AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › Parasound Model 2100 preamp owners thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Parasound Model 2100 preamp owners thread

post #1 of 621
4/7/09 at 3:33pm
Thread Starter 
I thought I would start a dedicated thread for the 2100 as I received mine today. Seems like quite a bit of interest for the 2100 and I can see why. With limited setup and listening so far I am very impresed. Here is a link for the 2100:

http://www.parasound.com/nc/2100.php

I hope to spend more time in the next few days listening to some music and tweaking the sub levels. I will post more thoughts when I have had more time with the 2100. I hope more owners will post their thoughts on the 2100 as well.

Bill
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 621
4/7/09 at 4:23pm
Bill,

Good news thus far for ya

Good idea on starting this thread. As you know I love my 2100!

Keep us posted,

Brandon
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 621
4/7/09 at 4:29pm
Maybe Terry(TJHUB) will post some impressions in here also. He seems to be enjoying his so far(at least from what I know).

Brandon(nuance) might be snagging one soon too.....as well as the rest of Southeastern WI
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 621
4/7/09 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrymaid520 View Post

Maybe Terry(TJHUB) will post some impressions in here also. He seems to be enjoying his so far(at least from what I know).

Brandon(nuance) might be snagging one soon too.....as well as the rest of Southeastern WI

I just want to introduce myself, I'm the local rep for Parasound. Glad to hear you're enjoying the 2100, it's amazing how much quality Parasound packs in their product for the price.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 621
4/7/09 at 5:59pm
Bill,

Congratulations on your new component. May it serve you well!!!
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 621
4/7/09 at 6:40pm
Bill,

Request: How about some pre amp line stage porn for visual guys like me?
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 621
4/7/09 at 6:57pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozvz View Post

Bill,

Request: How about some pre amp line stage porn for visual guys like me?

Charles,

Thanks, I am sure the 2100 will serve me well.

I will have to refer you to my friend.....ahhh..... Doug for requests such as yours. Actually I have not figured out how to post pictures from my camera here but I will try to figure it out.

We just watched Yes Man and I really like tha fact that the 2100 does not have to be on for the HT Bypass. The Rogue Perseus had this feature as well. With the Bel Canto PRe3 having to be on and set to input 5 (Bypass input) it sometimes did not go to input 5 due to my Harmony 688. So you could be watching a movie or sports etc. and then realize you did not have the front R&L speakers on.

Bill
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 621
4/7/09 at 7:05pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrymaid520 View Post

Bill,

Good news thus far for ya

Good idea on starting this thread. As you know I love my 2100!

Keep us posted,

Brandon

Brandon,

Thanks. I will not get much listening time till later in the week. But so far I am impressed. It was a snap to setup and the codes for the 2100 were in Harmony database so that was quite easy as well. The one thing I will have to remember is to turn the volume down when powering off the 2100. The PRe3 had a power on volume setting which was a nice feature. Updates to follow.

Bill
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 621
4/7/09 at 7:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Brandon,

Thanks. I will not get much listening time till later in the week. But so far I am impressed. It was a snap to setup and the codes for the 2100 were in Harmony database so that was quite easy as well. The one thing I will have to remember is to turn the volume down when powering off the 2100. The PRe3 had a power on volume setting which was a nice feature. Updates to follow.

Bill

Take your time, sit back and enjoy it!

I am just glad that anyone that I may have persuaded to try the 2100 enjoys it

As for posting pics on here, shoot me a PM. I can help you with that or post them for you if you email them to me.

Good evening gents,

Brandon
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 621
4/9/09 at 8:28am
Thread Starter 
Brandon,

Thanks, I will PM you inregard to posting pictures.

I have spent more time listening with the 2100 and I am still very impressed. I have not been able to a direct comparison to the 885 as of yet. To do a comparison to the 885 I would have to use the Main preouts of the 2100 full range (without the sub) instead of the Hi Pass output I am using now. This way I could compare the two in full range with the 885 set in the Pure mode. I feel this would be the best way to compare them to get a apples to apples comparison.

Going of memory from my comparison of the 885 for 2 CH using a analog input and a digital input (coaxial) the 2100 has better SQ in all aspects IMO. Soundstage (height and width), imaging and midrange (vocals) are better than the 885. I also feel when using the sub with the 2100 it is not as localized as when using the sub in Stereo mode with the 885. When I get a chance I will use the Main preout of the 2100 to compare to the 885 in Pure mode. That will be the real test IMO. One feature that the 2100 has that no other preamp I have had is the 12v trigger. This is a great feature so I do not have to manually turn on my amp whenever I use the 2100.

