Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does sound quality mean high cost?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 8:42:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hi

I have been following this newsgroup for some time now and have even dared
to post a topic or two. It makes for interesting reading, except for the
highly technical information that I skip over and read the writer's
conclusion.

One thing that has become rather difficult for me to fathom is the issue of
sound quality and cost. This newsgroup is a high-end audio newsgroup.
Needless to say, usually high-end translates into high cost for the most
part. Looking at people owning Thiel,Mark Levinson, Wadia, Krell, (large)
B&W's etc. shows that for the most part, sound quality =high cost.

However, there is a large component of posts that tend to state the
opposite. I will leave the cable debate alone for now, but there have been a
lot of posts , especially about CD players that tend to imply that one does
not have to buy these very expensive players to achieve great sound.
Amplifiers are also talked about this way, but to a lesser extent. It
appears from the posts here that perhaps the quality here has plateued. It
appears that only loudspeakers do not appear to be affected as much by this
(as far as I can see, anyway) and that for the most part you have to spend
the bigger buck for the better sound as far as loudspeakers are concerned.

This has created the following questions for me:

1) Is it reasonable to assume that it is therefore better to buy a "budget"
CD player and amplifier and spend proprtionately more on the speakers?

2) Everyone here has a lot of information about "budget" type CD players and
amplifiers and how good they can sound, but it appears (and I may be wrong)
that a lot of people here actually own high end equipment. Does it mean that
audiophiles (including review magazines) have different meanings for words
like "great", "detailed", "harmonically accurate" , etc. when reviewing
high-end vs. less costly equipment?

3) Would anyone be interested in putting together their ideal amplifier/CD
player/loudspeaker combinations for a total of, say, $5000, $10 000 and $20
000? These three systems would surely rate as relatively inexpensive
compared to some of the names mentioned higher up in this post.

Cheers

Pete.

Peace.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 4:45:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Here's a very good inexpersive system, all used:

ARC SP9 MKII 800
C-J MV55 1200
Meridian 508.24 1500
B&W CDM 1SE 900
Rega Turntable 600

Total: 5000
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 8:30:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 27 Nov 2004 17:42:42 GMT, "Pete AF" <mukhp@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi
>
>I have been following this newsgroup for some time now and have even dared
>to post a topic or two. It makes for interesting reading, except for the
>highly technical information that I skip over and read the writer's
>conclusion.
>
>One thing that has become rather difficult for me to fathom is the issue of
>sound quality and cost. This newsgroup is a high-end audio newsgroup.
>Needless to say, usually high-end translates into high cost for the most
>part. Looking at people owning Thiel,Mark Levinson, Wadia, Krell, (large)
>B&W's etc. shows that for the most part, sound quality =high cost.
>
>However, there is a large component of posts that tend to state the
>opposite. I will leave the cable debate alone for now, but there have been a
>lot of posts , especially about CD players that tend to imply that one does
>not have to buy these very expensive players to achieve great sound.
>Amplifiers are also talked about this way, but to a lesser extent. It
>appears from the posts here that perhaps the quality here has plateued. It
>appears that only loudspeakers do not appear to be affected as much by this
>(as far as I can see, anyway) and that for the most part you have to spend
>the bigger buck for the better sound as far as loudspeakers are concerned.
>
>This has created the following questions for me:
>
>1) Is it reasonable to assume that it is therefore better to buy a "budget"
>CD player and amplifier and spend proprtionately more on the speakers?

Yes.

>2) Everyone here has a lot of information about "budget" type CD players and
>amplifiers and how good they can sound, but it appears (and I may be wrong)
>that a lot of people here actually own high end equipment. Does it mean that
>audiophiles (including review magazines) have different meanings for words
>like "great", "detailed", "harmonically accurate" , etc. when reviewing
>high-end vs. less costly equipment?

No, although it may mean that there are other realities to be
addressed. I have Apogee Duetta Signature speakers, which are of low
sensitivity and 3-ohm impedance. I use a Krell amplifier to drive
them, as I have not found any other which will handle this load
without complaint.

OTOH, the system is fronted by a six year old £250 Sony CDP-715E CD
player, which sounds as good as anything else I've had in the system.

>3) Would anyone be interested in putting together their ideal amplifier/CD
>player/loudspeaker combinations for a total of, say, $5000, $10 000 and $20
>000? These three systems would surely rate as relatively inexpensive
>compared to some of the names mentioned higher up in this post.

See above for $10,000, although you can't buy the speaker new. Hit
eBay however, and you'd put that together for $5,000. At $20,000, I'd
probably recommend the Pioneer DV-59i universal player, the Pioneer
VSX-59TXi receiver (yes, really!), and a full set of 7 B&W N804s with
an ASW 650 sub.

An alternative at $5,000 would be the same Pioneer player, the Arcam
A85 amplifier, and a pair of the best $3,000 speakers you can find -
that's *way* too big an address to be recommending particular
speakers!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Related resources
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 8:39:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Pete AF" <mukhp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:coaeai013r@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> 1) Is it reasonable to assume that it is therefore better to buy a
"budget"
> CD player and amplifier and spend proprtionately more on the
speakers?

No.

> 2) Everyone here has a lot of information about "budget" type CD
players and
> amplifiers and how good they can sound, but it appears (and I may be
wrong)
> that a lot of people here actually own high end equipment. Does it
mean that
> audiophiles (including review magazines) have different meanings for
words
> like "great", "detailed", "harmonically accurate" , etc. when
reviewing
> high-end vs. less costly equipment?

No. These terms have the same meaning no matter the price of the
equipment. It just so happens that high end magazines choose not to
use those terms for less costly equipment. Keep in mind that such
magazines must serve 2 masters: The reader and the advertiser. Of
the 2, the advertiser can affect the magazine's bottom line more
directly--and more quickly.

> 3) Would anyone be interested in putting together their ideal
amplifier/CD
> player/loudspeaker combinations for a total of, say, $5000, $10 000
and $20
> 000? These three systems would surely rate as relatively inexpensive
> compared to some of the names mentioned higher up in this post.

I'm sure many regulars on this newsgroup would be more than happy to
do so, but I'm not one of them. Although music is an important part
of my life, I wouldn't spend even the lower of your suggested amounts
on what is essentially a CD player. Indeed, if you were presented
with 3 carefully chosen systems--one in each of your price
categories--I doubt that you could rank order them any better than
chance if you had to do it by sound quality alone.

Norm Strong
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 2:49:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Yes and no.

It's more accurate to say that you can't get good quality cheap.

High cost is a relative term.

Decent modern designs, carefully chosen, should furnish you with quite a
pleasant system suitable for the average home for around £1000 - 2000. Excluding
vinyl bits. Depending on your view they're either worth an extra £100 or £5000.

If you want bells and whistles and a *famous name* on the panel expect to be
fleeced. Totally taken to the cleaners in fact. And told all manner of bullshit
to make the pill possible to swallow.


Graham
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 4:18:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <coaeai013r@news1.newsguy.com>, mukhp@hotmail.com says...
>
> 1) Is it reasonable to assume that it is therefore better to buy a "budget"
> CD player and amplifier and spend proprtionately more on the speakers?
>
Pete,

I tend to agree with the above statement. That is, I would spend
proportionally more on the speakers than on any other part of the audio
chain. I too tend to feel that differences in amplifiers and CD
players (generally and relatively speaking) tend to be very minor thus
one can get by with lower cost equipment in this area.

One thing that many people overlook is room treatment. Regardless of
how much you spend on any part of your system, if your acoustics aren't
right, you won't be obtaining nearly the sound quality your system is
capable of delivering. As far as I'm concern, room acoustics are every
bit as large a factor as the speakers themselves. So keep a bit of
your budget in reserve for possible room treatments. Bass frequencies
are usually the most problematic to deal with.

Chris
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 4:20:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 11/28/04 12:39 PM, in article cod2gm02g1b@news3.newsguy.com,
"normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:

>> 3) Would anyone be interested in putting together their ideal
> amplifier/CD
>> player/loudspeaker combinations for a total of, say, $5000, $10 000
> and $20
>> 000? These three systems would surely rate as relatively inexpensive
>> compared to some of the names mentioned higher up in this post.
>
> I'm sure many regulars on this newsgroup would be more than happy to
> do so, but I'm not one of them. Although music is an important part
> of my life, I wouldn't spend even the lower of your suggested amounts
> on what is essentially a CD player. Indeed, if you were presented
> with 3 carefully chosen systems--one in each of your price
> categories--I doubt that you could rank order them any better than
> chance if you had to do it by sound quality alone.

Also, I think above a certain price point the engineering suffers - at least
with other technologies it does. "Cost no object" systems may end up with
over engineered medoicre equipment.

I think it is best to assemble a system with as modest a budget as you can
and still find something musically (or visually in the case of video)
satisfying.

The tradeoffs one is willing to make is as much a matter of taste as
anything else - so I find myself very uncomfortably agreeing with Norman on
this one.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 4:20:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 11/28/04 6:49 PM, in article codo5j0u1u@news1.newsguy.com, "Pooh Bear"
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yes and no.
>
> It's more accurate to say that you can't get good quality cheap.
>
> High cost is a relative term.
>
> Decent modern designs, carefully chosen, should furnish you with quite a
> pleasant system suitable for the average home for around £1000 - 2000.
> Excluding
> vinyl bits. Depending on your view they're either worth an extra £100 or
> £5000.
>
> If you want bells and whistles and a *famous name* on the panel expect to be
> fleeced. Totally taken to the cleaners in fact. And told all manner of
> bullshit
> to make the pill possible to swallow.

Depends upon the famous name you are after: If it is Arcam, NAD. Marantz or
Cambridge Audio you are unlikely to get "fleeced" - though you certianly
will pay incrementally more than with the low end of any Japanese lines.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:13:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 11/28/04 8:18 PM, in article codtdn0141l@news1.newsguy.com, "Chris
Kantack" <nospampls@earthlink.net> wrote:

> One thing that many people overlook is room treatment. Regardless of
> how much you spend on any part of your system, if your acoustics aren't
> right, you won't be obtaining nearly the sound quality your system is
> capable of delivering. As far as I'm concern, room acoustics are every
> bit as large a factor as the speakers themselves. So keep a bit of
> your budget in reserve for possible room treatments. Bass frequencies
> are usually the most problematic to deal with.

If you have less than perfect gear, and a great room, it generally will
sound better than with primo gear and a poorly treated room.

As far as bang for buck I have found that speakers are far and away #1, then
I tend to find that one or more good sources (such as a moderately priced CD
player, or DVD player and/or a decent turntable depending upon the variety
of source material you have at your disposal) will be the next, then the
preamp/amp part as a modertaly distant third. If you have poor speakers,
won't matter one whit what you have feeding into them. Only with better
speakers have I been able to tell the differences between CD players,
actually.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:19:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Pete AF" <mukhp@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<coaeai013r@news1.newsguy.com>...
> Hi
>
> I have been following this newsgroup for some time now and have even dared
> to post a topic or two. It makes for interesting reading, except for the
> highly technical information that I skip over and read the writer's
> conclusion.

I can relate. (Although I've learned an awful lot by slogging through
some of that technical stuff.)
>
> One thing that has become rather difficult for me to fathom is the issue of
> sound quality and cost. This newsgroup is a high-end audio newsgroup.
> Needless to say, usually high-end translates into high cost for the most
> part. Looking at people owning Thiel,Mark Levinson, Wadia, Krell, (large)
> B&W's etc. shows that for the most part, sound quality =high cost.
>
> However, there is a large component of posts that tend to state the
> opposite. I will leave the cable debate alone for now, but there have been a
> lot of posts , especially about CD players that tend to imply that one does
> not have to buy these very expensive players to achieve great sound.
> Amplifiers are also talked about this way, but to a lesser extent. It
> appears from the posts here that perhaps the quality here has plateued. It
> appears that only loudspeakers do not appear to be affected as much by this
> (as far as I can see, anyway) and that for the most part you have to spend
> the bigger buck for the better sound as far as loudspeakers are concerned.

As your budget increases, you can afford components that are
electrically superior--lower distortion, more power, etc. Whether
those electrical improvements are acoustically significant, however,
is where the debate lies. There's some threshold below which any
difference is inaudible to humans. We don't know exactly where those
thresholds are, but available evidence suggests that we are less
sensitive to sonic differences than many "high-enders" would like to
admit.
>
> This has created the following questions for me:
>
> 1) Is it reasonable to assume that it is therefore better to buy a "budget"
> CD player and amplifier and spend proprtionately more on the speakers?

I'd say so, so long as you aren't underpowering your speakers.
>
> 2) Everyone here has a lot of information about "budget" type CD players and
> amplifiers and how good they can sound, but it appears (and I may be wrong)
> that a lot of people here actually own high end equipment. Does it mean that
> audiophiles (including review magazines) have different meanings for words
> like "great", "detailed", "harmonically accurate" , etc. when reviewing
> high-end vs. less costly equipment?

Certainly, everybody has different definitions--but what that really
means is that the terms are pretty much meaningless, at least as a
means of communicating with others.

