Dgaylin,
If you're looking to maintain the "purity" of the main signal path,
what are your choices?
I can pretty much assure you that the high pass in the NHT is less audible
(and much more flexible) than the high pass in the SMS-1 as I have
extensively A-B'd the two. The Velo ain't terrible, but I knew it was there.
Also, the added flexibility of the NHT allowed for a better crossover function,
as I can high pass at my chosen turnover frequency and steeper slope than
the SMS allows. So, what can you do?
1) Use the active x-over of your choice (you might be more comfortable re:
transparency in the main path with Bryston or Marchand, but there's the $
issue) or
2) Run the Curves full range, bypassing the DD's high pass and try to
"snug up" the DD from below, using only it's internal high cut
filter. You might get a good x-over function, but you've blown the
opportunity to maximize the benefit of the DRC.
My point is: Cable adaptors won't improve "purity" in the main
path (DD's high cut ain't great) unless you forgo DRC (low x-over point). If
your question is: "Is DRC worth some slight (in my case, inaudible to me)
degradation of the main signal path?", my answer would be "Without
Question, Yes, Yes, Yes"
OTOH, YMMV.
Marty
If you're looking to maintain the "purity" of the main signal path,
what are your choices?
I can pretty much assure you that the high pass in the NHT is less audible
(and much more flexible) than the high pass in the SMS-1 as I have
extensively A-B'd the two. The Velo ain't terrible, but I knew it was there.
Also, the added flexibility of the NHT allowed for a better crossover function,
as I can high pass at my chosen turnover frequency and steeper slope than
the SMS allows. So, what can you do?
1) Use the active x-over of your choice (you might be more comfortable re:
transparency in the main path with Bryston or Marchand, but there's the $
issue) or
2) Run the Curves full range, bypassing the DD's high pass and try to
"snug up" the DD from below, using only it's internal high cut
filter. You might get a good x-over function, but you've blown the
opportunity to maximize the benefit of the DRC.
My point is: Cable adaptors won't improve "purity" in the main
path (DD's high cut ain't great) unless you forgo DRC (low x-over point). If
your question is: "Is DRC worth some slight (in my case, inaudible to me)
degradation of the main signal path?", my answer would be "Without
Question, Yes, Yes, Yes"
OTOH, YMMV.
Marty