I bought the 2100 from Audio Advisor as a open box although it looks brand new to me with the protective plastic still on the display window. I see AA still has some available on their site. Great price with a full Parasound warranty and neither the box or the 2100 were marked as "B"stock.

Bill
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 621
4/10/09 at 9:31am
Great thread, Bill. I'll be joining the owner's club real soon.

Was it you that liked the 2100 better than the Musical Fidelity A5? I can't put my finger on who it was...
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 621
4/10/09 at 1:16pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Great thread, Bill. I'll be joining the owner's club real soon.

Was it you that liked the 2100 better than the Musical Fidelity A5? I can't put my finger on who it was...

Nuance,

Thanks. I will look forward to your thoughts on the 2100 when it arrives. I looked at the MF A5 awhile back but when I found out it did not have a remote power on function I took it of my list of possible preamps. From what I have heard it is a great integrated amp but when used in a HT system it needs to have a remote power on function IMO.

I had a chance to compare the 2100 in full range with no sub to the 885 using the digital output of my Consonance CD-120 to coaxial input of the 885 (in Pure mode). I used my SPL meter to set the levels of each input as close as possible. When switching from input 1 to the HT Bypass input on the 2100 it is almost instant making a comparison very easy.

Well I am somewhat surprised that the SQ of the 2100 and the 885 are very close. My initial listening with the 2100 was with the sub and from my above post thought the 2100 was better in all aspects to the 885. This shows the importance of doing a A-B comparison as going of memory is not a proper comparison. I then connected the pre out of the 2100 to the High Pass output and turned my sub back on.

I then compared the two and found that of course there was more bass output with the 2100 but imaging and soundstage opened up ever so slightly. I have seen this mentioned a few times in reviews where speakers were tested in full range and then crossed over at say 80Hz with a sub. I can not recall the reviews but the reviewers noted the same slight SQ improvments I heard. I believe it was mentioned that the speakers are not trying to produce a full range signal enabling the speaker to focus more on the midrange and high frequencies.

My next step is to put my PS Audio DLIII back in my system between the CD-120 and the 2100. I think this will show if the DACs in the CD-120 are on a par with the DLIII. If one thing I found out besides not trusting my very flawed memory is that how impressive the SQ of the 885 is when fed a digital signal from the CD-120. I would like to add I am far from an audiophile (no golden ears here) but I give it my best when doing these comparisons.

I will post my thoughts when I add the DLIII to the mix, this will be interesting IMO.

Bill
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 621
4/10/09 at 6:13pm
When you say 885, what are you talking about? Sorry for the dumb question.

I heard that exact DAC last weekend and really liked it. In comparison to the Oppo's DAC's running directly into a Parasound 2100, the soundstage width and depth grew, and imaging tightened up. The entire sound stage moved closer a little as well, though that may have just been a slight difference in dB level.

I look forward to your results.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 621
4/10/09 at 7:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

When you say 885, what are you talking about? Sorry for the dumb question.

I heard that exact DAC last weekend and really liked it. In comparison to the Oppo's DAC's running directly into a Parasound 2100, the soundstage width and depth grew, and imaging tightened up. The entire sound stage moved closer a little as well, though that may have just been a slight difference in dB level.

I look forward to your results.

Nuance,

I am referring to the Onkyo 885 which I am using as a prepro. Hopefully over the weekend I can do a comparison with the DLIII in my system. But with it being Easter I better not push my luck. In fact I can also do a direct comparison of the 2100_CD-120 and the 2100_DLIII_CD-120.

That would be a very telling comparison as it would show how much of a difference the DLIII will make. I will be busy! Maybe when all is said and done I can sit back relax and enjoy listening to some music. I forget sometimes what I have this system for.

Bill
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 621
4/14/09 at 10:44am
So have you hooked up the PS Audio DAC for some comparisons yet?
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 621
4/14/09 at 12:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

So have you hooked up the PS Audio DAC for some comparisons yet?

I did............... when feeding the 2100 a analog feed from the Consonance CD-120 Balanced and a digital output of the CD-120 as well then to the 2100. It was hard to compare as the volume was slightly higher with the DLIII so I was trying to match volume levels, switch inputs on the 2100 and listen for any differences.