As for why some here own very expensive equipment, it varies. Some
really believe the expensive stuff sounds better. Some doubt this but
want that extra margin just in case. Some just like having
cool-looking equipment around. There are as many reasons to spend big
bucks on audio as there are audiophiles.
>
> 3) Would anyone be interested in putting together their ideal amplifier/CD
> player/loudspeaker combinations for a total of, say, $5000, $10 000 and $20
> 000? These three systems would surely rate as relatively inexpensive
> compared to some of the names mentioned higher up in this post.
>
Hah! A $5000 system is what I aspire to. I'll let you know when I get
it. The only thing I'll throw in here is that I suspect the return to
scale actually vanishes somewhere in the range of $10K for a basic
system (optical disk reader/amplification/two speakers) used in a
typical domestic environment. There are things you could do to a more
expensive system to make it sound different, but you could do much the
same thing to less expensive systems. Of course, there are people here
for whom $10K would be a starter system. To each his own.

bob
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:03:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:

> On 11/28/04 6:49 PM, in article codo5j0u1u@news1.newsguy.com, "Pooh Bear"
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes and no.
> >
> > It's more accurate to say that you can't get good quality cheap.
> >
> > High cost is a relative term.
> >
> > Decent modern designs, carefully chosen, should furnish you with quite a
> > pleasant system suitable for the average home for around £1000 - 2000.
> > Excluding
> > vinyl bits. Depending on your view they're either worth an extra £100 or
> > £5000.
> >
> > If you want bells and whistles and a *famous name* on the panel expect to be
> > fleeced. Totally taken to the cleaners in fact. And told all manner of
> > bullshit
> > to make the pill possible to swallow.
>
> Depends upon the famous name you are after: If it is Arcam, NAD. Marantz or
> Cambridge Audio you are unlikely to get "fleeced" - though you certianly
> will pay incrementally more than with the low end of any Japanese lines.

I was thinking 'famous name' in terms of companies based upon their owners' egos
really.

Damn nearly ended up working for NAD once btw ( long time back ). Later, Quad said
I was 'too young' to be their technical director ! Speaks volumes.


Graham
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:04:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Pete AF" <mukhp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:coaeai013r@news1.newsguy.com...
> Hi
>
> I have been following this newsgroup for some time now and have even dared
> to post a topic or two. It makes for interesting reading, except for the
> highly technical information that I skip over and read the writer's
> conclusion.
>
> One thing that has become rather difficult for me to fathom is the issue
> of sound quality and cost. This newsgroup is a high-end audio newsgroup.
> Needless to say, usually high-end translates into high cost for the most
> part. Looking at people owning Thiel,Mark Levinson, Wadia, Krell, (large)
> B&W's etc. shows that for the most part, sound quality =high cost.
>
As regards speakers, it is almost aciomatic that more expensive can
translate into better sound. Up to a point. There are some speakers like
Wilson Audio, that are overbuilt and I know for example, they have a$10,000
12" subwoofer that won't outperform subs for 1/10th the price from people
like Hsu, and Adire.

For electronics high price doesn't usually seem to translate into better
sound, at least as can demonstrated in double blind listening comparisons.
It will give you more features and probably pride of ownership. Indeed, if
youown a Krell amp, you can be sure that it will perform perfectly and be
built like a tank. There is no guarantee that it will sound superior to a
similar device from Ymaha, Denon, QSC or many other manufacturers.


> However, there is a large component of posts that tend to state the
> opposite. I will leave the cable debate alone for now, but there have been
> a lot of posts , especially about CD players that tend to imply that one
> does not have to buy these very expensive players to achieve great sound.

There's a good reason for that.

> Amplifiers are also talked about this way, but to a lesser extent. It
> appears from the posts here that perhaps the quality here has plateued.

Long ago.

It
> appears that only loudspeakers do not appear to be affected as much by
> this (as far as I can see, anyway) and that for the most part you have to
> spend the bigger buck for the better sound as far as loudspeakers are
> concerned.
>
They will continue to be the weakest link in the audio chain, for a number
of reasons. They are placed into rooms with different acoustic properties,
and they have teh moving parts that transform bits or current into sound
pressure.

Materials can affect the way they work and the way they sound.
The kind and amount of furniture you have affects their performance.
The size of the room and it's shape affect their performance.

The electronics have to deliver a signal, the speakers have to prodcuce
sound.

> This has created the following questions for me:
>
> 1) Is it reasonable to assume that it is therefore better to buy a
> "budget" CD player and amplifier and spend proprtionately more on the
> speakers?
>
> 2) Everyone here has a lot of information about "budget" type CD players
> and amplifiers and how good they can sound, but it appears (and I may be
> wrong) that a lot of people here actually own high end equipment. Does it
> mean that audiophiles (including review magazines) have different meanings
> for words like "great", "detailed", "harmonically accurate" , etc. when
> reviewing high-end vs. less costly equipment?
>
> 3) Would anyone be interested in putting together their ideal
> amplifier/CD player/loudspeaker combinations for a total of, say, $5000,
> $10 000 and $20 000? These three systems would surely rate as relatively
> inexpensive compared to some of the names mentioned higher up in this
> post.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pete.
>
> Peace.
>
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:15:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2004 17:42:42 GMT, "Pete AF" <mukhp@hotmail.com> wrote:

> See above for $10,000, although you can't buy the speaker new. Hit
> eBay however, and you'd put that together for $5,000. At $20,000, I'd
> probably recommend the Pioneer DV-59i universal player, the Pioneer
> VSX-59TXi receiver (yes, really!),

or, for about $700 less, the VSX-56TXi.

(mine's arriving in a few days)
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:20:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Loudspeakers: JM Labs Cobalt 806s plus good stands $1100.00
Subwoofer(optional) $ 600.00
Adcom Amp150W,tuner,and CD Changer $1800.00
Cables Audioquest $ 200.00
FM Antenna(external)and Install $ 300.00
Surge Protector(s) $ 100.00
This would be my minimum recommendation and the most I could afford.
I like the variety of a tuner and listen to a lot of jazz radio. If you
have a computer, you could substitute an IPOD for the CD Changer, but
record to IPOD in .aiff format only. Buy at least 20G model.

