Building a Hi-Fi advice

[dfalir]

Hi,

I was talking with a friend about how to get the best possible "outcome / music from a HI-Fi system. He told me that if i want to reach the "maximum potential of the system" that is the best sound possible, then the speakers must be x2 x3 x5 times (pick a number) more expensive than the source and /or the amplifier etc... My question is, if there is such a formal or informal "law" that indicates that a "proper" system (i.e the one that you get out the most of it in terms of sound) must have an analogy of budget.. For example if my source (Cambridge Audio stream magic 6) cost 850 GBP, then my speakers should cost twice or thrice that much in order the system to bring out its best music.

1. Is the above true?

2. Does this mean that my system (Puccini Audio Analogue Se Remote Amplifier - Cambridge Audio Stream Magic 6 - Monitor Audio Silver 4i bookeslf speakers) should have much pricier speakers in order to reach maximum potential? (Because as it is now the purchase price of speakers was the same as the cambridge Audio Stream Magic).

What do you think?

thank you for your help!

 

[TrevC]

There are no hard and fast rules but the speakers make the most difference to the sound you get, so it makes sense to buy the best you can afford, then choose an amplifier with enough power to drive them satisfactorily. Look at the power output at 4 and 8 ohms, a doubling of the available power at 4 ohms compared with 8 ohms indicates a quality product.

 

[CnoEvil]

I agree with TrevC (did I just say that? :O )

There are no hard and fast rules. Generally, I have found that the amp that can do the speakers justice, is often in the same ball park (pricewise).

You can get away with spending a bit less than a third of the budget on a source if it's digital (especially if a streaming solution).

Analogue Audio make very nice amps, but like with speakers, different alternatives should be tried.

Good system synergy, which is tailored to your taste, is the key to success.

 

[dfalir]

Thank you very much for your advice. I needed to know this info.

 

[davedotco]

I disagree, but then I usually do.....

Speakers do certainly make the most difference, but do not confuse difference with improvement.

It is my view that many modern systems are unbalanced, too much speaker and not enough amplification.

To my ears this results is a lack of control, particularly at the bass end though it is sometimes noticeable across the rest of the range. Power is important but simple 'watts per channel' are not what you need. An amplifier that can deliver it's power into the difficult load thay many loudspeakers present is needed and this does not generally come cheap.

Inadequate amplifiers show in different ways, dynamic compression, lack of dynamic shading, bright highs, soft bass, common problems with many modern systems.

Better speakers are, naturally enough, more revealing both of the music and the quality of the amplifier driving them. There are no real rules but personally it would be a rare system that, for me, usefully spent more on the speakers than the amplifier.

 

[davedotco]

Thank you very much for your advice. I needed to know this info.

You also desperately need to hear some of this for yourself, to see if what you are being told makes sense to you.

 

[Vladimir]

Dave, can you point few examples of these amps you find generally inadequate to power+control modern speakers and few that you find adequate. Might help the OP go and compare by listening and better understand the benefits of good amplification.

 

[CnoEvil]

I disagree, but then I usually do.....

Speakers do certainly make the most difference, but do not confuse difference with improvement.

It is my view that many modern systems are unbalanced, too much speaker and not enough amplification.

To my ears this results is a lack of control, particularly at the bass end though it is sometimes noticeable across the rest of the range. Power is important but simple 'watts per channel' are not what you need. An amplifier that can deliver it's power into the difficult load thay many loudspeakers present is needed and this does not generally come cheap.

Inadequate amplifiers show in different ways, dynamic compression, lack of dynamic shading, bright highs, soft bass, common problems with many modern systems.

Better speakers are, naturally enough, more revealing both of the music and the quality of the amplifier driving them. There are no real rules but personally it would be a rare system that, for me, usefully spent more on the speakers than the amplifier.

DDC, TBF you are disagreeing with something that wasn't said.

TrevC talked about an amp capable of driving the speakers and in particular looking for one that doubled its power as impedance halved......nobody mentioned Watts.

I told him to make sure he budgeted around the same for the amp as the speakers, with the correct synergy....and to try different alternatives.

We are all saying much the same thing, though I believe (like you), that the amp makes a bigger difference than some might believe

 

[Overdose]

I think a bit of cross purpose talking here.

For me, the speakers and amplifier should be considered as one, no speaker is going to sound its best if not given enough power to be able to do so. A suitable amplifer is one which will provide all the power the speakers need for your particular circumstances and use of the system. If you only listen at quiet to moderate levels, then you would be able to utilise a much less powerful amplifer than someone who requires more volume, for example if the room size is larger. The key though, is to get an amplifier that has an overhead of power to allow for transient dynamic swings. This is probably the main reason for amplifiers sounding different, they simply do not have enough power for all situations and when pushed (sometimes not even that hard), start to distort due to not being able to supply the requisite current for the load. That's what people mean by synergy or lack thereof, some amplifiers are simply not up to the job.

I'd rather not guess and faff around with such things, that's one of the reasons why I like active speakers.

 

[davedotco]

I disagree, but then I usually do.....

Speakers do certainly make the most difference, but do not confuse difference with improvement.

It is my view that many modern systems are unbalanced, too much speaker and not enough amplification.

To my ears this results is a lack of control, particularly at the bass end though it is sometimes noticeable across the rest of the range. Power is important but simple 'watts per channel' are not what you need. An amplifier that can deliver it's power into the difficult load thay many loudspeakers present is needed and this does not generally come cheap.

Inadequate amplifiers show in different ways, dynamic compression, lack of dynamic shading, bright highs, soft bass, common problems with many modern systems.

Better speakers are, naturally enough, more revealing both of the music and the quality of the amplifier driving them. There are no real rules but personally it would be a rare system that, for me, usefully spent more on the speakers than the amplifier.

DDC, TBF you are disagreeing with something that wasn't said.

TrevC talked about an amp capable of driving the speakers and in particular looking for one that doubled its power as impedance halved......nobody mentioned Watts.

I told him to make sure he budgeted around the same for the amp as the speakers, with the correct synergy....and to try different alternatives.

We are all saying much the same thing, though I believe (like you), that the amp makes a bigger difference than some might believe

Hi Cno.

I was taking my cue from the OP's point (that was suggested to him) that he spends 2, 3 or more times as much on the speakers as he does on the amplifier. I missed the bit of TrevC's post, of course he is right, up to a point......... :doh:

What I was also trying to get across is that there is more to a good amplifier than power, even it's capability into lower impedences is only part of the story. I remain convinced that really good amplifiers make a big difference and that this difference is pivotal to the way a system sounds, in many ways I feel that the difference the amplifier makes is more fundamental than the differences made by speakers.

This is not, generally, a widely held view on here, but as you know it is a case I like to make given the opportunity.

 

[lindsayt]

Example (a) I'm thinking of buying an amplifier. It would cost about one quarter as much as my speakers. This amplifier can only provide a small fraction (4%) of the power my speakers can handle (24/7/365).

Will this amplifer be a good match for my speakers? Should I buy this amplifer or should I buy something else?

Example (b) I'm thinking of buying an amplifier. It will cost five times more than my speakers. It will provide more than sufficient power for my needs.

Will this amplifer be a good match for my speakers? Should I buy this amplifer or should I buy something else?

What solution is likely to get me the best sound? Example (a) or example (b)?

 

[Waxy]

I don't know about rules of thumb, but looking at my relatively new system, I see the following (assuming full retail paid, which it wasn't )

Source: 37%

Amp: 38%

Speakers: 25%

I appreciate that this may be atypical!

 

[Esra]

I am here with Dave and Waxy.Most important is quality of source,garbage in>garbage out.I tried myself and came to the conclusion proper amplication is more important than last % in speaker quality.A good speaker will never play on full potential with unmatched/not proper amplification and on the other hand you can let really shine even "budget" speakers with good powerful matching amplification.I would certainly spend min. as much on amplification as I spend for speakers talking for "normal" hifi and not (ueber) high end.

 

[davedotco]

As ever there are exceptions and circumstances which will dictate a different approach, but with modern equipment, particularly at the affordable end of the market, I find the amplifier is often the weak link.

The modern tendency to spend more on the speakers usually leads to bigger and more powerful models, room matching then becomes more important, it is all to easy for speakers to become unrully and poorly controlled. The room is often blamed for these issues but in my view it is often 'too much speaker' with 'too little control' that is the problem.

