2 Channel 4 Me...
|
Unregistered guest | Hello Gents, Am researching my next 2 channel (as well will get one for my girlfriend), would value your input... Am considering: - Rotel RX-1050 - NAD C740 (yes, am aware of possible QC probs.) - Luxman R-115 or R-117 (heard are warm, powerful, and have remotes) - NAD 7400 or 7600 (beasts they are) - Vintage Marantz 2270 - Vintage Luxman 1120 or 1070 - Vintage Rotel (possibly the rx-2002 i think) Am exploring vintage in that I have a feeling they have a power, warmth, and soul that moderns may not. Being born in '68 and growing up hearing Montrose, Trower, UFO, and Santana cranked through similar vintage - it could just hit home. Considering JBL 4312's, ADS's, Spendor 1/2, but have been hearing alot about these GMA Europa's and new Ohms (thanks Rick, Hawk, Maui!) I do enjoy jazz, classical, world, blues, the occasional techno, but often must bow to my dumb-rocker roots. Granted I understand that taste and speakers are key, but just would like general feedback on these models, plus any others you might recommend. Thanks so much and so glad I found this forum... (Yes, have considered separates. Hafler DH 220 w/110 preamp, Jolida 1015RC hybrid, Mid 80's and earlier Luxman Amps, Integrateds, and Tuner Preamps, and others things that won't break my bank. Welcome input along these lines as well.) |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1033 Registered: Dec-03 | Marc, You signposted me here from a thread about turntables. I cannot really add much; that is all high-quality stuff, as far as I know. My own recent discovery is that CD is obsolete. We have a new section "Home Audio: DVD-Audio & SACD". Even if you stay two-channel, consider getting a DVD-Audio/CD player. My manifesto is on Twilight of the Compact Disc. If you join forces with your girlfriend, you can also consider surround sound, and at much less than twice the cost. These things are always better shared, imho.... |
|
Unregistered guest | Thanx John A. Well, she's moving into her new place, and there's most likely no way she'll want HT. She can barely stand 2 speakers and a receiver. But I've shown her some nicely finished speakers (the Kef 104/2) - and she thinks they do look good. She is a music lover, and is always into the sounds I get from my different speakers,(it blow her away the difference in sound from different setups). So I'm just going to score her a good receiver, cd player (or dvd/cd player as suggested by The Manifesto) and some stellar speakers - most likely bookshelves as her place is kind of small. She will be thrilled as she is a serious music lover. While she loves everything - classical, rock, anything good, she's especially keen on the female voice (go figure). I can't wait to get her a setup that puts the musician in her room, and turn her on to Diana Krall of whom I've heard so much about (so she'll stop listening to Sara McGlaughlin - blech!)  |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1035 Registered: Dec-03 | Marc, I think you're doing just fine! BTW KEF 104/2s are more than "nicely finished". They are the tops for sound quality. I have read some great things here about Diana Krall. I understand she has a DVD-Video "Live in Paris". Several guys have written ecstatic praise of that, and I mean to get it. I stick with my suggestion that your CD player should be able to play DVD-Audo. Especially with a musician girlfriend, with KEF 104/2s! Please take a look at the latest post on that last link of mine (May 13, above). Also my review of my own NAD T533 player. All the best. |
|
Unregistered guest | Lol. Yes, I may get her some Kef 104/2's. I was considering Reynaud Twins or Spendor 3/5's, but she does like to crank it as well - so some 104/2's might be in order. She's seen them and like their looks - a flying start. (There is no way she will accept Europa's - that black finish won't do it no matter what they sound like!) I'll show her some Ohm's to see what she says. Rick B having had his epiphony (sp?) and all... Needless to say - Maggies are out of the question for her. (She's 5'2 - I'd hate to think what would happen if one of those fell on her.) |
|
Unregistered guest | And I'll keep that T533 in mind. But I must admit, I was considering the Music Hall cd-25. It's said have a great, analog sound to it, be very detailed, and yet quite forgiving. Forgiving is important in that I don't want to be turned off of 75% of my dumb-rocker cd collection, ya know? |
|
Unregistered guest | Marc, hey now! The Europa's look wayyyyyyyy better in the flesh than they do in the website pics. In fact, I have not had a single person say to me "Damn they sound great.......but they look like they fell thru an ugly tree and hit every branch" Most comments I get are "WOW!!!!!!!! followed by......."Ok.....where's the subwoofer" Never once has anyone said "These are UGLY. And I live on Maui.......home of the multi-zillion dollar homes. Wife MUCH prefers them to the ADS L-1290's in oak I had prior to the Europa's. In fact, several of my musician friends have just been blown away by them. Many studios are using them for mixdown monitors because they cut the job roughly in half. As far as looks go, they look more like Pin grained leather, to be honest. I have them on some "Ultimate" 24" stands and they look GREAT! But.....if looks mean more than sound.....your free to buy whatever your heart (or her's) desires. Just won't sound as good. I promise you that. Good luck. |
|