Pete AF wrote:
>Hi
>
>I have been following this newsgroup for some time now and have even
>dared to post a topic or two. It makes for interesting reading, except
>for the highly technical information that I skip over and read the
>writer's conclusion.
>
>One thing that has become rather difficult for me to fathom is the issue
>of sound quality and cost. This newsgroup is a high-end audio
>newsgroup. Needless to say, usually high-end translates into high cost
>for the most part. Looking at people owning Thiel,Mark Levinson, Wadia,
>Krell, (large) B&W's etc. shows that for the most part, sound quality
>=high cost.
>
>However, there is a large component of posts that tend to state the
>opposite. I will leave the cable debate alone for now, but there have
>been a lot of posts , especially about CD players that tend to imply
>that one does not have to buy these very expensive players to achieve
>great sound. Amplifiers are also talked about this way, but to a lesser
>extent. It appears from the posts here that perhaps the quality here has
>plateued. It appears that only loudspeakers do not appear to be affected
>as much by this (as far as I can see, anyway) and that for the most part
>you have to spend the bigger buck for the better sound as far as
>loudspeakers are concerned.
>
>This has created the following questions for me:
>
>1) Is it reasonable to assume that it is therefore better to buy a
>"budget" CD player and amplifier and spend proprtionately more on the
>speakers?
>
>2) Everyone here has a lot of information about "budget" type CD players
>and amplifiers and how good they can sound, but it appears (and I may be
>wrong) that a lot of people here actually own high end equipment. Does
>it mean that audiophiles (including review magazines) have different
>meanings for words like "great", "detailed", "harmonically accurate" ,
>etc. when reviewing high-end vs. less costly equipment?
>
>3) Would anyone be interested in putting together their ideal
>amplifier/CD player/loudspeaker combinations for a total of, say, $5000,
>$10 000 and $20 000? These three systems would surely rate as relatively
>inexpensive compared to some of the names mentioned higher up in this post.
>
>Cheers
>
>Pete.
>
>Peace.
>
>
>
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 7:45:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Pete AF wrote:

> 3) Would anyone be interested in putting together their ideal
> amplifier/CD player/loudspeaker combinations for a total of, say, $5000,
> $10 000 and $20 000? These three systems would surely rate as relatively
> inexpensive compared to some of the names mentioned higher up in this post.

Room placement and choice of material are of great importance.
If all you listen to is New Age music, then get a boom box.
If you're listening to acoustic music and voices, then faithful
reproduction will require good room placement.

As for budget, you can get some very enjoyable sound in careful
buying of used gear. $1500 will get you something you can listen
to all night. But if you've got $10k or even $20k to spend, then
I'd strongly recommend you look at the Linkwitz Orion loudspeaker
system. I got into a pair of these things this year and have
just fallen in love.

You can buy plans and build it yourself from scratch, or you can
purchase a complete system. A full DIY setup could possibly be
as cheap as about $2500 and the pre-built, plug-it-in-and-listen
setup is about $7000. That includes your power amp setup.

I have about $4000 into my own setup.

I've been an audiophile since the Nixon administration and I've
not heard anything better than the Linkwitz Orion. $7000 is a
lot of money, but you can easily spend 2 to 10 times that much
for speakers these days, but only God knows why when you can
hear what the Orions can do. Point your web browser at:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/orion_challenge.htm

Russ
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 8:11:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:
> Pete AF wrote:

> > 3) Would anyone be interested in putting together their ideal
> > amplifier/CD player/loudspeaker combinations for a total of, say, $5000,
> > $10 000 and $20 000? These three systems would surely rate as relatively
> > inexpensive compared to some of the names mentioned higher up in this post.

> Room placement and choice of material are of great importance.
> If all you listen to is New Age music, then get a boom box.
> If you're listening to acoustic music and voices, then faithful
> reproduction will require good room placement.

New Age music not infrequently features acoustic instruments and
vocalizing.

(and reverb)
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:34:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote:



>Hah! A $5000 system is what I aspire to. I'll let you know when I get
>it. The only thing I'll throw in here is that I suspect the return to
>scale actually vanishes somewhere in the range of $10K for a basic
>system (optical disk reader/amplification/two speakers) used in a
>typical domestic environment. There are things you could do to a more
>expensive system to make it sound different, but you could do much the
>same thing to less expensive systems. Of course, there are people here
>for whom $10K would be a starter system. To each his own.
>
>bob

Try this. A pair Paradign Reference 40s (L/R) a pair of Reference 20s (L/R
surround), a pair of Reference 20s (Center + extra), a PW2200 Subwoofer, a
Pioneer Universal DVD Player and a Pioneer 5 X 100 watt receiver all for $4200
MSRP.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:04:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Room placement and choice of material are of great importance.
>>If all you listen to is New Age music, then get a boom box.
>>If you're listening to acoustic music and voices, then faithful
>>reproduction will require good room placement.
>
>
> New Age music not infrequently features acoustic instruments and
> vocalizing.
>
> (and reverb)

True enough. But then when New Age music is played backwards,
it sounds like New Age music. So if that's what someone listens
to, accuracy in sound reproduction probably isn't paramount. A
boombox will do just fine.

Russ
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:08:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Thanks for all the advice. Interesting opinions all along. I have
therefore decided the following:

I shall keep my NAD C370.
I shall perhaps upgrade my NAD c512, simply because of the display not
working and also, someone suggested before I use the digital out and play
it through a Benchmark DAC. I thought about this, but I am not certain what
I would do once the CD player conks out. So I may just use the potential
US$900 for the DAC and invest in a new CD player, now that it appears that
I don't have to purchase the most expensive player on the planet.

As far as my speakers are concerned, the B&W 603 S3's have been a treat,
but I have been looking at the bigger B&W's for a while now. The new 700
series as well as the 804's look really nice. I think the C370 has enough
jam for them.

More so, some of these posts have cleared up some of the fluff for me. As
for the room, I am moving into a new place tomorrow and it has a whole
basement just for me!

Thanks

Pete
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:09:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message news:<coisgo02ar4@news4.newsguy.com>...

> Try this. A pair Paradign Reference 40s (L/R) a pair of Reference 20s (L/R
> surround), a pair of Reference 20s (Center + extra), a PW2200 Subwoofer, a
> Pioneer Universal DVD Player and a Pioneer 5 X 100 watt receiver all for $4200
> MSRP.

That's certainly taking "budget CD player and amplifier" to extremes.
Based on prices in the latest S&V directory, the speakers alone would
eat up more than $3700 of that $4200 budget (mitigated somewhat if you
could find a buyer for that spare 20). One question: How much power
could that receiver (VSX-D514) really deliver to all five channels?
Surely not anywhere near 100 watts/channel.

bob
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:10:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Pete AF" <mukhp@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<coaeai013r@news1.newsguy.com>...
> Hi

> 1) Is it reasonable to assume that it is therefore better to buy a "budget"
> CD player and amplifier and spend proprtionately more on the speakers?

Possibly yes. Even better would be to buy a used high-end player, usch
as the Sony 707, for example.

> 2) Everyone here has a lot of information about "budget" type CD players and
> amplifiers and how good they can sound, but it appears (and I may be wrong)
> that a lot of people here actually own high end equipment. Does it mean that
> audiophiles (including review magazines) have different meanings for words
> like "great", "detailed", "harmonically accurate" , etc. when reviewing
> high-end vs. less costly equipment?

"High-end" does mean high cost, but not all high-cost items are
proportionally better than more moderately-priced items. For amps and
speakers, for instance, higher cost can get you more power and volume
capability, not necessarily better sound.

