2. amps-preamps
  3. 1330385942

Amp for lightspeed attenuator? = $1000 used

I recently bought a lightspeed attenuator from the classifieds. It's very clear. However, my current amp has an input impedance of about 10K and the lightspeed recs seem much higher than that. I'm curious how much difference there is if I do what I'm supposed to.

Does anyone have recs for 2-channel (or monoblock) amps that are known to play nice with this passive? Ideally $1000 or less used.

Thanks!
dddrrreee
dddrrreee OP
38 posts
 
George: the burson 160 is still for sale. Would that work as well as the 100?

http://www.frontendaudio.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=9999-11288&click=18920
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 
Dddrrreee: trouble is the xdac is a tube ouput stage buffer you will be back in the same boat trying to drive your 10k amp and ?k two times active subs from it. It needs to be a solid state buffer. with 100ohms or less output impedance.

Cheers George
dddrrreee OP
38 posts
 
Thanks George. Since you recommended the burson-100, did you have any thoughts on the burson ab-160? The specs look as you suggest:

http://www.partsconnexion.com/burson/ab-160.html

Input impedance: 500 KOhms
Frequency response: 1Hz (-0.3dB) to 35 kHz (-1dB)
Signal to noise ratio: >120dB at 0dB gain
Output impedance: line out 15 Ohms @ line level
Power dissipation: >10W, internal, regulated power supply
Maximum Output Voltage :12VRMS
Maximum Input Voltage: 6VRMS
wilsynet's avatar
wilsynet
264 posts
 
Yes, the Burson AB-160 will work just as well. It's just the newer (and ostensibly better) version of the old Burson 100 buffer.
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 
Dddrrreee: Trouble is I think the 160 has a lot of gain, and a volume control that has to be bridged out so the Lightspeed can shine through, the whole reason is not to have contacts (volume pots)in the signal path. The 100 is better if you can get them to make one or a kit.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/burson/buffer.html

Cheers George
More to discover