Unregistered guest | Almost forgot, I'd look more into vintage Luxman or vintage Tandberg amps. The Haffler is old....and slow, in my opinion. Not overly impressed with Jolida, but thats just me. The older H/K amps including Citation are hard to beat for the $$$. Tubes sound warmer and behave better when pushed hard, but tubes wear out and can be hard to find. Best new amps include Rowland Research and Edge, though they may be out of many folks price range. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1091 Registered: Dec-03 | LOL, everyone. Especially Marc. Look, I bought my first system in 1974, and I was a late starter. My first reasonable system was 1979. That is 25 years ago. Since then. Amps/receivers; nothing is new. Speakers; nothing is new. FM tuners; nothing is new. Analogues sources (tape and LP); nothing is new. Digital sources; DVD-A. That's new. DVD-A has a "great, analog sound to it": it is as good as analog. A DVD-A player will also play all your CDs, Marc. Fiddling around with upsampling and transports on CD-only players is like re-arranging the deckchairs on "The Titanic". |
|
Bronze Member Username: KendridPost Number: 32 Registered: Apr-04 | John, "Amps/receivers; nothing is new" Pro logic, II and IIx??? Dolby Digital? DTS? I think those are all 'new' compared to 25 years ago. Do you also have an SACD player? I see you raving about DVD-A (which isn't all that new anymore) but not SACD. SACD is just as good as DVD-A, so why limit your catalog to just the one format? Just curious, Kevin |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1094 Registered: Dec-03 | Kevin, Thanks. I was addressing "2-channel" (see thread title), and trying to keep it simple! Also reproduction of recorded material, from commercially-available media, in the home. Hi-res digital recording has been used professionally since the late 1970s, and DTS has been used in cinemas since about 1993, I think. Also when I wrote "new" I meant "...and significant", also "...and widely available". So, of course, there are some judgements in there; I was voicing an opinion. When we get to the present day, it is certainly difficult to judge; the take-up of DVD-A and SACD really remains to be seen. Amps/receivers. Well, they can have have more channels. That is because there are various ways of getting surround sound. But the principles are much the same, and the performance. Prologic (inc II and IIx; also DTS Neo, I believe) is a way of getting virtual surround sound from 2-channel sources. "Dolby Digital" means so many things I have almost given up; you can even find it on stereo VHS tapes. DVDs with "Dolby Digital Mono" must confuse everybody. Dolby Digital AC-3 and DTS are genuine up-to-six-channel recorded surround sound formats. Yes, I think surround sound is significant. Others do not. However, even if you like surround sound, the idea is very old - there were a number of much earlier analogue surround sound formats, called "Quadraphonic" and "Ambisonic". They didn't take off, but it is clear the digital ones are, or have. DVD-A gives better sound than CD in two-channel, and better sound than DD AC-3, or DTS, in six-channel. DTS is next best, in surround, in my opinion, of the formats I have heard. SACD was announced in 1999. It was then 2-channel, and touted as a replacement for CD. It showed no signs of getting everyone to replace their CD collections, which was th original idea. SACD became multichannel in 2001, in response to the success of DVD, and in anticipation of the the success of DVD-A. DVD-V was introduced in 1997, I think. DVD-A was announced in 1999. The first DVD-A players came in 2000, so I read. So there is a "format war", even as we speak. I do not have an SACD player, and have not heard SACD. Yes, it qualifies as "new". Time will tell whether it also qualifies as "...and significant". It was not the big leap forward it licence holders hope for, in 1999. "SACD" has already changed its meaning, once. We are in the middle of a transition in digital sources. The DSD encoding method of SACD is also now being built into some Sony amps. Personally, I do not think the objective is improved sound quality. Recording engineers use linear PCM in the first place, and have to convert DSD back to linear PCM to edit. Linear PCM is the basis of CD, DVD-A (where it may be losslessly packed with MLP) and DTS (where is it compressed). It is really too bad that Sony and Philips did not put their corporate weight behind DVD-A. Life would now be simpler for everyone. The most that enthusiasts for SACD can say is that it is equal to DVD-A. Maybe you can comment? If it is true, please take "DVD-A" in my last post as meaning "...and SACD". BTW I also missed out CD (1982). I remember its introduction quite well. CD has been a spectacular success. But for sound quality (leaving aside multichannel for the moment) DVD-A and linear PCM at higher resolution (also know as "PCM Stereo", I think) are a big improvement. SACD is too, most people agree. Then there are DAC, DAT, minidisc, laserdisc, and a number of other things that never caught on. And some that did, such as the Sony Walkman, but that was just an implementation, not a new technology. In the convenience stakes, I now back the Apple iPod. But this is off-topic! I feel I can speak about DVD-A because I have heard it for myself, and it is unarguably a big improvement in sound quality over CD, apart from the separate question of surround sound. CD, in contrast, was not a significant improvement in sound quality over LP, contrary to what the industry assured us in 1982. It is clear now that CD was a backward step, except for some issues, and in some cases, such as background and surface noise. However, the increased convenience of CD, and the lower cost of players (eventually) may have brought better sound to many people. That has been a good thing, I think. BTW If you haven't already, try dipping into the new forum topic here "DVD-Audio & SACD". There are quite a few older audio guys, scratching their heads, and wondering what is going on, and where it will all end. |
|
Unregistered guest | *laughing* Ok, I've got Maui ripping my head off because my girlfriend won't tolerate black speakers, and John A pushing DVD-A revolution with so many "DVD SACD PDQ" I can't keep up. Go figure. Maui, Hang-on-a-second-wait, I didn't say they were ugly, I just know her taste. While I won't get them for her, the more you tell me about them, the more jazzed I am to get them for myself. Trust me, I do not doubt your judgement in sound or looks whatsoever. And the more you talk them up the more stoked I am to pick them up. They sound like my dream speaker. Thanks for the suggestions on my amps/receivers. I've been looking at vintage Luxman receivers (1070,1120) and amps (L series) and am seriously considering them. I've heard so much about Luxman's vintage amps, receivers, and integrateds. Pretty much ditching the Hafler thought. Thanx very much for addressing that... John A, Sounds good. I wasn't concerned the T533 wouldn't play them, I was worried it (and other considered equipment) might be ultra-revealing and turn me off of my lesser-quality recorded cd's. Doesn't feel like as much a concern. Hawk, You must have something to ad.... Guys, as usual, can't thank you enough for the input. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1105 Registered: Dec-03 | Marc, My last onslaught was prompted by Kevin's post. Yes, I find my best old CDs now sound dull. I expect you will find the same. I still like the music, though. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1109 Registered: Dec-03 | Kevin, You wrote: "SACD is just as good as DVD-A" Gregory Stern writes on May 17 on US DVD/SACD Sales Figures for 2003: "SACD in non-surround isn't a huge improvement over CD." Gregory knows his stuff; he was one of those who first explained to me, here, about DVD-Audio. DVD-Audio IS a huge improvement over CD; I can vouch for that. |
|
Bronze Member Username: KendridPost Number: 33 Registered: Apr-04 | Geez John, all I wanted was a simple yes/no as to if you had an SACD player. I've personally auditioned both in my system and they were both an improvement over CD. I am referring to two channel listening only - I don't like multi channel music. Well, I might like it but my room is less than ideal and I don't have the money to buy a pair of matching surrounds for my main speakers. I don't hang out on this board much except to get some info on NAD. At home theater forum . com's Music forum SACD vs DVD-A has been discussed to death and it is pretty unanimous that they are very similiar in sound quality. What really matters is the source material being played and the player. I've found that the player is very important. I have read quite a few raves about the $180 Pioneer all-in-one DVD-A/SACD player. I tried it at home and it really was not any better than CD with either DVD-A or SACD. I also had a Sony SACD player and listening to an SACD with it was very impressive. Same with my JVC DVD-A DVD player. It is impressive while the supposedly 'great' Pioneer unit is terrible. I learned a valuable lesson - not all hi-res hardware is created equal. "Recording engineers use linear PCM in the first place, and have to convert DSD back to linear PCM to edit." From my readings at HTF this is not always a correct statement. I believe the Alision Krauss' live CD was recorded as DSD and never converted to PCM, and there are a few others. I don't have time right now to find the info or I would. Here is a recent thread regarding SACD vs DTS/DD. Be sure to read the origianl poster's update. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193654 I highly recommend checking out this forum: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=1&forumid= 16&x=4&y=7 |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1110 Registered: Dec-03 | Kevin, Thanks. I did not know "where you were coming from". I think I get the picture! Apologies for the Spanish Inquisition. Points take. I will check out those links. About all I know is from this forum plus my own listening and some different magazine articles. I, too, thought stereo was the real McCoy, and surround sound only for kids. Until about a year ago. Best regards. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1111 Registered: Dec-03 | Kevin, Re the Alision Krauss thread, yes, those guys are comparing SACD with the sound on DVD-Video. Seems a strange way to do it. Each to his own! |
|
Bronze Member Username: KendridPost Number: 34 Registered: Apr-04 | Well, the DVD Video is DTS and DD, so it should be better than the CD. It is an odd comparison, but still somewhat valid. Plus if they are comparing multi-channel, they can't compare it to the CD. If you get a chance check out SACD. You can expand your hi-rez catalog by 2000+ discs if you are interested in the material. Here is a site last lists almost every SACD available: http://www.sa-cd.net/ |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1122 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Kevin. I do regret the fact that we cannot decide for ourselves on the format alone; it could be that who owns the catalogues will be the decisive factor. This is an example of how the industry now seems to be run by lawyers. On another thread (DVD-Audio, SACD, or both?), when RIAA introduced the standard for record equalization in 1954, were things any different, I wonder. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics