Only one set of preouts, need to work sub in somehow

[postjack]

Hey all-

So I need some advice. My pre (99) only has one set of preouts which is currently running to my power (909), and I need to get my sub back in the system somehow. At first I was running the power with the Quadlink and the sub with the regular preout, but the Quadlink really does sound as bad as everyone says it does, so thats not an option. The sub can be run with either interconnects or speaker wire, and it has outs for both. So this leaves me with three options:

1. Use a Y-splitter from the pre. For some reason this feels like a bad idea, feels like it would degrade the signal. Anyone ever done this?

2. Run interconnects to the sub and then from the sub back to the power. The sub is about 7 feet away from the power, so that would be about 14 ft of interconnects (blue jeans lc-1).

3. Run speaker wire to the sub and then back to the speakers. This would end up being quite a lot of speaker wire from the power through the sub to the speakers, I haven't added it up but I'm thinking 20 or 25 feet. Currently the sub is behind me, so it is possible I could move it behind the speakers which might cut down on the speaker wire length a bit.

Thoughts? Thanks.

[Voltron]

Werks gud

[postjack]

Werks gud

awesome, thinks makes it east. thanks al.

[postjack]

awesome, thinks makes it east. thanks al.

i was going to edit this, but for an iPhone typo it seems profound.

correction: this makes it easy.

[n_maher]

[AlanY]

Assuming it's a solid state preamp (and this will work for many tube preamps as well), a y-splitter like other posters have suggested is your best option. It won't degrade the sounds because preamps are built for low output impedance and to drive relatively long lengths of cable.

[Hopstretch]

Just out of interest, would a similar setup work to run, say, a headamp and powered monitors off a single pre? I might be looking to do that some day.

[Dusty Chalk]

Splitting should be fine depending on the impedances of the pre-outs, power-in, and sub-in (or headamp and powered monitors in the case of Hopstretch). Try it, worst you can get (in your specific case) is deteriorated sound.

[postjack]

picked up some cheap y-splitters from Radio Shack tonight and they work wonderfully. i love my sub so much, i don't think i'll ever have a two channel system without a sub.

[guzziguy]

picked up some cheap y-splitters from Radio Shack tonight and they work wonderfully. i love my sub so much, i don't think i'll ever have a two channel system without a sub.

At some point as you age, you'll only need the sub.

[postjack]

At some point as you age, you'll only need the sub.

i should just get ahead of the game and sell my speakers to by another sub. then i'll have two subs!

[The Monkey]

Maybe something like this?

[Voltron]

Dew eet monkey boy!

[Duggeh]

Quadlink is a balanced interconnect so my assumption at peoples complaints about it stem from a crappy single-ended -> balanced -> single ended process.

[postjack]

Quadlink is a balanced interconnect so my assumption at peoples complaints about it stem from a crappy single-ended -> balanced -> single ended process.

To be fair, there are two things that could have caused my negative impression of the quadlink:

1) I was indeed running regular interconnects from the CDP-2 to the 99, then Quadlink to the 909, as Duggeh notes above.

2) The 909 truly hadn't had the time to warm up. I noticed improvements day after day for as long as a week after I turned it on.

So how about this: next week if I find the time, I'll run an all Quadlink setup and compare it to my all RCA setup.

Duggeh, do you know anything about the guy in Italy who makes/made custom Quadlink cables? I've heard of him but never found a website or other contact info.

[Duggeh]

Never heard of the chap. It shouldn't be difficult to make one though, if the D-Sub connectors are a stock part.

The single ended-balanced process I referred to is the internal one behind the quadlink connector, rather than the way your rig was set up. Poor phase splitters or something.

[TheSloth]

I never found Quadlink to be so bad. I'd give it a chance - it would solve your problem.

[TheSloth]

I never found Quadlink to be so bad. I'd give it a chance - it would solve your problem. But you should run it throughout the system or not at all.

[postjack]

The single ended-balanced process I referred to is the internal one behind the quadlink connector, rather than the way your rig was set up. Poor phase splitters or something.

ah, right on.

I never found Quadlink to be so bad. I'd give it a chance - it would solve your problem. But you should run it throughout the system or not at all.

will do. problem is pretty much solved with the Y-splitters though. it would be nice to control my whole system with the one remote though.

[Duggeh]

Is there not the option of using both connectors such that the audio signal utilises the RCA connectors and the system control integration remains active?

[postjack]

Is there not the option of using both connectors such that the audio signal utilises the RCA connectors and the system control integration remains active?

geez, you are probably right, as far as the CDP-2 and 99 go, as I can just keep AUX1 as the input. but i don't think you can select outputs, so the 909 would be received inputs from both the 99 rca and quadlink out, which i imagine would be a bad thing.

[Duggeh]

I am sure that I read somewhere (I've read a multitude of stuff on this gear range, I've been glassey eyed for it for years now) that simultanious connection of the Quadlink and the RCA to the 909 results in trumps for the RCA. I'll try to source that.

[postjack]

I am sure that I read somewhere (I've read a multitude of stuff on this gear range, I've been glassey eyed for it for years now) that simultanious connection of the Quadlink and the RCA to the 909 results in trumps for the RCA. I'll try to source that.

word.

[Duggeh]

->

Interestingly, the Quads will default to single ended cable connection even when the QuadLink is left plugged in. This way you can use the 99's remote to turn off the 909 as well. But what this also did was show me how much better audiophile cables sound than the supplied QuadLink; one of my single ended connections became loose, and the left channel defaulted to the QuadLink. The sound stage deflated in size and nearly drove me crazy until I could figure out what happened.

Quad themselves believe in the superiority of the Quadlink bus, but the fact that it originated in the system developed by the company after Peter Walker was gone should ring a little warning bell.

[TheSloth]

I am sure that I read somewhere (I've read a multitude of stuff on this gear range, I've been glassey eyed for it for years now) that simultanious connection of the Quadlink and the RCA to the 909 results in trumps for the RCA. I'll try to source that.

Doesn't the 909 have an input switch on the back to allow it to select either RCA, or Quadlink channels 1/2, 3/4 or 5/6 for use in home cinema. The 99 certainly does...

Edit: just looked through the pictures - the 99 has this feature but the 909 doesn't, which strikes me as a bit odd...

Edit: gratuitous Quad shot from days gone by... Looks like it should have sounded awful in that setup but it was pretty sublime...