid/Prodacs/MWorks) at a loss, i'm now using them in my AV System to great effect.

Thomas K, where are you ???

naheed
Posted on: 22 October 2002 by Bosh
One difference with the Prefix is that a powered input on the 52 is being used rather than the Supercap outputs, could this be the cause of the difference.

I too find there is a definite hierarchy of fidelity for Prefix power of: 52 power<hicap<supercap

Additionally with the Prefix 52 powered, other sources (CD/Tuner etc)are also compromised. There is no Forum consensus yet still on whether this is the case with the 552
Posted on: 22 October 2002 by Thomas K
Have been following with interest, but I'm very busy at the moment. I don't think there's much I can add right now ...

Thomas
Posted on: 22 October 2002 by Ron Toolsie
I agree that the benefits of juicing these components directly off the 52s Supercap, or headunit respectively are divergent and probably counterintuitive. The 52-powered Prefix as certainly dynamically compressed and bandwidth limited compared to using an external power supply...but also has a seamless presentation that is hard to put into words. A Hicap (or a third party equivalent)gives it more sock but to my ears causes a somewhat more disjointed result with more panache but less poise.
A dedicated Supercap on the Prefix is by FAR the best choice, allowing a performance that is only barely hinted at by either of the other options.

By comparison, the Snaxo sort of reverses this hierarchy....powering with a Hicap results in a compressed and somewhat wooly sound as compared to being powered from the 52s Supercap. It is also improved to a lesser degree by a dedicated Supercap as compared to the Prefix. I cannot explain these observations.. maybe it has something with the Snaxo being largely a unity-gain device as compared to the far greater gain of the Prefix. High gain devices MAY have a different order of what parameters of the power supply design are the more important;certainly any noise that is injected into a high gain device will become unmasked, whereas this is not necessarily the case for a unity gain device.

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo


Posted on: 24 October 2002 by Martin Payne
Ron,

those are really helpful observations.

Just thought I'd throw in a comment from my dealer, regarding 'where next' in a friend's system.

Starting from 82, 3xhi, SNAXO, 2x250, apparently the biggest improvement is to put a Super on the SNAXO (not the 82).

Wierd, huh?

cheers, Martin
Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Naheed
Strange

But the addition of the 250s, actually made me prefer the snaxo/hicap option versus the 140s Parasitized 52 Supercap/Snaxo confused

The Parasitized Setup just made the bass so bloated and overwhelming, strange as with the 140s the bass became tighter, firmer, and deeper

naheed
Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Ron Toolsie
quote:
The Parasitized Setup just made the bass so bloated and overwhelming, strange as with the 140s the bass became tighter, firmer, and deeper


The only setup in which I compared the Snaxo/Hicap vs the Snaxo/parasitized Supercap indeed was based around 2x250.

Caveat emptor- but for those who DO prefer the latter, it is a handy way of saving some lolly.

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo