|
Bronze Member Username: Eieiei0101xPost Number: 20 Registered: Jul-05 | what would be your choice of Bookshelf speakers, amp and cd player at 1,400 USD????? Looking for quaility not high volumen noise Regards |
|
Bronze Member Username: Eieiei0101xPost Number: 26 Registered: Jul-05 | so, whats is your wishlist at this $$$$level???? |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Pakistan Post Number: 228 Registered: May-05 | I don't particularly like bookshelf speakers, but here goes - NAD C320BEE - $400 NAD C521BEE - $300 B&W DM 602 S3 - $600 At full retail, you'd have $100 left over. Figure $50-$75 for interconnects and speaker wire (combined, not seperately), and $25-$50 left over for a new CD or two and a few beers. Not too shabby. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 82 Registered: Apr-05 | Look here: http://www.av123.com/products_product.php?section=speakers&product=65.1 |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1134 Registered: Feb-05 | IMO the Paradigm Studio 20v3 at $800 retail (can be had for less) will outperform the B&W by quite a distance. In fact it will give the $1500 B&W 700 series bookshelf a good run. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1260 Registered: Mar-05 | I'd modify Stu's suggestion thus: Ascend 170s + Hsu STF-1 sub, $718 NAD C320BEE, $400 NAD c521BEE, $300 You should be able to get the NAD stuff at least 10% off those full retail numbers. |
|
Somed00d Unregistered guest | Audio Note AX-Two- $600 list, but I know at least one dealer that sells them for under $500 Jolida 1301 ( I think? Its the entry level 30 watter) $350 retail any decent cdp, NAD, Cambridge, Rega, Music Hall etc. |
|
Silver Member Username: EdisonGlendale, CA US Post Number: 759 Registered: Dec-03 | If you are looking for a good sounding small one, check this out - it's tidy and classy looking, with sleep and clock function to wake you up in the morning, and with class A amp, and speakers that have hint of liquid and transparent character - all for $159 - originally more than 3 times the price. This was executive system from kenwood that got good reviews in Europe, but in US not too many people want to spend $600 for a mini system. This is a quality system - cut above usual mini systems. I am listening to it right now - although I've spent as much as a car on audio, I don't mind listening to this little class act at all - wakes me up every morning. If you are new to audio, this will sound better than an ill matched $1400 system. System matching is hard for even seasoned pros - that's what they say. The work is all done for you here. The reason why I recommend this is that you are not going to get much more quality for $1400. Yes louder, but you are not looking for that. Plus your wife will like it's looks - will fit in nicely with classy decor. I think you got the picture - so I will stop sounding like an ad - I really like it and think it is a great value - nice way to wake up in the morning. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4787%26item%3D5786818537% 26%26 |
|
Silver Member Username: EdisonGlendale, CA US Post Number: 760 Registered: Dec-03 | If the link is not going through, search for hm-601 in ebay. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 652 Registered: Sep-04 | I would modify Stu's suggestion and put the lion's share of the money onto the source. Garbage in, garbage out. NAD C542/C320BEE/ B&W DM600 or 601 Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1264 Registered: Mar-05 | Frank, do you think there really is such a huge difference between the 542 and the 521? I've never listened to them side by side, have you? What were the specific differences that jumped out at you? I'll be upgrading my CD player (Sony ES) in a few months and was already leaning towards the 542, but am curious what you heard. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 655 Registered: Sep-04 | Yes, most definitely. The 542 has better resolution, better timing, better depth in the bass, better space. You name it, it's better. Difficult to pick out specific differences therefore... Experience - I have played with tboth the 542 and 521 off and on since they came out. The 521 always loses in direct comparison to the 542. FYI, price wise they are substantially different here in the UK. The 521 is around £200 and the 542 is around £330. The 542 competes against the Arcam CD73T (£400, smoother but not necessarily better) and the Rega Planet (£550, cracking player but big price difference). The reason I posted the above is the system-building ethos. I am not an out-and-out source first purist. However, if I have a budget to play with and have the choice of system to build I would weight toward the source since this usually gives a more musical result than doing it any other way. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1268 Registered: Mar-05 | Hmm, it's too bad you're in the UK, I'd love to hear your opinion on the Ascend speakers. |
|
Anonymous | Why's that Edster? |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Pakistan Post Number: 235 Registered: May-05 | I've personally found that speakers make the biggest difference, followed by the amp, then source (except phono's). They are all very important - don't get me wrong for a second - garbage in = garbage out. In my opinion CD players have the most leeway, factor in that the cdp technology is the fastest changining part of a system - an upper end 10 year old cdp would moslt likely be middle of the pack today, with a few exceptions - makes me not want to go all out with it. 2 channel amplification and speakers have changed somewhat over the years, but nothing like cdp's. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Pakistan Post Number: 236 Registered: May-05 | I haven't heard it, but from reviews that combo from Onyx (av123.com) sounds like a great buy. I'm just apprehensive about buying from an internet company that you can't demo their stuff. You can return it, but it'll cost a few bucks. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1269 Registered: Mar-05 | Stu, I understand your apprehension, I went through the same thing myself. However when I was speaker shopping locally, I realized that it would also be difficult to really know how a speaker is going to sound in my house running on my equipment based on how it sounds at a dealer's demo room and on a dealer's gear, and I couldn't find any dealers who'd allow non-defective returns of speakers without a 10-20% restocking fee which would easily be double or more the cost of return shipping. Also what I didn't realize until someone PM'ed me on another forum is that each Internet speaker manufacturer has their own users' forum where you can look for someone who lives within driving distance of you and come listen to the speakers at their house. So I did get to hear the Ascends before ordering them, but would've taken the chance anyway if I hadn't. I tend to think of return shipping as a "home demo" fee. Of course if it were some massive heavy item like Paul's behemoth SVS subwoofer, that's a different story. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Pakistan Post Number: 238 Registered: May-05 | Edster - You've got a very good point. I wasn't trying to bash the internet companies at all, or those who bought from them. I'd really like to hear the combo or even just the integrated from Onix, but I'd hate to buy it and find it was complete junk, and pay to return ship it. At least in a store, you can weed out things that you think are garbage and will be 95% sure that it will sound good in your home. But it can cost you more to return to a store than return shipping will. I think there is a signifcantly lower risk with auditioning in the store than internet direct. They both have their pro's and con's. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1144 Registered: Feb-05 | I have to agree with Frank on this one. I really believe that you have to get it right at the source first or the rest matters less. My choice might be the C542 CD player, Paradigm Studio 20v3's both at a discount and a good used integrated amp (NAD preferably, not Rotel as they often don't go together very well). That should get you close to the budget and sound that you want. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 302 Registered: Dec-03 | Yep, I have to agree with the notion of getting the best amp and source you can. I've heard my speakers on an inexpensive amp and a quality amp and it's a night and day difference. To be specific, mid-line Sony receiver versus Plinius 8100. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 84 Registered: Apr-05 | Well said, Timn8ter. Always makes me shrug my shoulders when I see people saying the speakers are the most important part of a system. It's source for sure. That Onix Cdp at AV123 is a very sweet sounding player. Best cdp I heard anywhere close to the price. Haven't heard the speakers, but like others pointed out, they get great reviews. Six Moons is going to review the speaker/amp combo in the near future. They were pretty impressed with it in the pre-review. Good luck. |
|
Anonymous | Jesus Christ. It's like saying your heart is more important than your brain. You aren't going anywhere if either is in bad shape. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1271 Registered: Mar-05 | That Onix CDP sure looks interesting...has anyone here ever compared it to the NAD cd players? $300 is an attractive price point indeed. |
|
Somed00d Unregistered guest | What makes the biggest difference guys? Some Sony bookshelves hooked up to a $500 cdp? or some $500 PSB, Paradigm, or other good entry level speakers hooked up to a walkman? Id put my money on the $500 speakers with the walkman. With the cheap speakers, you wont even be able to tell the differences in cdp's. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1277 Registered: Mar-05 | Probably a matter of pricepoint: $500 speakers + $100 source probably sounds better than $100 speakers + $500 source. However, $1000 speakers + $200 source probably would not sound better than $200 speakers + $1000 source. The higher up in price you go as a whole, the more the source matters---that seems to make sense. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 304 Registered: Dec-03 | I'll be more specific. Speaking for myself I don't see the benefit in spending $800 of a $1400 budget for just the speakers. $600 is not going to split well for an amp and CD player. I'm suggesting that eduardo keep things in balance unless there is a definite upgrade path in mind. Also, I referenced my speakers ;-) |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1279 Registered: Mar-05 | Tim, so you are saying that your bookshelf speakers can stand by themselves without a subwoofer to fill in the low end? if so, you are really whetting my curiousity! |
|
Somed00d Unregistered guest | Yeah, its a matter of budget. I still think speakers make the most audible difference, if for better or for worse. But true sometimes the source can make that difference u were looking for, even if its a small one. Sometimes thats all you need. However, I dont think a $200 speaker can tell the different between a $300 source, and a $1000 one. If I had a budget of $1200 to spend on source and speakers, Id probabaly do something like $700 on speakers and $500 for source. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 305 Registered: Dec-03 | Edster (since you asked) I consider my speakers to be a high quality, budget priced design, that will deliver the goods if connected to the correct system. I am NOT saying a 4.5" driver will match a subwoofer but this is an example of how they can perform when connected to the right equipment. Perhaps how any system will perform when the parts come together well. I had my Lings in an average sized room (12 x 16 x 7.5) being played with a SACD player and the Plinius 8100. If you're familiar with Mickey Hart's Planet Drum there is one track with an "Earth Drum". It was shocking to me that the low resonance of this instrument was heard with this setup. It is probably a much higher frequency than it seems but it's good enough to fool a listener into thinking it was much lower. Our minds do funny things sometimes. This is also the beauty of the extended BL motor. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 306 Registered: Dec-03 | For the sake of accuracy, the Planet Drum CD was not SACD, only being played on a SACD player. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 623 Registered: Mar-05 | Ed, I swear my books go as low as my sub , not as powerful of course, but enough to hear the full range of most all music. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1281 Registered: Mar-05 | joe, those are the Totem Rainmakers you're referring to? I'd love to check those out, are they Internet-only? |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 635 Registered: Mar-05 | Yes, they are just starting to break in and I love them to pieces. No ,they are not internet only. Check around and see if any of your local dealers carry them. They are not common though. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1171 Registered: Feb-05 | Edster do you not know Totem? They really make a fantastic product. There speakers are critically acclaimed for reason...they're good. You should give 'em a listen just to satisfy your curiosity. |
|
New member Username: EyeswideshutAbubala , Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3 Registered: Jul-05 | I only really have Fry's around here in Abubala. Thats where I went to compare speakers with my mighty Ascends. I compared them against Polk, Bose, and Sony. Maybe Fry's will carry Totem some day. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 312 Registered: Dec-03 | Surprising. I would've expected Abubala to be a virtual Mecca for Hi-Fi. Perhaps there is an opportunity here for product importation. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1298 Registered: Mar-05 | The user:Eyeswideshut has copied my Edster922 nickname and is going about posting insulting threads pretending to be me... He has entirely different: 1. membership status (Bronze vs. Gold) 2. # of posts 3. Date registered Doesn't Ecoustic have some sort of programming mechanism to prevent people from copying each other's Nicknames, not just their Usernames? Gotta say, he is a clever little bugger. Just getting me back because I gave him a good verbal shpanking on one of the threads is all...probably the same user as Anonymous. ho-hum, Ecoustics is getting more interesting by the day! LOL ==== Yep, the imposter Edster922 is actually Alfonso (username: Eyeswideopen) who is the same Anoy-Nymous that I whacked here: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/147720.html poor poor baby, he didn't like gettin' whupped...LOL |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 85 Registered: Apr-05 | Somed00d, if you hooked up ANY decent pair of speakers to a friggin' walkman, they wouldn't make a sound as the walkman hasn't nearly enough output to drive them. After 30 years of audio experience, I tend to follow the Linn-Sondek rule of thumb, that is, if you attach a better speaker to a mediocre source, all the better speaker will or really, CAN do is more clearly reveal the faults of the mediocre source. I have found that to be the case pretty much 100% of the time. But hey, knock yourself out Somed00d, hook up your Sony Walkman to a pair of Electrostats and tell me what ya hear. |
|
Somed00d Unregistered guest | Umm, I was referring to using the walkman as the SOURCE, not the amplification. Maybe when cd first came out the differences in players were much greater, but not today. Plus most budget integrated amps cant even tell the differences between cdp's. The pre section isn't good enough. No point in hooking up a $1000 cdp to a $300 Nad, or Cambridge. |
|
Somed00d Unregistered guest | "I only really have Fry's around here in Abubala. Thats where I went to compare speakers with my mighty Ascends. I compared them against Polk, Bose, and Sony. Maybe Fry's will carry Totem some day." lol |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 86 Registered: Apr-05 | Somed00d, bring a few higher dollar cdp's home and listen for yourself. One thing: cd players take a LONG time to warm up. LONG time. Can't do the comparrison when they are cold. Let them both stay on for a few days then listen. The differences are large. |
|
Somed00d Unregistered guest | Youre a dipshit Paul. The differences between transports are minimal at best. There is a difference between DACs, I'll give you that, but I'd like to see some evidence that they need to have a few days to "warm up". |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 88 Registered: Apr-05 | Somed00d, I see you, like many others here revert to name calling when the conversation exceeds your ability to participate in it. I suggest you read some more and learn more about audio. Either that, or continue on the path of others here and become an imposter. That seems to be the option of choice for those lacking in audio knowledge. Digital devices generate very very little heat, therefore they take exceptionally long periods of time to get warmed up. All one need do to prove this is to listen to any cd at start-up and again hours or days later. I'd like to see some evidence that there is no discernable audable difference between a $100.00 cdp and a $1000.00 cdp from you. Can you provide me some 3rd party testimonial or shall I sling ownership of that "dipshit" comment back your way? I have in my system a very highly touted dvd player said by many to sound better than most $1K cdp's. I also have in my system a $1K cdp. Many have listened to them side by side. NOT ONE has said he/she could not hear a difference. NOT ONE has said the difference was minimal. NOT ONE picked the highly touted dvd player. I can say with certianty that the difference between the two is significantly more than ANY amp, pre-amp, cables or speakers I have used. YMMV. Have a good day. From this point forward, I shall refrain from answering any of your posts. |
|
Somed00d Unregistered guest | Paul, That wasn't me who called you a "dipshit", I'm guessing it was the same guy who's been impersonating everyone else on this forum. I guess It's hard to tell since im not registered, and he wasn't being totally obvious. There's really no need to call someone names on an internet forum as there's already enough hostility to deal with outside of the internet. Why be a jerk to someone who shares the same passion as I do? To get back to the original topic, here's one of my earlier posts in this thread - "------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Yeah, its a matter of budget. I still think speakers make the most audible difference, if for better or for worse. But true sometimes the source can make that difference u were looking for, even if its a small one. Sometimes thats all you need. However, I dont think a $200 speaker can tell the different between a $300 source, and a $1000 one. If I had a budget of $1200 to spend on source and speakers, Id probabaly do something like $700 on speakers and $500 for source." How am I not saying there's no difference in players? I'm simply saying a $200 speaker isn't going to be that critical of sources. I agree there is differences in sources, but first you need good enough gear to be able to distingush those differences. Buying a 1k source for an entry level reciever and speakers is overkill imo. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 90 Registered: Apr-05 | Somed00d, Looks like someone has already stolen your identity. Thats what makes this forum somewhat of a joke. Anyway, I can appreciate why you or anyone else might think the speakers make the biggest difference. After all, the speakers are what you HEAR when you listen. However, answer me this. How can a speaker....any speaker possibly improve upon the signal it's being sent? Say for example you start out with a JVC system. Sounds ok, but you want it to sound better. So you buy yourself a new pair of speakers. The new speakers are night and day better than the old ones in every possible way. You take them home, hook them up, put on your favorite recording, sit back and expect heavenly sound. Do you get it? No. I have done this many times. Feel free to try it yourself. Your system sounds WORSE. How can this be? The ONLY thing you changed was the speakers. These were supposed to be the latest, greatest in speaker technology. What happened? At this point, most people decide they don't even like music and buy a clock radio. What happened was the better speaker simply did what it was supposed to do: It more clearly revealed each and every fault of every component preceding it in the audio chain. All you did was change speakers so now you are brought to the obvious conclusion that the speakers are junk. The old ones sounded better. So you either search for the next holy grail of speakers or give up. Nowhere along your search for audio bliss has anyone told you the source, pre-amp, amp, cables matter. Sources all sound the same.....or very similar. Right? Try it for yourself. You'll see. I guess tomorrow my handle will be hi-jacked too. Who cares. The only thing these idiots are succeding in doing is making a mokery out of a perfectly good exchange of idea's. |
|
Somed00d Unregistered guest | Paul, Again you aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'm in no way saying cdp's dont make a difference, I'm just saying in budget systems they aren't that important. But I do agree that many blame the speakers when there's a problem elsewhere. When my budget permits it I'm going to get a nice record player. I remember hearing vinyl for the first time on my old Ascend's using a cheap table and I was amazed at how good it sounded compared to my cd's. Can't wait to spin some 80's pop and rock albums on a decent table. |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 286 Registered: Jul-04 | Seems like this source amp speakers - which are most important - argument has been going on for ages. Hasn't anyone ever done a group test - a shoot out to compare? Not that that would prove anyting for certain, but it seems it could build enough evidence to support the idea that one is more important than the other. I tend to agree with SomedOOd (maybe out of my cast wealth of ignorance) that they are all important and maybe they all should get the same amount of money thrown at them. $333 for cdp, $333 for receiver and $334 for speakers if $1000 was ones limit. Maybe less for the cdp and more for the others: cdp $150, Receiver $450, speakers $450. I did go buy new well reviewed speakers and an sacd player and thought - what is wrong with this picture? It still didn't sound right. Then I got a better receiver - yes! much more increase in quality than I thought. But if I kept my old mediocre speakers I bet it wouldn't be that much better, honestly. But I don't reall know. ALl I do know is that the receiver and the speakers made a big difference. It may have been that I got the SACD player and then the receiver and then the new speakers - I can't really remember. Anyone know of any links where this question has been addressed? All I have seen is posters I respect taking both positions. Thanks |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 287 Registered: Jul-04 | Sorry - "vast wealth of ignorance" |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 91 Registered: Apr-05 | Don, the inherant danger of buying speakers first is the scenerio I described above. Look at your audio chain like a river flowing. If the source of that river is polluted, makes no difference what you do downstream, the water is still polluted. Can you clean it up at the end? Sure, but your still going to get polluted water from the upstream source, making filtration quite costly and ineffective. Can you clean it up in the middle? Of course you can. Same result though. More polluted water. Only when you clean up the source will anything you do downstream matter. I see it as a near complete waste of time, money and effort to do it any other way. I say near complete because when you change speakers, the sound will change. If it's a change for the better or the worse will depend entirely on upstream components. And thats where the confusion and frustration sets in. Feel free to experiment with this all you like. |
|
Silver Member Username: JimvmLouisiana U.S.A. Post Number: 119 Registered: Apr-05 | Paul - There are probably as many, if not more, audio experts who do not believe that your analogy (pardon the pun) holds water as those who do. According to them, virtually all of today's better audio components are so flat in response and so low in distortion levels that we are unable to hear differences between them. Not looking to argue; just pointing out that your position notwithstanding, this controversial topic appears to be unsettled. |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 288 Registered: Jul-04 | Paul I guess all analogies break down sooner or later. I was surprised at how much better a new receiver made my system sound. But I think speakers are just as important if not more important than the receiver. I think the water can get polluted all along the stream. We need (or want) good clean uncolored sound in both the receiver and the speakers (and elsewhere). Since there are often 6 or more speakers in a system I would probably put more money toward the speakers. But I admit to ignorance and appreciate your sharing what you have experienced. Practically speaking, we may both agree I need a better receiver. On two lists I have listed my Onkyo 501 receiver for comments on whether it is good enough to run my 3 Axioms (with two off brand surrounds for now) and the 2 Ascends in the bedroom. On two lists people said the receiver was fine. On one list people recommended a NAD receiver or someother upgrade. I am basically confused at this point. I think whatever "voice" or coloring the onkyo gives is fine and the thd is 0.06% at both 8 and 4 ohms. The real wattage is only about 48 watts per channel but these are easy to drive speakers and a small room. So, practically speaking is my $300 receiver ($150 as a refurb) good enough for about $1100 worth of speakers? Maybe specific examples like this one are easier to come to a consensus on. Maybe not. Links to Onkyo reviews: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/3401/ratevsac.htm http://www.homecinemachoice.com/cgi-bin/displayreview.php?reviewid=3691 |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 333 Registered: Dec-03 | Unfortunately THD and watts don't tell you the whole story. I can guarantee you that a Plinius 9100 with .05% THD will sound far better than the Onkyo, for example. |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 291 Registered: Jul-04 | So there are no objective measurements - you just have to listen to the options and glean from others experiences? How much is a Plinius 9100 (he says afraid to actually find out). |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 292 Registered: Jul-04 | Oh, $2695 Out of my league |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 334 Registered: Dec-03 | All specifications are relative. It's unfortunate that THD, watts, frequency response, have become the "tell all" in most audio buyers minds. It does tell you something but not everything. Yes, the Plinius amps are not cheap. I just used it as an example. Compared to a Goldmundt it's a serious bargain, not that I have one, yet. To get the best performance from a pair of speakers you have to have a compatible source and amp. They are all links in the chain. I do see your point about surround sound and dollar % of the budget. I was assuming this thread was about a 2 channel setup though I don't know if that was established. $1400 is not chump change but in the world of audio it will mean compromises. |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 293 Registered: Jul-04 | You are probably right that the thread sounded like a stereo question, I just hijacked it for my own ends. I should probably start my own thread. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 93 Registered: Apr-05 | Ok guys and gals, I have spoken my piece regarding this issue. I'm only trying to A) Help B) Save you some money and frustration and C) share knowledge. Take it or leave it. Anyway, i'm off tomorow to HAWAII!!!!!!! Be back in a week. Gonna trim those grass skirts. |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 297 Registered: Jul-04 | I did a little research and asked an expert I know and apparently blind tests and double blind tests show there is not a discernable difference between a reasonable $250 receiver and a top end multi thousand dollar receiver. (I think if you got over 0.1% thd you might hear it - at least I think I did). And there was little difference between a sub $100 cd player and a $20,000 cd player! (Again if you had a cheap thing with hiss in the background that would let you hear a difference, but otherwise - no difference). I have a copy of a Stereo Review article about a test they commisioned which was done by David Clark back in the late 1980s. Maybe this can be found on the internet. But wait! Experienced "Keen Eared" listeners can hear very small differences: http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/ The research continues |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 298 Registered: Jul-04 | But even that later test showed there was not much heard difference in receivers / amps: QUOTE- "When they learned the price differential between two power amps that they themselves couldn't really tell apart, a large number of the listeners indicated that the extra bucks wouldn't be worthwhile to them personally. Often this comment took the form of "I'd buy the cheaper one and a new car."" |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 299 Registered: Jul-04 | Summary of the test that found experienced listeners could tell some differences: • When considered overall, the results indicate to a high degree of confidence that a small but real audible difference exists between the Adcom GFA-555 and VTL 300W monoblocks when used to drive B&W 801 loudspeakers. • That the amplifiers could be distinguished by ear under blind conditions could be due to the interaction between the amplifiers' different output impedances and the loudspeakers in use. Further testing is required to reveal whether there is more to it than this. • More than 500 people took part in these tests, each suffering seven trials. When small subjective differences are involved, these results confirm that it is essential to use a very large number of presentations in a blind test if the possibility of the results featuring a Type 2 error--erroneously concluding that there was no difference when in fact there is one--is to be avoided. (See "The Highs & Lows of Double-Blind Testing" and "The Double Blind & the Not So Blind," Vol.9 Nos.2 & 5 respectively, for a full discussion.) • Different kinds of music vary considerably in their abilities to reveal differences between amplifiers. The Fauré piece for choir and orchestra was the best in this respect, with the naturally miked drum recording totally inadequate (despite its fulfilling J. Gordon Holt's criteria as a suitable test program for revealing departures from "fidelity"). That there was no original for the Jennifer Warnes or Flim & the BB's tracks didn't prevent them from being almost as efficacious as the solo piano recording in revealing the differences between the amplifiers. Both were even a shade better at revealing when the amplifier remained the same. • Despite the visitors to the show being keen audiophiles, over half those who took part in these listening tests were unable to reliably hear the small differences between the two power amplifiers. Part of the reason must be the high level of sound breakthrough from the adjacent room, as well as the overcrowded conditions--it would be hard to imagine someone either sitting on the floor to the side of one of the speakers, or standing next to the rear wall behind eight rows of seats, getting much of a good sound. But in my opinion, the main reason for the lack of identification was that even keen audiophiles rarely perform the kind of concentrated listening that I was asking from them in these tests. I was not surprised to note that some of the high scorers were in fact active in the high-end industry. Tony Di Chiro of Kinergetics, for example, scored 6 correct out of 7, as did Jon Iverson, the retailer whose comments on the test appear in this month's "Letters" section [and now webmaster for the Stereophile website--JA]. I would think it obvious that those professionally involved in listening at this level of concentration get better at being able to discriminate very small differences between nominally identical components. Isn't it reasonable to expect that J. Gordon Holt or Harry Pearson, for example, who have been professionally listening to high-end components for three and two decades, respectively, should have developed a considerable degree of skill in this area? The question then should be whether it is worth designing and manufacturing components that only a favored few will be able to distinguish. |
