|
New member Username: ToltersdPost Number: 3 Registered: May-06 | I am not an audiophile, but need a modestly priced new system for music listening (my old system is a 20 year-old Denon with Mission 700 bookshelf speakers). My budget is about $1500 +/-. The room is large (35x20 feet with a large opening to the adjacent kitchen). It has a 12 ft. vaulted ceiling. For now (budget constraints) I just want two chanel stereo, but the room is prewired for 5.1. After reading on the forum here I ordered a refurbished NAD T743 (although that may be a little on the low end for a room this size, but as I said we just want reasonable sound at a reasonable price). The plan was to try out the Magnepan MMGs with that, but the WAF (wife acceptance factor) does not make that an option (audio equipment should be invisible). Based on what I read here the Dynaudio Audience 42 seem a good choice for bookshelf speakers (close to invisible?), but I can't find a source online. Does anyone have advice as to where to get them or what other alternatives I should consider? The plan was to also add a Hsu subwoofer and a "squeezebox" from www.slimdevices.com to run music (stored in Apple lossless format) from my computer. This brings up another question. Rather than the "squeezebox" one could just use an iPod in a dock (my son has one). But as I understand it an iPod set-up does not have a digital output to link to the receiver. Is that a problem? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 11035 Registered: Dec-03 | Let me tackle the iPod concern. A digital output is not necessary for your receiver specially when you are going the stereo route. You have outputs on the iPod for analog stereo and that will suffice. |
|
New member Username: ToltersdPost Number: 4 Registered: May-06 | Thanks. I was mainly concerned that the analog connection from an iPod may be lower quality that the digital one from the "squeezebox". But then, not being an audiophile, I may not hear a difference. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 11036 Registered: Dec-03 | It is not the connection...if you are using lossless format, the quality will be fine. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4186 Registered: Dec-04 | The vaulted ceiling is where music goes to die. Standmounts in that room will need very very careful tweaking to sound their best. If WAF says invisible, WAF will not like the speakers in the optimal place. The mmg's are priced well, play well(except rock and Organ bass) and will broadcast well from more sublime placements. Show this to your lovely lady. |
|
New member Username: ToltersdPost Number: 5 Registered: May-06 | Nuck, this is good ammuniton in favor of the MMGs and the opinion of a prominent member of this board should carry some weight. I have not shared this information with the relevant party, yet, but I still have to assume that the bookshelf speakers are a more likely outcome. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4192 Registered: Dec-04 | And remember, T, 60 days, man. 60! |
|
New member Username: ToltersdPost Number: 6 Registered: May-06 | As the Magnepan MMGs are so good, I would probably become only the second person in history to return them during the trial period. I think I read somewhere here that Hawk (or someone he corresponed with) had to return his because of the WAF (wife acceptance factor). |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3560 Registered: Feb-05 | I returned mine....and bought MG12's which were significantly better. In the end I went back to dynamic speakers and haven't looked back...very much. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1666 Registered: Sep-04 | Tilman, I disagree with Berny on the iPod connection issue. Although it's an OK connection the standard stereo connection from the iPod is just OK, not particularly good. In fact there are aftermarket enhancements which tear apart the iPod and replace the standard connection with a far superior one, albeit at the expense of good looks. The other thing to bear in mind is that an iPod doesn't have the capacity of a computer. The biggest iPod available is 80GB. In true lossless format this works out to approximately 200 albums. This is pretty amazing considering the size of the device, but the thing with jukebox devices is that you inevitably want the album that isn't on the device. You also have to keep the iPod charged etc - another pain in the neck. A computer can have any number of discs in it and a 250GB disc is cheaper than an iPod. In fact, if you have a network, a NAS-aware 250GB disc (a standalone networked disc) is less than an iPod! Given you'd have the Squeezebox (or RoKu Soundbridge or whatever), this solution is preferable (without the SB, it'd be a real pain since you wouldn't have local control and would have to go to the computer every time you wanted to change tracks or whatever). Also, there's a good chance that you'd get better sonic quality from the SB solution thanks to the fact the Sb is properly connected to the AV receiver. Save the iPod for the car... Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 1094 Registered: Dec-03 | Yup, go for the Squeezebox. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 11060 Registered: Dec-03 | Tilman, I was only referring to connectivity issues and how it can interface with analog inputs and not the quality of the connection in itself. Frank is right, the Soundbridge is a better option than the iPod. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1667 Registered: Sep-04 | incidentally, i am concerned about one thing - the size of your room. That's one biiig room. The Dynaudios are great little speakers, but I suspect they may find it a bit difficult to drive that size room, and also, the T743 may not have enough juice to drive them far enough to get the room going. I mean, it'll sound OK, just don't expect it to fill the room with sound or be particularly loud throughout the room. Regards, Frank. |
|
New member Username: ToltersdPost Number: 7 Registered: May-06 | Thanks guys. This settles the squeezebox vs. iPod issue. One more question though: My understanding from their the web site is that the squeezebox needs to run software on a connected computer in order to work. Is that true? If so, how can I access the music files on a NAS server without a computer running at the same time? If the squeezebox doesn't allow that, do any of the competing devices like the Soundbridge allow access to a network drive through an ethernet connection without a computer running? I would much prefer to have a network enabled harddrive run all the time (it could even sit next to the receiver) than have the computer running all the time. I am mostly using a laptop (and have a wired and a wireless network) but the laptop is not on all the time. |
|
New member Username: ToltersdPost Number: 8 Registered: May-06 | Thanks Frank. Was I too cheap in ordering the T743 instead of the T753? Also, with more reading on the board last night I understand that there may be less "power-hungry" options for speakers than the Dynaudios, which might be easier for the T743 to handle. Overall, we don't have audiophile expectations and we don't usually play our music loud. I realize that a complicated room like ours would need a lot more money for truly optimal sound than I am willing to spend. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1670 Registered: Sep-04 | I know the Sonos can communicate with the NAS devices as if they were a computer, but I'm not sure about the SB or SoundBridge. Fact is, it's better not to have the NAS device close to the system since NAS discs have a tendency to vibrate and are more likely to generate a little noise. Now this would be very quiet indeed, but in the late evenings it can be a bit of a pain (then again, I've got a TiVo in the room and that's loud by comparison). I guess what I'm saying is that there's no significant benefit to having the NAS device near the HiFi, except perhaps that you can wire it up to the SB easily rather than rely on wireless which can be a dodgy connection. Regards, Frank. |
|
New member Username: ToltersdPost Number: 9 Registered: May-06 | The soundbridge and the squeezebox do need a computer running for access to the music (according to their websites), the Sonos doesn't as Frank pointed out, but at a price: Squeezebox $249 or $299, Sonos $700+ depending on the set-up plus the price for a NAS drive. The price difference is large enough that one could buy a separate computer dedicated to music with the squeezebox. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1675 Registered: Sep-04 | Slim Devices have a new item called the Transporter. It's meant to have higher quality components blah blah and costs $2k! I find it interesting that their quality product costs so much. The Sonos is more money than the standard SB, but at least it has a fabulous remote control interface with full display of your library, artwork etc in colour as well as the option to build a network of them. You pays your money... Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1271 Registered: Apr-05 | Tilman if ou are interested in buying the squeezebox use the promotion code CPRROCKS and you will get an extra $20 off the price. |
|
New member Username: ToltersdPost Number: 10 Registered: May-06 | Thanks very much. I think this is the final push to go ahead and order it. |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1274 Registered: Apr-05 | I ordered one too. Let's exchange notes on this when you get the units. I ordered it with a lot of hesitation so I won't have any problems sending it back if I don't like it. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4226 Registered: Dec-04 | Let us know, guys? |
|