To be honest I could not tell much of a difference if any at all. But the DACs in the CD-120 are supposed to be of good quality not sure which ones they are though. When I had the Duet the difference was night and day between the DACs in the Duet and the DLIII.

Bill
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 621
4/14/09 at 1:27pm
So coming from the classic SB, the PSIII should also be a fairly noticeable improvement too I would think considering the duet is very similar?

I love my SB3 and if a seperate DAC like the PS Audio III can help, why not give it a try, right

You read so much about people who think DAC's are a waste and others feel they add quite a bit. Theres only one way to find out.......ha!

I PM'ed ya Bill.

Oh,
what difference did you notice specifically from switching between the PS DAC to the SB Duet?

Thanks!
Brandon
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 621
4/14/09 at 5:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrymaid520 View Post

Oh,
what difference did you notice specifically from switching between the PS DAC to the SB Duet?

Thanks!
Brandon

I believe the DAC in the SB3 is better than the Duet. Plus when using the analog output of the Duet the volume is much lower than the digital output. With the DLIII the SQ in all aspects was much better than the Duets analog output.

Bill
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 621
4/15/09 at 6:35am
For what it's worth, I'm taking a squeezebox duet for a "joyride." My brother purchased one and loves it, so I asked him to bring it over yesterday for a spin. In short, once you get the remote's firmware updated and initially get everything set up, it's pretty cool.

We made a comparison to the Denon CD Changer I have, which is hooked up via analog. We hooked up the sqeezebox via optical digital and there wasn't a discernible difference between the two. Tonight I will hook of the sqeezebox via analog and compare it to the Denon. It should be a good time.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 621
4/15/09 at 8:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

For what it's worth, I'm taking a squeezebox duet for a "joyride." My brother purchased one and loves it, so I asked him to bring it over yesterday for a spin. In short, once you get the remote's firmware updated and initially get everything set up, it's pretty cool.

We made a comparison to the Denon CD Changer I have, which is hooked up via analog. We hooked up the sqeezebox via optical digital and there wasn't a discernible difference between the two. Tonight I will hook of the sqeezebox via analog and compare it to the Denon. It should be a good time.

Very cool,
Let me know your thoughts.

B
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 621
4/15/09 at 8:14am
merrymaid, you may want to make a trip down to Chicago in mid May, Richard Schramm will be in town and presenting at the Chicago Audio Society meeting.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 621
5/6/09 at 4:37pm
Well, I am officially a Parasound 2100 preamp owner, so here are my impressions:

So far I've noticed a much cleaner, more transparent sound. With my receiver, in this room, I prefer to use the EQ and bump the treble up because it sounds too dead (new room - very crappy, but only temporary). With the Parasound I need not do that, as it sounds cleaner and more extended in the highs. I very much like that. Also, the sound stage changes a little bit, but only with well recorded material it seems. Still, it gains more depth and height.

The room my speakers are in flat out sucks, as it's too dead. Even if the soundstage grew a ton in width, the room is not wide and long enough to really notice (the speakers are 7.5' apart and I sit just over 8' away). I'll save that evaluation for another day and another room, but most everything else is sounding better. Bass is tighter and more impactful, while it's more bloated with my receiver.

I will be doing more evaluations later, but so far I am liking it. When listening using the receiver some material sounds pretty so so, but with the preamp I haven't been unhappy once yet. Weird... Whatever it is, I like it! For about $500-$600 it's a great piece.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 621
8/4/09 at 5:40pm
Thread Starter 
Thought I would post a quick update on the 2100 as I decided to try it once again in my system. I had Emotiva's new preamp the USP-1 in my system for a short while and decided that it was not for me. I have had a TAD TADAC tube pre/DAC in my system for about 4 months. I have enjoyed the TADAC very much but I really need a sub for 2 CH music as my Ascend Sierra-1s only go so low.

I got a "open box" 2100 from Audio Advisor for $399.00 which is one of the best deals in audio IMO. This is the second "open box" I have bought from AA and both were brand new with a full Parasound 3 year warranty. One of the issues I had with the USP-1 was that it was too bright IMO. I also feel the 2100 has a much better feature set, no bright blue lights and does not need to be powered up for the HT Bypass feature.

I took the USP-1 out of my system then installed the 2100 and fired it up to do a quick comparison of some familiar music. I would like to have done a direct comparison but it was not possible. I found with some tracks that I am very familiar with were almost unlistenable with the USP-1 due to the brightness. One track from Steely Dan, King of the World at about the 2:00 mark was a mess of sibilance from cymbal strikes that were undistingushable. I played this same track with the 2100 and found it was not as bright and there was more definition between the different cymbal strikes.