Getting the speaker right is pivotal, but to my mind it is matching the speaker to the room that really matters, not just buying the best speaker you can. When you have a good room/speaker match the clarity and resolution will be maximised, the quality of the amplifier then becomes the critical factor.

Most modern amplifiers are entirely competent, they play reasonably loud without obvious distortion, and for many that is enough but to my ears there are a few that go above and beyond this, producing music that is more engaging and, well, realistic, than their compeditors.

As always it depends on how involved and how much time and effort you want too invest in this, it is clear that for some the time and effort searching out that little extra performance is largely a waste of time, for others it is pivotal to getting the system that is really going to deliver for them.

As always it is largely up to you, the buyer.

 

[ID.]

I always admired my dad's amp (grunty old Luxman that is as old as I am), so for some reason have always placed the amp at the centre of the hi-fi.

In my first hi-fi my amp was about twice the price of my speakers. With my current setup, the RZ-1 is a combined CD plater/amp/DAC, so assuming the price of it splits evenly between the amp and CD section, I'd say my current speakers cost about the same as the amp, although I get the feeling they'd like something of a bit better quality than my all-in-one provides. There is a definite improvement when I've heard the DB1i on the end of a Luxman l-505u and L-507u, which are about 1.5 and 2.5 times the cost of the speakers, respectively. But, to be honest, these amps will also drive considerably bigger, more demanding and more expensive speakers with ease.

 

[steve4232]

I take it that not many of you agree with Linn's philosophy which was admittedly sneered at by the Hi-Fi cognescenti in the early 1970's but has (or so I thought anyway) subsequently become "the rule of hi-fi buying"?

The source is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of the chain, bar none! Forget speakers, they can only reproduce what they are given. Garbage in = garbage out. This has surely got to be the undeniable truth, no? I have upgraded my "front ends" far more than I have amps and speakers. Nothing has stood still in time. All source components develop over time: CD players, DVD players, Blu-Ray players. turntables, tape decks, streamers. The better the source component the better it will sound.

Whoever said spend x times the amount of the source on speakers needs to be taken out in public and subjected to non-stop Phil Collins albums all day! :rant: This is just plain daft and wasteful in my opinion.

Back in my student days I was told something similar by a shop assistant who sold me a pricey pair of B & W's. When I got home they sounded ok but didn't make my Hi-Fi sound any better overall. There was something missing: depth and detail. It all sounded very flat and lifeless, sterile. It was not until I got a half way decent CD player that everything pulled into focus and the system sounded much better.

After the source, the amps are key and then LASTLY THE SPEAKERS!

I had a dem the other day and the dealer was pretty clueless. I told him I had a high quality (although now vintage) pre/power amp combo and he kept bringing out integrated amps to put into a system to dem a source component. When I said the sound was naff compared to what I was used to, he kept getting better and better speakers out until I finally snapped and said, it's the AMP that's wrong, not the speakers. In fact, the speakers were already better than what I have currently but the system did not sound as good. Why, because of the amp. The closer the component is to the source the more key it becomes.

I'm certain the OP will follow his friends advice though irrespective of this as it seems to me that many people still believe this is the correct way to buy.

 

[Covenanter]

There's a lot of good advice on this thread. I've always been one to spend more on speakers because that's where I notice the difference with my type of music (mainly classical). I also don't listen at high volume levels and I suspect that if you do then you need to spend more on amplification so that your system doesn't lose control.

Chris

 

[the record spot]

Example (a) I'm thinking of buying an amplifier. It would cost about one quarter as much as my speakers. This amplifier can only provide a small fraction (4%) of the power my speakers can handle (24/7/365).

Will this amplifer be a good match for my speakers? Should I buy this amplifer or should I buy something else?

Example (b) I'm thinking of buying an amplifier. It will cost five times more than my speakers. It will provide more than sufficient power for my needs.

Will this amplifer be a good match for my speakers? Should I buy this amplifer or should I buy something else?

What solution is likely to get me the best sound? Example (a) or example (b)?

Depends on what else you need, how they sound and what you mean by "best ".

 

[chebby]

I take it that not many of you agree with Linn's philosophy which was admittedly sneered at by the Hi-Fi cognescenti in the early 1970's but has (or so I thought anyway) subsequently become "the rule of hi-fi buying"?