In other words, for a given price (say $2000) you may find a low-power
high-end amplifier or a high-power mid-line amp. Same with speakers.
For a given price point, you may get a bigger box with more
power-handling capability and so-so sound, or a highly-refined model
with much less power-handling capability.

Again, used items are often a very good solution. I recently picked up
a Sony 508ESD CD player in nearly-mint condition for $50 that was $650
new in 1990. I am listening to Yamaha NS-1000 speakers that I got for
$800. These last sold new in the mid-1990's for much more than that,
and were available only in Japan.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:41:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote:
>nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message
>news:<coisgo02ar4@news4.newsguy.com>...
>
>> Try this. A pair Paradign Reference 40s (L/R) a pair of Reference 20s (L/R
>> surround), a pair of Reference 20s (Center + extra), a PW2200 Subwoofer, a
>> Pioneer Universal DVD Player and a Pioneer 5 X 100 watt receiver all for
>$4200
>> MSRP.
>
>That's certainly taking "budget CD player and amplifier" to extremes.
>Based on prices in the latest S&V directory, the speakers alone would
>eat up more than $3700 of that $4200 budget (mitigated somewhat if you
>could find a buyer for that spare 20). One question: How much power
>could that receiver (VSX-D514) really deliver to all five channels?
>Surely not anywhere near 100 watts/channel.
>
>bob

But why would it ever have to? The subwoofer is powered after all. And I've
personally tested ALL the loudspeakers, otherwise I wouldn't have made the
sugestion. As for your personal case won't you have some of the electronics
in-situ?

Actually the best satellite loudspeakers I've ever tested are the Paradigm
Active/20 and Active/40 which have been dropped due to lagging sales. At $1600
a pair they made it possible for a really enthusiastic listener to buy the
power amplifiers included in the speakers and save a whole lot of rack space.
I've been using those speakers for a number of years and so far I've had
exactly one Active/20 that had to be returned for service. (Power supply)

That performance beats the pants off the service record of my Bryston power
amplifiers.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:41:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Room placement and choice of material are of great importance.
> >>If all you listen to is New Age music, then get a boom box.
> >>If you're listening to acoustic music and voices, then faithful
> >>reproduction will require good room placement.
> >
> >
> > New Age music not infrequently features acoustic instruments and
> > vocalizing.
> >
> > (and reverb)

> True enough. But then when New Age music is played backwards,
> it sounds like New Age music.
> So if that's what someone listens
> to, accuracy in sound reproduction probably isn't paramount. A
> boombox will do just fine.

This is one of the silliest thing I've seen written here in awhile,
and I'm not really much of a New Age fan.
December 2, 2004 6:40:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:colobs07fu@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> Actually the best satellite loudspeakers I've ever tested are the Paradigm
> Active/20 and Active/40 which have been dropped due to lagging sales. At
> $1600
> a pair they made it possible for a really enthusiastic listener to buy the
> power amplifiers included in the speakers and save a whole lot of rack
> space.
> I've been using those speakers for a number of years and so far I've had
> exactly one Active/20 that had to be returned for service. (Power supply)
>
> That performance beats the pants off the service record of my Bryston
> power
> amplifiers.

Have you listened to other active speakers, such as those by Mackie, and
other companies that usually aim at the pro sound market?
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 4:00:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message news:<colobs07fu@news2.newsguy.com>...
> nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote:
> >nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message
> >news:<coisgo02ar4@news4.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >> Try this. A pair Paradign Reference 40s (L/R) a pair of Reference 20s (L/R
> >> surround), a pair of Reference 20s (Center + extra), a PW2200 Subwoofer, a
> >> Pioneer Universal DVD Player and a Pioneer 5 X 100 watt receiver all for
> $4200
> >> MSRP.
> >
> >That's certainly taking "budget CD player and amplifier" to extremes.
> >Based on prices in the latest S&V directory, the speakers alone would
> >eat up more than $3700 of that $4200 budget (mitigated somewhat if you
> >could find a buyer for that spare 20). One question: How much power
> >could that receiver (VSX-D514) really deliver to all five channels?
> >Surely not anywhere near 100 watts/channel.
> >
> >bob
>
> But why would it ever have to? The subwoofer is powered after all. And I've
> personally tested ALL the loudspeakers, otherwise I wouldn't have made the
> sugestion. As for your personal case won't you have some of the electronics
> in-situ?
>
> Actually the best satellite loudspeakers I've ever tested are the Paradigm
> Active/20 and Active/40 which have been dropped due to lagging sales. At $1600
> a pair they made it possible for a really enthusiastic listener to buy the
> power amplifiers included in the speakers and save a whole lot of rack space.

Ah, but the combined amplifier power of two Active/40s and three
Active/20s would greatly exceed what that little Pioneer could put
out. Now, you may be right that the Pioneer would be powerful enough,
but I'm not sure Paradigm thought so.

bob
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 4:01:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/1/04 10:40 PM, in article com2rp02trv@news3.newsguy.com, "Marcus"
<marcus153@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> That performance beats the pants off the service record of my Bryston
>> power
>> amplifiers.
>
> Have you listened to other active speakers, such as those by Mackie, and
> other companies that usually aim at the pro sound market?

I have a pair of "Event Project Studio 6" nearfield monitors - that sound
great - if you are close to them. Perfect for a computer. Very forgiving
and reasonably detailed - better than most in my experience.

I think a magazine (The Audio Critic, IIRC) reviewed some Genelec speakers
and they did pretty well. It is worth checking out - though I have found
that noise and such on the power lines ususally results in a "popping" sound
on the speakers - as A/C turns on and off, refrigerators, etc. line filters
and playing with the sensitivity of the inputs (usually a pot adjust on the
speakers) can remedy most, but not all of it.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 6:20:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Marcus" marcus153@yahoo.com wrote:



>"Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:colobs07fu@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> Actually the best satellite loudspeakers I've ever tested are the Paradigm
>> Active/20 and Active/40 which have been dropped due to lagging sales. At
>> $1600
>> a pair they made it possible for a really enthusiastic listener to buy the
>> power amplifiers included in the speakers and save a whole lot of rack
>> space.
>> I've been using those speakers for a number of years and so far I've had
>> exactly one Active/20 that had to be returned for service. (Power supply)
>>
>> That performance beats the pants off the service record of my Bryston
>> power
>> amplifiers.
>
>Have you listened to other active speakers, such as those by Mackie, and
>other companies that usually aim at the pro sound market?

I have listened to a few of those models but only in Show conditions. I have
suggested a story to S&V covering a half dozen of those speakers that have a
$300-$400/pr MSRP. If that doesn't happen I may pursue alternate publication.

From my limited exposure it seems that these products may represent excellent
value in a package that appears to be well-suited for Home Audio application
including Home Theater. I could be wrong but I'd sure like to know for sure.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 6:21:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>On 12/1/04 10:40 PM, in article com2rp02trv@news3.newsguy.com, "Marcus"
><marcus153@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> That performance beats the pants off the service record of my Bryston
>>> power
>>> amplifiers.
>>
>> Have you listened to other active speakers, such as those by Mackie, and
>> other companies that usually aim at the pro sound market?
>
>I have a pair of "Event Project Studio 6" nearfield monitors - that sound
>great - if you are close to them. Perfect for a computer. Very forgiving
>and reasonably detailed - better than most in my experience.
>
>I think a magazine (The Audio Critic, IIRC) reviewed some Genelec speakers
>and they did pretty well.

If you'd have checked carefully you'd have noted that the Genelec coverage was
none other than myself.

It is worth checking out - though I have found
>that noise and such on the power lines ususally results in a "popping" sound
>on the speakers - as A/C turns on and off, refrigerators, etc. line filters
>and playing with the sensitivity of the inputs (usually a pot adjust on the
>speakers) can remedy most, but not all of it.


That was not an issue in my experience with the Genelecs. But those were not
inexpensive speakers such as those I'd like to pursue. On the other hand I've
tested a couple hundred powered subwoofers and perhaps a couple dozen powered
speakers of various types (including computer) and I've never had those types
of problems.
However it is not uncommon to experience a degree of 60Hz hum with powered
subwoofers if your gain settings aren't properly set. This is because nearly
all of them have an input/gain structure that requires the acceptance of both
line and speaker level inputs.

I've never had any AC line or appliance interaction with powered speakers other
than the above in any of the 5 houses with 3 work stations/systems per I've
used over the past 20 years.

I'm not saying that this will never be an issue but I don't think its common at
least with fixed location home audio systems.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:37:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote:



>nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message
>news:<colobs07fu@news2.newsguy.com>...
>> nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote:
>> >nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message
>> >news:<coisgo02ar4@news4.newsguy.com>...
>> >
>> >> Try this. A pair Paradign Reference 40s (L/R) a pair of Reference 20s
>(L/R
>> >> surround), a pair of Reference 20s (Center + extra), a PW2200 Subwoofer,
>a
>> >> Pioneer Universal DVD Player and a Pioneer 5 X 100 watt receiver all for
>> $4200
>> >> MSRP.
>> >
>> >That's certainly taking "budget CD player and amplifier" to extremes.
>> >Based on prices in the latest S&V directory, the speakers alone would
>> >eat up more than $3700 of that $4200 budget (mitigated somewhat if you
>> >could find a buyer for that spare 20). One question: How much power
>> >could that receiver (VSX-D514) really deliver to all five channels?
>> >Surely not anywhere near 100 watts/channel.
>> >
>> >bob
>>
>> But why would it ever have to? The subwoofer is powered after all. And I've
>> personally tested ALL the loudspeakers, otherwise I wouldn't have made the
>> sugestion. As for your personal case won't you have some of the electronics
>> in-situ?
>>
>> Actually the best satellite loudspeakers I've ever tested are the Paradigm
>> Active/20 and Active/40 which have been dropped due to lagging sales. At
>$1600
>> a pair they made it possible for a really enthusiastic listener to buy the
>> power amplifiers included in the speakers and save a whole lot of rack
>space.
>
>Ah, but the combined amplifier power of two Active/40s and three
>Active/20s would greatly exceed what that little Pioneer could put
>out. Now, you may be right that the Pioneer would be powerful enough,
>but I'm not sure Paradigm thought so.
>
>bob

What you say is true. BTW I've used more than just 3 Active 20s and 2 Active
40s. My current main system is comprised of an Active 20 center channel; 4
Active 40s for left/right/left rear surround/right rear surround and a pair of
Active 450s as side surround speakers. I also throw in a pair of powered
woofers for left and right augmentation and, of course, my home-brew subwoofer
and, of course, I'm not sure that a 100-watt receiver would deliver the kind of
SPL I want.

BUT, on the other hand, let me give another anecdote along these lines. I have
a good friend, a long-time fully hardened audio enthusiast. His primary
2-channel system is comprised of Magnepan MG-tall something or other with a
fairly low sensitivity full range vented surround speakers.

At one point, not in the last few years, he used a couple of the Radio Shack
5-watt per channel 2-channel amplifiers to power his main speaker systems but
left his big, muscular several hundred watt amplifiers with inputs that were
driving the power meters (with no load at the output) visible to visitors. He
noted that with this set-up operating over several months not a single visiting
friend, some of which had been extensively exposed to his system prior, ever
complained that the system was loudness or distortion limited.

Of course this is just an anecdote and one that I got 2nd-hand. But my
experience has been similar in that I've sometime been forced to use what
seemed to be "modest" power in situations that would have seemed at first blush
to require much more power; and I've heard MANY systems at audio cluib meetings
where limited power amplifiers were employed with low sensitivity speakers ....
and I've never in-situ found that "power" ever seemed to be the major issue.

So IMO a 100-watt Pioneer receiver will most probably be perfectly suitable.

Oh yes, how about the Masters/Clark "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same"
experiment in 1986 (Stereo Review)? where a Pioneer receiver was found to be
indistinguishable from a number of other Posh amplifiers driving relatively
sensitive Magnepans.

OTOH you do raise another good point. The v40 does have an impedance minimum
that reaches 3.5 ohms in the midrange but it doesn't seem unmanageable for even
moderately capable electronics.
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 7:16:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 28 Nov 2004 17:30:09 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk>
wrote:

>OTOH, the system is fronted by a six year old £250 Sony CDP-715E CD
>player, which sounds as good as anything else I've had in the system.
[snip]
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Which means that Stewart has problems with the quality of:

* his amp + speaker combo (as it doesn't reveal the middle of the road
quality of a middle of the road cd player)
* his cables
* his hearing

Or all three together.

It's unfortunate to drive an amp like a Krell with a cheap cd player.
Good players really are better, especially IF you reduce the
omnipresent jitter problems by installing a better clock PLUS power
supply for this clock. You would really be amazed by the improvement
you would get in this way, and throw overboard your sacd player once
you hear a cd player as it should have been heard all along.

It has to be mentioned that our Stewart has always had a low opinion
of better clocks in cd players, although he HAS NEVER AUDITIONED a cd
player with a better clock installed. So his audio opinion on this
subject is not based on audio, but on certain unscientific "ideas",
preconceptions.

Ernesto.

"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."

Richard Feynman
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 7:17:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 29 Nov 2004 01:20:23 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Depends upon the famous name you are after: If it is Arcam, NAD. Marantz or
>Cambridge Audio you are unlikely to get "fleeced" - though you certianly
>will pay incrementally more than with the low end of any Japanese lines.