One other feature the 2100 has that the USP-1 does not is a sub level which I find to be a huge plus as the amount of bass from CD to CD can vary so much. Being able to tweak the sub level at the front panel of the 2100 is huge feature IMO. The only way to adjust the subs volume level with the USP-1 is to raise or lower the volume level at the sub. This was not good for me as the sub level on my Outlaw LFM-1 Plus is on the back panel which requires a mirror and a flashlight. Also changing the volume level and not remembering where is was is not good as far as Audyssey settings with my 886.

As far as SQ I have had limited time to listen to the 2100 since Friday but so far I like having the sub in the mix for 2 CH music. Today I decided to try something totally different and placed the TADAC back in my system solely as a DAC for my Consonace CD-120 then to input 2 of the 2100. I listened for a few hours between input 1 (CD-120 analog direct to the 2100) and input 2 (with the TADAC) switching back and forth. Not a huge difference but with the TADAC the SQ especially the midrange (vocals) and bass weight was better IMO.

I really would like a good solid 8-12 hours of listening comparing the two to get a real good feel of how the 2100 sounds with and without the TADAC in the mix. I had planned on selling the TADAC but now I might reconsider. The 2100/TADAC combo might be just the sound I am looking for.

Bill
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 621
8/4/09 at 7:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Thought I would post a quick update on the 2100 as I decided to try it once again in my system. I had Emotiva's new preamp the USP-1 in my system for a short while and decided that it was not for me. I have had a TAD TADAC tube pre/DAC in my system for about 4 months. I have enjoyed the TADAC very much but I really need a sub for 2 CH music as my Ascend Sierra-1s only go so low.

I got a "open box" 2100 from Audio Advisor for $399.00 which is one of the best deals in audio IMO. This is the second "open box" I have bought from AA and both were brand new with a full Parasound 3 year warranty. One of the issues I had with the USP-1 was that it was too bright IMO. I also feel the 2100 has a much better feature set, no bright blue lights and does not need to be powered up for the HT Bypass feature.

I took the USP-1 out of my system then installed the 2100 and fired it up to do a quick comparison of some familiar music. I would like to have done a direct comparison but it was not possible. I found with some tracks that I am very familiar with were almost unlistenable with the USP-1 due to the brightness. One track from Steely Dan, King of the World at about the 2:00 mark was a mess of sibilance from cymbal strikes that were undistingushable. I played this same track with the 2100 and found it was not as bright and there was more definition between the different cymbal strikes.

One other feature the 2100 has that the USP-1 does not is a sub level which I find to be a huge plus as the amount of bass from CD to CD can vary so much. Being able to tweak the sub level at the front panel of the 2100 is huge feature IMO. The only way to adjust the subs volume level with the USP-1 is to raise or lower the volume level at the sub. This was not good for me as the sub level on my Outlaw LFM-1 Plus is on the back panel which requires a mirror and a flashlight. Also changing the volume level and not remembering where is was is not good as far as Audyssey settings with my 886.

As far as SQ I have had limited time to listen to the 2100 since Friday but so far I like having the sub in the mix for 2 CH music. Today I decided to try something totally different and placed the TADAC back in my system solely as a DAC for my Consonace CD-120 then to input 2 of the 2100. I listened for a few hours between input 1 (CD-120 analog direct to the 2100) and input 2 (with the TADAC) switching back and forth. Not a huge difference but with the TADAC the SQ especially the midrange (vocals) and bass weight was better IMO.

I really would like a good solid 8-12 hours of listening comparing the two to get a real good feel of how the 2100 sounds with and without the TADAC in the mix. I had planned on selling the TADAC but now I might reconsider. The 2100/TADAC combo might be just the sound I am looking for.

Bill

Welcome back to the 2100 club.

I followed your posts on the Emo forum and I know everything you went through (at least everything you posted). It's very clear that Emo blew it with the USP-1. It was very difficult to stomach some of those Emo fanboys. It's funny really...

Nonetheless, I wanted to make some comments on your post. I'm a little confused by you comments regarding sound. I understand why you dumped the 2100 and just used the TADAC, but when switching back to the 2100, you would still obviously want the TADAC as the DAC providing the sound you like. It's just now the 2100 is handling the inputs, volume, and of course the sub. You can't pull the TADAC out.