Bronze Member Username: ToltersdPost Number: 12 Registered: May-06 | Will do. Mine is supposed to arrive on Tuesday. Tilman |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1282 Registered: Apr-05 | Tilman I wanted to follow up on the squeezebox venture. I was finally able to hook it up last night and so far the only problem I am having is it does not allow me to drag and drop lossless WMA format into the play list. I have sent their tech support and e-mail and will write more on the experience later, but just wanted to drop this short line and see how yours was going. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ToltersdPost Number: 13 Registered: May-06 | I have had the "squeezebox" for a week now. I bought the ethernet only version as my house is hard-wired for network connections. All my music is in Apple lossless format, imported from CDs. The squeezebox is connected to a NAD 743 via optical digital cable. Here is my impression: 1. The sound is excellent. I can't distinguish it from sound directly from the CD. Disclaimer: I am not an audiophile. 2. Browsing and searching through the squeezebox display and remote is quite easy. There is a bit of a learning curve, but it sure beats sorting through CD cases and putting disks in the player. 3. Album tags: The music was imported through iTunes. For pop albums the tags are accurate, but for older classical albums some of the embedded information is missing or organized poorly (this is of course not the squeezebox's fault). I fixed some of it in the folder names and file names, but have not figured out how to fix the tags themselves. 4. The "slimserver" web browser based software is easy to understand, but somewhat limited and does not have a "polished" look. I have not used it much other than for set-up. 5. The internet radio connection works well for stations that are pre-programmed in the slimserver software. The slimserver software allows to enter the URLs for other radio stations. However, I found it tricky to actually get the URLs for the audiostreams out of Real player and Windows media player or from the radio stations' web sites. Also, I have not figured out, how to save this info in slimserver if one wants to listen to the same station again later. 6. The computer has to run all the time. The Slimdevices webpage has a link to information how to set up some networked harddrives to run slimserver software, but the instructions are beyond me and require fairly advanced computer skills. Even if one went that route one would then not have a monitor/display available for working in the slimserver software. I am not sure, whether to buy a separate computer in the $300-$400 range for the music which could also serve as an additional family computer/webserver/central back-up. Overall, I am very happy so far with the squeezebox and it is a keeper for me. |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1283 Registered: Apr-05 | So far I can agree to everything you are saying, though I am still having trouble with the lossless WMA format. The interesting thing about the "slimserver" is that it is open code. You can actually download the code version and make modifications to it yourself. I think that is pretty ingenius of them as they already have a site with tons of people posting additions to it. There may already be a fix for the URL issue you are mentioning. FYI I got the wireless version and so far it has been flawless. The reason I wanted to try it out is that if it works, I will potentially be interested in adding another one in my bedroom setup and remove the CD player altogether. Also look into the wake up mode so that the box can wake up your PC via its network card features. This way you don't have to have the computer on all the time. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4289 Registered: Dec-04 | Why the hell would you want to turn the pc off anyhow? That is when the problems begin. Anyhow... I have used the wma. function a bit on my sound card, and it all works flawlessly(on stuff I copied). Where do I go for wma/lossless tunes on the net?(paid, of course). |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1284 Registered: Apr-05 | Is there such a thing on the net? The lossless tunes take so much space. A few of the CD's i've burned have taken about 400 MB each. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4290 Registered: Dec-04 | They be big Stof...price to be paid. I added a Terra to the new pc for the files...memory is cheap, the music is forever. |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1285 Registered: Apr-05 | No I wasn't so worried about the hard drive space, just the download time. Still, this FLAC format is a piece of work. 780MB per disk ouch! |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4295 Registered: Dec-04 | Ay Carumba! Yeah that is a LOT of real estate. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ToltersdPost Number: 14 Registered: May-06 | Seems that the Apple lossless format uses a bit less space: 80GB for 300 CDs in my case. Supposedly all the lossless formats can be converted into each other and into more compressed formats. But I haven't played with that, yet. |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1286 Registered: Apr-05 | It's hard to tell without reading more about the algorithms they use to capture the bits. WMA says it is "mathematically lossless". I'm not sure what that means in actual hearing terms. I downloaded a software called EAC (Exact Audio Copy). It's free and it does FLAC. There is a whole bunch of information on it and its associated site about this stuff. I was affraid to go into it too much and get pulled in. |