I had a particularly disappointing experience with an Arcam cd player,
the Arcam 9 (with the ring DAC to be exact). The first one simply
played below par. Thin sound. The second one was the same, but had a
software problem too: it would skip songs at random, would jump from
song 3 to 6 etc.

My dealer had sold 4 of these Arcam's in one week. All of his
customers, including me, complained with him within one week about the
sound quality, all of us independent of each other. My dealer had
heard the pre-production demo unit and was very fond of it.

Much later on it became known officially and formally and widely that
Arcam had had production problems with the first series, ranging to
about number 1500. Both my players were within that range.

The problematic thing was not the faulty products themselves. What
really closed the doors to good relationship for me was their gross
denial when I first phoned them, mailed them, that there was a problem
with the player.

Only later on, when the audio magazines began to nag Arcam because
they discovered that the production units were of lower quality than
the pre-production units, Arcam had to admit the manufacturing
problems with the print boards.

By that time we in Holland had known for months that there were
problems. Anyway, people can tell the same kind of story about the
famous Philips sacd player 1000 and its reading problems that start
after a year or so.

Ernesto.

"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."

Richard Feynman
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 9:01:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/12/04 11:16 AM, in article cphqsb01bir@news1.newsguy.com, "Ernst
Raedecker" <ernstr@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> It's unfortunate to drive an amp like a Krell with a cheap cd player.
> Good players really are better, especially IF you reduce the
> omnipresent jitter problems by installing a better clock PLUS power
> supply for this clock. You would really be amazed by the improvement
> you would get in this way, and throw overboard your sacd player once
> you hear a cd player as it should have been heard all along.
>
> It has to be mentioned that our Stewart has always had a low opinion
> of better clocks in cd players, although he HAS NEVER AUDITIONED a cd
> player with a better clock installed. So his audio opinion on this
> subject is not based on audio, but on certain unscientific "ideas",
> preconceptions.

There are many CDP's that have good clocks in them - perhaps he can go out
and buy one. The Rotel 1072 is one such player.
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 2:37:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12 Dec 2004 16:16:11 GMT, ernstr@xs4all.nl (Ernst Raedecker) wrote:

>On 28 Nov 2004 17:30:09 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>OTOH, the system is fronted by a six year old £250 Sony CDP-715E CD
>>player, which sounds as good as anything else I've had in the system.
>[snip]
>>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
>Which means that Stewart has problems with the quality of:
>
>* his amp + speaker combo (as it doesn't reveal the middle of the road
>quality of a middle of the road cd player)
>* his cables
>* his hearing
>
>Or all three together.

It means nothing of the sort. It means that, unlike you, I actually
*trust* my ears, and listen to the performance, not the price tag.

BTW, not one single person has *ever* been able to show that nominally
competent cables make any difference to the sound of a system,
whetever their price or claimed credentials, so you do appear to have
a credibility shortfall......

>It's unfortunate to drive an amp like a Krell with a cheap cd player.

No problem, my Audiolab 8000P sounds just the same.........

>Good players really are better, especially IF you reduce the
>omnipresent jitter problems by installing a better clock PLUS power
>supply for this clock. You would really be amazed by the improvement
>you would get in this way, and throw overboard your sacd player once
>you hear a cd player as it should have been heard all along.

Actually, I'd be amazed if any of the above were at all audible.
Especially since low-cost Sony players such as mine have consistently
shown significantly lower jitter than so-called 'high end' players.

>It has to be mentioned that our Stewart has always had a low opinion
>of better clocks in cd players, although he HAS NEVER AUDITIONED a cd
>player with a better clock installed. So his audio opinion on this
>subject is not based on audio, but on certain unscientific "ideas",
>preconceptions.

Actually, I have never auditioned a player with lower measured jitter
than the one I already own, at 180 picoseconds. When you have any
*facts* to offer, do feel free to rejoin the debate. Until then.....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 3:45:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <coaeai013r@news1.newsguy.com>, "Pete AF" <mukhp@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I have been following this newsgroup for some time now and have even dared
> to post a topic or two. It makes for interesting reading, except for the
> highly technical information that I skip over and read the writer's
> conclusion.
>
> One thing that has become rather difficult for me to fathom is the issue of
> sound quality and cost. This newsgroup is a high-end audio newsgroup.
> Needless to say, usually high-end translates into high cost for the most
> part. Looking at people owning Thiel,Mark Levinson, Wadia, Krell, (large)
> B&W's etc. shows that for the most part, sound quality =high cost.
>
> However, there is a large component of posts that tend to state the
> opposite. I will leave the cable debate alone for now, but there have been a
> lot of posts , especially about CD players that tend to imply that one does
> not have to buy these very expensive players to achieve great sound.
> Amplifiers are also talked about this way, but to a lesser extent. It
> appears from the posts here that perhaps the quality here has plateued. It
> appears that only loudspeakers do not appear to be affected as much by this
> (as far as I can see, anyway) and that for the most part you have to spend
> the bigger buck for the better sound as far as loudspeakers are concerned.
>
> This has created the following questions for me:
>
> 1) Is it reasonable to assume that it is therefore better to buy a "budget"
> CD player and amplifier and spend proprtionately more on the speakers?
>
> 2) Everyone here has a lot of information about "budget" type CD players and
> amplifiers and how good they can sound, but it appears (and I may be wrong)
> that a lot of people here actually own high end equipment. Does it mean that
> audiophiles (including review magazines) have different meanings for words
> like "great", "detailed", "harmonically accurate" , etc. when reviewing
> high-end vs. less costly equipment?
>
> 3) Would anyone be interested in putting together their ideal amplifier/CD
> player/loudspeaker combinations for a total of, say, $5000, $10 000 and $20
> 000? These three systems would surely rate as relatively inexpensive
> compared to some of the names mentioned higher up in this post.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pete.
>
> Peace.

And a wonderful thread it has been.

But I miss hearing about the learning benefits of higher and highest
fidelity, how you can hear things as if for the first time, and how your
musical and over-all sonic knowledge increases. Then you change, forever.
Do you want that? In the 1970s I lucked into a set of ESS AMTs with
electrostatic mylar tweeters, and I started to buy music to feed the
tweeters.

I also miss hearing about Moore's Law or its audiophile equivalent if
there is such a thing. All I can think of is that since "hi-fi" became
"stereo", you buy one channel you get a second of equal or lesser value
free, speakers not included.

The Rich are Different. In 1961 $20,000 would get you The Beatles in
person in your basement for a couple of months, or Lester Lanin's
Orchestra for a few days.

I would pay attention to silence also, especially since the interval is
crucial in music or any intelligible sound. Frost-free refrigerators are
spiteful, as are water pipes and forced-air HV/ACS.

Cheers,

Stuart
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 7:13:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12 Dec 2004 18:01:43 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 12/12/04 11:16 AM, in article cphqsb01bir@news1.newsguy.com, "Ernst
>Raedecker" <ernstr@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> It's unfortunate to drive an amp like a Krell with a cheap cd player.
>> Good players really are better, especially IF you reduce the
>> omnipresent jitter problems by installing a better clock PLUS power
>> supply for this clock. You would really be amazed by the improvement
>> you would get in this way, and throw overboard your sacd player once
>> you hear a cd player as it should have been heard all along.
>>
>> It has to be mentioned that our Stewart has always had a low opinion
>> of better clocks in cd players, although he HAS NEVER AUDITIONED a cd
>> player with a better clock installed. So his audio opinion on this
>> subject is not based on audio, but on certain unscientific "ideas",
>> preconceptions.
>
>There are many CDP's that have good clocks in them - perhaps he can go out
>and buy one. The Rotel 1072 is one such player.

I already have one - Sony players have consistently had significantly
lower jitter than Raedecker's beloved 'high end' specials. Remember,
this guy is also a supporter of 'cable sound'! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
December 15, 2004 3:49:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stuart Leichter wrote:

>>
> And a wonderful thread it has been.
>
> But I miss hearing about the learning benefits of higher and highest
> fidelity, how you can hear things as if for the first time, and how your
> musical and over-all sonic knowledge increases. Then you change, forever.
> Do you want that? In the 1970s I lucked into a set of ESS AMTs with
> electrostatic mylar tweeters, and I started to buy music to feed the
> tweeters.
>
> I also miss hearing about Moore's Law or its audiophile equivalent if
> there is such a thing.

Since the amount of real engineering done in the audiophile industry is
so insignificant, and the market is so small, there is no such thing as
an audiophile equivalent of Moore's Law.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 4:03:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <cpld2s042f@news2.newsguy.com>,
leichtes@bellsouth.net (Stuart Leichter) wrote:

> In 1961 $20,000 would get you The Beatles in
> person in your basement for a couple of months,

Counting beer, cigarettes, and uppers?
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 3:40:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stuart Leichter wrote:

>In article <coaeai013r@news1.newsguy.com>, "Pete AF" <mukhp@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>And a wonderful thread it has been.
>
>But I miss hearing about the learning benefits of higher and highest
>fidelity, how you can hear things as if for the first time, and how your
>musical and over-all sonic knowledge increases. Then you change, forever.
>Do you want that? In the 1970s I lucked into a set of ESS AMTs with
>electrostatic mylar tweeters, and I started to buy music to feed the
>tweeters.
>
>I also miss hearing about Moore's Law or its audiophile equivalent if
>there is such a thing. All I can think of is that since "hi-fi" became
>"stereo", you buy one channel you get a second of equal or lesser value
>free, speakers not included.
>
>The Rich are Different. In 1961 $20,000 would get you The Beatles in
>person in your basement for a couple of months, or Lester Lanin's
>Orchestra for a few days.
>
>I would pay attention to silence also, especially since the interval is
>crucial in music or any intelligible sound. Frost-free refrigerators are
>spiteful, as are water pipes and forced-air HV/ACS.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Stuart
>
I'll take a stab at high cost...

I think there are two camps here.. those "techies" at various levels who
wish to persue musical reproduction accuracy from an
engineering/scientific analytical view, and the "non-techies" who prefer
to evaluate music repro based on their perceptions and attitudes about
what sounds "right" to them, regardless of the cost and/or merit of the
perceived "high-end". While I was a musician during my youthful years,
I've moved into the "techie" camp when I started building speakers some
40 years ago( Big folded horns, with a single EV SP8B driver)... they
would fill the Jag School assembly hall at UVA during grad student happy
hour driven by an 80 watt kenwood amp and my cherished Sony reel-to-reel
tapedeck.

Back in '79, I bought some Infinity RSII's on the cheap... loved the
tweeters, but they had a nasty impedance curve that popped the fuses on
my AA1600 Heath amp, so I beefed it up with some big fat 500,000 uF caps
and bigger rail fuses to handle the current and capacitive swings. Then
I sold the heathkit and picked up a used Nak 730 receiver. I'm still
using this, have 3 others I swap out from time to time when I repair one
of them (the receiver has phenomenal sound, but somewhat quirky
electronic switching, so it's kinda like exotic car maintenance) The RS
II's now exist only as the cabinet, as I've ripped the original
woofers/midrange/EMITS /xover (after several re-foamings) and replaced
the drivers with high power woofers/midranges.. and the gorgeous
sounding panasonic leaf tweeters EASxxxx I picked up in the late 90's.
I then built a cylindrical subwoofer with a 12" titanic driver, tuned to
19 Hz that'll shake the entire house.. driven by an Adcom 555 II in mono
mode... 650 watts rms or so. The naks are good for 150w/channel rms..
so I've got ~ 1KW of amplification, in a roughly 900 square foot living
room, 2 stories tall. The RS II's are dipoles, so the sound is
exquisitly detailed and localized, with a huge sound stage, yet they
fill the entire space within the room at a very uniform level. Many
folks who've heard them say they posses a "jump factor" rarely heard
elsewhere (as in, if you're in another room and you suddenly feel like
there's someone playing live music in the room).

Alas, I'm now embarking on a new project, with Bohlender/Grabener
RD-75's planars and more EASxxx ribbons in a 6 foot line source dipole
setup in a cherry cabinet/baffle. Never satisfied, I guess. The
existing dipoles will move to our theatre room for more re-inforcement work.

What's the point of this post? I've done all these decades of fine
music listening on the cheap, carefully buying and rebuilding used
equipment (I've currently got 2 TEAC X2000R open reels I use for
mastering/listening that I rebuilt to better than factory specs) I've
probably blown no more than $6-$8K over the 30 years I've been seriously
pursuing this hobby, and have yet to hear anything under $100K retail
that sounds as good or better than what I'm hearing right now. And many
people who've heard my systems agree with me, as I've built systems and
speakers for them as well. SO, for me at least, High end doesn't mean
High cost. Of course, I've an advanced degree in electrochemical
engineering, hold several patents, and play reed instruments and putz on
the piano, so my perspective may be a bit warped. Plus I run my wife's
medical practice, (she actually has learned to enjoy and appreciate the
exceptional quality of the sound she hears from the systems) I've got a
plain vanila Sony 300 disc changer, and it sure as the dickens beats
anything coming off of vinyl (yes, I've played with all the high end
vinyl stuff too). I use zip-cord wiring, and can't, for the life of me,
undestand why anyone would try $2K Scheister Stones (sic) or $5K power
cords. But that's another post.

Of course, ymmv, and... if you've got money you don't know what to do
with... go for it..

John L.
Auplater
!