This brings me to a question. You see, many of us 2100 owners really like the 2100 because it is so transparent sounding (true to the sound of the source). You now have the ability to test the TADAC alone and then with the 2100. If the sound doesn't change, then the 2100 is truly transparent. If the sound does change, then it is not. If the sound gets worse, not good. If the sound gets better, then the 2100 is a magical piece. All that said, would you be willing to put this to the test? I for one would love to know.

My one last comment to you regarding the different bass output from different CDs. Yes this is an issue, but I have found the issue is MUCH less with a sub that has been EQ'd flat in-room. You are most likely experiencing a bigger issue than really exists because your sub's FR is NOT flat. My sub is basically flat in-room, and I don't really ever feel like I want the bass turned up or down jumping from CD to CD. Something for you to think about...

I'm surprised at the sibilance issue with the USP-1. I always thought that sibilance started with the recording, was amplified by certain tweeters, and less of an issue from electronics. I did read somewhere that a preamp that has over-driven outputs can add sibilance. I don't know how true that is or isn't. Certainly a simple piece of electronics like a preamp shouldn't cause sibilance or brighten the sound. Strange...

Do yourself a favor Bill, keep that 2100 this time!
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 621
8/5/09 at 3:12am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJHUB View Post

Welcome back to the 2100 club.

I followed your posts on the Emo forum and I know everything you went through (at least everything you posted). It's very clear that Emo blew it with the USP-1. It was very difficult to stomach some of those Emo fanboys. It's funny really...

Nonetheless, I wanted to make some comments on your post. I'm a little confused by you comments regarding sound. I understand why you dumped the 2100 and just used the TADAC, but when switching back to the 2100, you would still obviously want the TADAC as the DAC providing the sound you like. It's just now the 2100 is handling the inputs, volume, and of course the sub. You can't pull the TADAC out.

This brings me to a question. You see, many of us 2100 owners really like the 2100 because it is so transparent sounding (true to the sound of the source). You now have the ability to test the TADAC alone and then with the 2100. If the sound doesn't change, then the 2100 is truly transparent. If the sound does change, then it is not. If the sound gets worse, not good. If the sound gets better, then the 2100 is a magical piece. All that said, would you be willing to put this to the test? I for one would love to know.

My one last comment to you regarding the different bass output from different CDs. Yes this is an issue, but I have found the issue is MUCH less with a sub that has been EQ'd flat in-room. You are most likely experiencing a bigger issue than really exists because your sub's FR is NOT flat. My sub is basically flat in-room, and I don't really ever feel like I want the bass turned up or down jumping from CD to CD. Something for you to think about...

I'm surprised at the sibilance issue with the USP-1. I always thought that sibilance started with the recording, was amplified by certain tweeters, and less of an issue from electronics. I did read somewhere that a preamp that has over-driven outputs can add sibilance. I don't know how true that is or isn't. Certainly a simple piece of electronics like a preamp shouldn't cause sibilance or brighten the sound. Strange...

Do yourself a favor Bill, keep that 2100 this time!

TJ,

Due to today being my wifes birthday I will keep this brief. I have always said I am far from an audiophile so some of my thoughts may not be explained properly. Basically what I did was put the TADAC back in my system as a DAC. My A-B comparison is done with the 2100 as a preamp with my CD player direct and then the same but with the TADAC between the 2100 and my CD player. I believe the SQ difference I am hearing when switching back in forth is the tube like SQ of the TADAC nothing more.

Your other point about the sub and sub level are all a matter of preference. Your post seems to have a arguementive hint to it which I am not going to get into to. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Your post reminds me of my long lost buddy Doug who would try to tell people what they hear and do not hear in their system. The sibilance issue was there in my system with the USP-1 and mentioned by others on the Emo forum. So unless you have a chance to hear the USP-1 then maybe you might try to believe those who have heard it. Something for you to think about.

It is a great time of year to come to the coast of Maine and you are more than welcome to drop in and give a listen.

Well I'm off to FedEx to return the USP-1 and get my wifes B-Day cake. Chocolate Tuxedo cake hmmmmmmm yummmmm.

Bill
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 621
8/5/09 at 6:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

TJ,

Due to today being my wifes birthday I will keep this brief. I have always said I am far from an audiophile so some of my thoughts may not be explained properly. Basically what I did was put the TADAC back in my system as a DAC. My A-B comparison is done with the 2100 as a preamp with my CD player direct and then the same but with the TADAC between the 2100 and my CD player. I believe the SQ difference I am hearing when switching back in forth is the tube like SQ of the TADAC nothing more.

Your other point about the sub and sub level are all a matter of preference. Your post seems to have a arguementive hint to it which I am not going to get into to. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Your post reminds me of my long lost buddy Doug who would try to tell people what they hear and do not hear in their system. The sibilance issue was there in my system with the USP-1 and mentioned by others on the Emo forum. So unless you have a chance to hear the USP-1 then maybe you might try to believe those who have heard it. Something for you to think about.

It is a great time of year to come to the coast of Maine and you are more than welcome to drop in and give a listen.

Well I'm off to FedEx to return the USP-1 and get my wifes B-Day cake. Chocolate Tuxedo cake hmmmmmmm yummmmm.

Bill

Sorry you took my post as argumentative, that was not my intention.

First, my point regarding your TADAC is that in order to maintain the sound you like, you'd HAVE to have keep it with your setup. Taking it out and comparing the sound of the CD player with and without the DAC confused me a bit. Maybe I'm just not following what you are trying to do. I do however understand that you are liking the TADAC between your CD player and the 2100. Makes sense to me.

As far as the sub goes, my point was that you would most likely not want to adjust the level if the sub had a flatter frequency response. This flatter frequency response can easily be achieved with some sort of EQ like a Behringer Feedback Destroyer. But that's another thread...

I am also NOT suggesting you didn't hear the sibilance you heard with the USP-1. My point was that I wasn't sure that a preamp should cause this type of issue over other more obvious components like the recording and speakers. I am saying that it is yet another big mistake on Emo's part with the USP-1. I wouldn't touch a USP-1 if it was free.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 621
8/5/09 at 6:32am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJHUB View Post

Sorry you took my post as argumentative, that was not my intention.

First, my point regarding your TADAC is that in order to maintain the sound you like, you'd HAVE to have keep it with your setup. Taking it out and comparing the sound of the CD player with and without the DAC confused me a bit. Maybe I'm just not following what you are trying to do. I do however understand that you are liking the TADAC between your CD player and the 2100. Makes sense to me.

As far as the sub goes, my point was that you would most likely not want to adjust the level if the sub had a flatter frequency response. This flatter frequency response can easily be achieved with some sort of EQ like a Behringer Feedback Destroyer. But that's another thread...

I am also NOT suggesting you didn't hear the sibilance you heard with the USP-1. My point was that I wasn't sure that a preamp should cause this type of issue over other more obvious components like the recording and speakers. I am saying that it is yet another big mistake on Emo's part with the USP-1. I wouldn't touch a USP-1 if it was free.

TJ,

Not a problem, I appreciate your thoughts. My plan was to downsize somewhat and sell the TADAC and use the DACs in my CD player. That is why I totally removed the TADAC from my system. But I have grown fond of the "tube" sound. As far as a flat response for my sub I am sure mine is not even close. I have to admit getting my sub correct has always been a mystery to me. I am a burn out from the late '70s early '80s so my mind is not as sharp as it once was. But I'm happy and that is what counts I guess.

Off to breakfast!

Bill
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 621
8/5/09 at 8:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

TJ,

Not a problem, I appreciate your thoughts. My plan was to downsize somewhat and sell the TADAC and use the DACs in my CD player. That is why I totally removed the TADAC from my system. But I have grown fond of the "tube" sound. As far as a flat response for my sub I am sure mine is not even close. I have to admit getting my sub correct has always been a mystery to me. I am a burn out from the late '70s early '80s so my mind is not as sharp as it once was. But I'm happy and that is what counts I guess.

Off to breakfast!

Bill

I get it now. If I were you, I'd hang on to the TADAC. I've read nothing but good stuff about it.

If you find time, you should definitely check into EQ'ing options for your sub. It WILL change things for the better.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 621
8/6/09 at 4:12am
Anyone having anything hooked up to the phono input?
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 621
8/6/09 at 5:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Gilvey View Post

Anyone having anything hooked up to the phono input?

Unfortunately the phono side of the 2100 make be it's weakness. I loaned my 2100 to friend that listens to a lot of vinyl and he didn't like to sound at all. He has a nice setup now with a tube pre-preamp, but he said the phono sound through the 2100 was thin and lifeless. I trust his opinion, as he does have good ears, but I was not there for the audition.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 2 Channel Audio

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › Parasound Model 2100 preamp owners thread