|
Anonymous | Do you really want to open up that big old can of worms? Science vrs the Audiophile is the never ending debate.... |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 300 Registered: Jul-04 | No, I don't want to debate it. Just in case anyone wants this small collection of articles, and one more. http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Stereophile%3A+The +Highs+%26+Lows+of+Double-Blind+Testing&expire=&urlID=9138420&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2 F%2Fwww.stereophile.com%2Ffeatures%2F141%2Findex.html&partnerID=3834 It really is not worth arguing with me - I know little, and will stay out of any discussion, most likely. I almost didn't share these articles. Sounds like even the people and magazine that did these tests have not come down to a certain position on the issue. There may be better tests that were done later - that disagree with these tests. If so - I would appreciate hearing about them. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1317 Registered: Mar-05 | Don, Keep digging and sharing, this is interesting stuff! > I did a little research and asked an expert I know and apparently blind tests and double blind tests show there is not a discernable difference between a reasonable $250 receiver and a top end multi thousand dollar receiver. (I think if you got over 0.1% thd you might hear it - at least I think I did). This "$250 receiver and a top end multi-thousand$ receiver" part I couldn't find in the links you posted...what was your friend referring to? The $500 Adcom vs. the $5000 VTL results don't surprise me though...however if listeners couldn't distinguish between the VTL and say a $250 Sony that *would* be surprising. I think that once you get beyond the really cheap crappy entry-level mass-market stuff, beyond mid-fi level it's probably a lot of Placebo Effect (in conjunction with The Law of Diminishing Returns) at play...ditto for fine wine, fine dining, etc. I would have to go listen to some truly high-end audio first before swearing by that statement though...hopefully this weekend! |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1231 Registered: Feb-05 | Interesting reading on the subject in this months Stereophile. They put it into historical perspective. The article is called "The Blind Leading the Blind". You'll find it on page 3. They also provide some links. Good to see you back Edster. This place gets a little stodgy without you. |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 301 Registered: Jul-04 | Edster Part of what I was referring to was a private email from Alan Lofft who is the resident expert for Axiom and used to be the editor of Sound and Vision Magazine. He said he is going to publish this info on their website soon. He has a bunch of articles on the Axiom website. I don't want to quote him at length until he publishes it in the finished version he wants to present. He also quotes research by an Harmon Kardon researcher who found the same thing in blind tests. |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 302 Registered: Jul-04 | Thanks for the tip Art. Apparently professionals differ - something about blind tests not being the gold standard - but rather listening over time to something. Also having a bigger sample (number of listeners giving responses). Placebo effects usually wear off after a few months when it comes to medicine. So, maybe this longer listening time actually shows it is not just placebo effect when it comes to equipment you are not blind to. The blind and double blind studies are still pretty impressive, though. (To me) |
|
Anonymous | Why can blind testing distinguish speakers easily, but not amplifiers so much? |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 303 Registered: Jul-04 | I think what one of the writers was saying is that it takes time to really get to know and hear an amplifier - much less difference between them compared to speakers (this is a guess at what they were saying). Also it takes a bigger sampling to get statistical significance. If you test 25 people a 5 or 6 out of 9 doesn't mean anything staistically - not beyond the margin of error I suppose. If it is 200 people getting 6 out of 9 that is outside the margin of error and thus significant. So, small double blind tests don't tell one much since the results are not that different from mere chance. That last link I gave is the hardest reading but has a number of points of view (I did not read all of it - just some of it). I am not sure if what I just wrote makes sense entirely, but you can figure it out I think. I need a vacation. Saturday!! |
|
Anonymous | If it takes that much time to "get to know the amplifier", and there is much less difference than with loudspeakers, it doesn't sound like an amplifier does make that huge of an impact either way. Or at least it doesn't make as big an impact as some would claim (you know, those people who say you would have to be deaf not to hear the difference or that it is like night and day). Also, one could simply do a test with no time limit... Finally, in statistics, 30 is considered a large sample. Although certainly the bigger, the better. |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 304 Registered: Jul-04 | I was very impressed when David K said his new cd player made his whole system sound SO much better - I thought it wouldn't make that much difference (but didn't really know). So, either I needed to buy a new dvd/cd player or find out if what he heard was indeed possible. At first when I read the info mentioned above - I thought - poor David - he is in the throes of a placebo effect that won't last long. But, I think he said his old dvd player was a panasonic brand piece of junk. In that case, his new player would make a great difference. My Onkyo with 0.06% thd made a big difference (at least in my mind) over my old yard sale found sony receiver (I think the thd was about 0.8). So, if you are comparing crap to decent stuff it can make an authentic easily measured difference. Other than that it seems the differences are harder to hear unless you have time and a golden ear and have educated that ear with a few years of listening tests. At least that is what I understand so far. Another expert who disagrees somewhat: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi/ |
|
Anonymous | Don: Nobody ever said a good DAC didn't make a difference. If you are just using it as a transport though, a $1000 CD player is probably a waste. |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 305 Registered: Jul-04 | Mr A said: "Finally, in statistics, 30 is considered a large sample. Although certainly the bigger, the better." I don't know much about statistics. The first article I linked above said that the 25 was too small to get significant results for some reason, whereas the larger test they did found statistically significant differences - that some people could tell receivers apart from blind tests - but only a few could and they seemed to have lots of experience. |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 306 Registered: Jul-04 | Mr. A "Don: Nobody ever said a good DAC didn't make a difference. If you are just using it as a transport though, a $1000 CD player is probably a waste." Sorry, I am not that familiar with the terminology: "transport" I think the things I read didn't differentiate (as far as I read anyway) between transport (getting the info from the disc to the DACs?) and the DAC (digital to Anaolog converter). So, I have already reached my limit of intelligent conversation in this matter, I guess. |
|
Anonymous | What I mean by transport is just which DAC you use. If you don't use the CD players DAC, but instead rely on an outboard DAC (such as that of your receiver's), connected to your CD player by a toslink or coaxial digital cable, then the CD player is acting as a transport only. In this case, unless you had a really really bad CD player before, there won't be a real difference. However, if you use the CD players internal DAC's as I assume David was, then there will indeed be a difference. |
|
Anonymous | As far as statistics go, a guy named Gosset showed that you could make statistically significant findings on very small samples (say, 5). In his case it was beer. His system is referred to as "Student's T-Statistic". |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1322 Registered: Mar-05 | Thank you Art, I was trying to cut back a little since work's been getting very heavy lately. That Stereophile article you referred to doesn't seem to be posted on their website, but I did find this which is somewhat related: http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi/ |
|
Anonymous | I would have to generally agree with the "buy what makes you happy" bit. even if you know the amplifiers aren't "supposed" to sound a lick different. I'm just not as happy wearing my cheapo Timex watch as I am wearing my Bulova. Both "supposedly" tell time the same, but the Bulova just does it with so much more style. The author of the article underestimates the power of upgraditis I'm afraid. |
|
Anonymous | Boy I did a great job editing that post... |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 307 Registered: Jul-04 | Mr A I have no response to your posts about internal and external DACs and about statistics. Thanks for spelling it out for me, but I shouldn't try to make any comment when I have nothing worthwhile to say. If the articles linked above disagree on the value of expensive vs. middle of the road DACs then someone can find it in there. I think that is what they said. Davids DACs in his dvd player sounded like they were pretty poor. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 292 Registered: May-05 | Here's a great source for dispelling audio myths. He is or was (I think retired) on of the head engineers for McIntosh. I've always respected McIntosh's (and Bryston's) no non-sense approach to home audio. http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm It is a lot of reading, but if you're infron of a computer for long periods of time with nothing better to do (while I'm at work), it has some great stuff. At the bottom he also has a link to his main page, which has some more stuff. This also explains why CD players can and do sound different from one another, just scroll down to the appropriate section. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 297 Registered: May-05 | Another good article - http://anonym.to/?http://www.touristfilms.com/images/Amp_Sound.pdf This one's about ABX testing differences between amps. The only criticism I have about it is they used a tube pre-amp. They should have used a passive pre-amp. |