The source is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of the chain, bar none! Forget speakers, they can only reproduce what they are given. Garbage in = garbage out. This has surely got to be the undeniable truth, no?

You start business making a (supposedly) revolutionary new turntable in your dad's factory. You don't make amps or speakers yet. (Years or decades away at this point.) LPs are the main source format for everyone because CDs are almost a decade in the future.

What are you going to encourage your customers to spend the most money on?

What are you going to encourage your dealers to tell the customer about spending on the source?

What system hierarchy 'philosophy' are you going hammer into the hi-fi press at every possible opportunity?

What are you going to tell the public at hi-fi shows about building a system and allocationg a portion of the budget to each component? (Remember? An expensive turntable is your only product so far.)

As for that bit about hi-fi cognescenti sneering at you (in the early 1970's), that's probably because they were used to far better turntables than the Thorens / Acoustic Research / Ariston 'knock-off' that you were overcharging for and claiming to have 'invented'!

 

[steve4232]

I take it that not many of you agree with Linn's philosophy which was admittedly sneered at by the Hi-Fi cognescenti in the early 1970's but has (or so I thought anyway) subsequently become "the rule of hi-fi buying"?

The source is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of the chain, bar none! Forget speakers, they can only reproduce what they are given. Garbage in = garbage out. This has surely got to be the undeniable truth, no?

You start business making a (supposedly) revolutionary new turntable in your dad's factory. You don't make amps or speakers yet. (Years or decades away at this point.) LPs are the main source format for everyone because CDs are almost a decade in the future.

What are you going to encourage your customers to spend the most money on?

What are you going to encourage your dealers to tell the customer about spending on the source?

What system hierarchy 'philosophy' are you going hammer into the hi-fi press at every possible opportunity?

What are you going to tell the public at hi-fi shows about building a system and allocationg a portion of the budget to each component? (Remember? An expensive turntable is your only product so far.)

As for that bit about hi-fi cognescenti sneering at you (in the early 1970's), that's probably because they were used to far better turntables than the Thorens / Acoustic Research / Ariston 'knock-off' that you were overcharging for and claiming to have 'invented'!

Wow! You mean to say that Linn have only ever been in the business for the money. I'm shocked! So what better t/tables were the experts listening to then? Technics Direct Drive? Tell that to this magazine which has recently rewarded the LP12 in basic form, 5 stars even though the price has increased 400% since 1990 alone AND for that you get an inferior power supply to even the old Valhalla.

BTW, you can say what you like. My Linn's due for replacement any day soon!

 

[Vladimir]

Essentially I think Steve is right. However, I must tweak his Linn doctrine.

Transducers first.

A transducer is a device that converts a signal in one form of energy to another form of energy.

In the time when sound came out of the trumpet on the wind up mechanical turntable, source was everything. Few decades later as separate components join the scene, speakers and analogue source are transducers important on equal ground. Few decades later the digital era starts and the source is no longer a transducer, just the speakers.

Speakers (including headphones) are more than ever the most important link in the audio chain today.

If someone is time located in the previous stages with his choice of gear then no doubt the analogue source is on equal footing or even more important than the speakers.

 

[the record spot]

Exactly.

 

[Covenanter]

I see the "Linn wars" are still going 40+ years on.

Chris

 

[chebby]

So what better t/tables were the experts listening to then? Technics Direct Drive?

You think that was the only alternative back then? What a simple view of history. (Notwithstanding the fact that one particular Technics DD was about the most successful selling turntable in the world.)

"Ivor saves the world from Japanese turntables."

You were talking about 'hi-fi cognescenti' and they had a plethora of upmarket and well engineered turntables to choose from before Ivor T's dad made his Thorens TD150 / Acoustic Research / Ariston RD11s clone*. (The Garrard transcriptors were also a favourite.)

You give the impression it was a mass market Japanese direct drive or nothing before Linn came along. (Bought into the Linn propaganda big time by the looks of it.)

*Remember the Tiefenbrun family business (Castle Precision Engineering) were making the Ariston RD11s under contract when Ivor had his brainwave...

 

[Vladimir]

Looks like the Linn & Naim cult will outlive even Scientology. :doh: