Building a Hi-Fi advice

[steve4232]

Yes, I already know the Linn history, thanks, blah, blah, blah......................

So the LP12 is rubbish then?

This weekend I'm going to send my Lp12 to landfill in disgust. How dare it pretend to be an RD11!

 

[davedotco]

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

Chris

And will continue to do so.

The reality was that, at the time it was introduced, the LP12 (whatever it's provenance) was a good player, available from a network of mostly compedent dealers at a price that people could afford.

It was not a well known brand in those days remember, it was sold primarily by demonstration, often against all comers. It saw off most of the competition quite comfortably, including the 'worlds biggest selling turntable' which sounded pretty poor in comparison. There were better players available, but either needed enthusiast owners or very deep pockets.

The dealer would set it up, often install and the result was an awful lot of very satisfied music enthusiasts. In the early days the marketing was pretty sound, the real bullsh!t came later

 

[Vladimir]

They didn't have to lie back then. All they had to show you was a pair of legs.

 

[Covenanter]

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

Chris

And will continue to do so.

The reality was that, at the time it was introduced, the LP12 (whatever it's provenance) was a good player, available from a network of mostly compedent dealers at a price that people could afford.

It was not a well known brand in those days remember, it was sold primarily by demonstration, often against all comers. It saw off most of the competition quite comfortably, including the 'worlds biggest selling turntable' which sounded pretty poor in comparison. There were better players available, but either needed enthusiast owners or very deep pockets.

The dealer would set it up, often install and the result was an awful lot of very satisfied music enthusiasts. In the early days the marketing was pretty sound, the real bullsh!t came later

I did a long audition in 1977/8 between Linn, Rega and Thorens. (I forget all the model numbers, it is half a lifetime ago!) I ended up buying the Thorens TD160 (with a Hadcock arm) because I thought it was better made and sounded better. My then fiance/wife agreed with my choice. I had a number of friends who had Linns and it was like I had commited blasphemy.

Chris

PS I have to say that Linn are making some splendid recordings nowadays.

 

[chebby]

Yes, I already know the Linn history, thanks, blah, blah, blah......................

So the LP12 is rubbish then?

This weekend I'm going to send my Lp12 to landfill in disgust. How dare it pretend to be an RD11!

So you still don't understand that your cherished Source First hierarchy/philosophy of system building was inevitable from a company who only made a source and it was not some ultimate 'truth'?

 

[TrevC]

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.

I can buy a Behringer amplifier for £150 that exhibits all the desirable qualities that anyone could wish for in an amplifier at any price. High damping factor, low distortion, huge power and a doubling of the available power at 4 ohms compared with 8 ohm impedance loads. I could match this with speakers that cost thousands and the speakers would still remain the weakest link in the setup.

OK, so it looks like carp.

http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/A500.aspx

 

[Vladimir]

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.

I can buy a Behringer amplifier for £150 that exhibits all the desirable qualities that anyone could wish for in an amplifier at any price. High damping factor, low distortion, huge power and a doubling of the available power at 4 ohms compared with 8 ohm impedance loads. I could match this with speakers that cost thousands and the speakers would still remain the weakest link in the setup.

OK, so it looks like carp.

http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/A500.aspx

But you will be embarassed with your audiophile friends.

 

[TrevC]

But you will be embarassed with your audiophile friends.

I would hide it and only leave a preamp on show.

 

[steve4232]

Yes, I already know the Linn history, thanks, blah, blah, blah......................

So the LP12 is rubbish then?

This weekend I'm going to send my Lp12 to landfill in disgust. How dare it pretend to be an RD11!

So you still don't understand that your cherished Source First hierarchy/philosophy of system building was inevitable from a company who only made a source and it was not some ultimate 'truth'?

You don't have to be quite so patronising! What you seem to miss here though is that this has also been MY experience. I'm not blindly following a doctrine that is 40 years out of date apparently just to please the owner of a company I have one single product from that I bought second hand over 20 years ago. I actually do not even like Linn or the way it operates with its nonsensical upgrades. If these components are so much better, Ivor, then why not just build them in in the first place?! :roll:

No, let me please make my position clear. I am not a "Linnie" or a blind supporter of Naim/Linn hierarchy philosophy / marketing speak. I like the Lp12 and bought one. It is the best t/table I've ever had, not the best one I've ever heard. I know there are better tables out there. In fact, tomorrow I am taking delivery of one, a new model not used. I will mothball the LP12 again or possibly even sell it to one of the many hordes of cultish followers it has. It will then be free to con its next owner for another 20 years.

My original point was to answer the OP who seemed to believe that speakers are key. IMHO, they re not, digital sources or not. All source components sound different and can ultimately affect the end result. Maybe it was more significant to the general way of thinking back in 1972, I don't know, but I believe it still applies today. If I want to improve my system I look to change source components even though I know my speakers are the weakest link. The fact remains that sound quality and faithful reproduction of music has been improved considerably for me by swapping source components. The speakers have given me less sounds for pounds. I agree that amps are significant but it's not simply a case of looking at technical data. Some amps will do the job on paper but sound like carp in the process. Good amps cost a lot of money and it'll be wasted money of the source components are not up to the job.

If I put a £39 CD player through my pre/power amp combo, do you think it would sound any good? If I then spent £4000 on speakers, would it sound better? 'No' and 'no' are the answers that are truthful. There is a balance to be struck. Over-loading the "front end" doesn't work either. You wouldn't put a £10,000 cartridge on a £200 table with a £300 tone-arm. Neither would I spend £10,000 on a source with sub £1500 speakers. It's all about balance.

 

[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.

I can buy a Behringer amplifier for £150 that exhibits all the desirable qualities that anyone could wish for in an amplifier at any price. High damping factor, low distortion, huge power and a doubling of the available power at 4 ohms compared with 8 ohm impedance loads. I could match this with speakers that cost thousands and the speakers would still remain the weakest link in the setup.

OK, so it looks like carp.

http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/A500.aspx

We have been here before Trev, I understand exactly what you are saying and why you say it.

My ears and experience tell me different, impossible to prove as a short term blind test will not help, it is how you react to the music over a longish period that tells the story. Very difficult to prove in any meaningful way, so not really an argument that is going anywhere.

It is an interesting product and there are many others in the pro world at similar and and slightly higher prices, I have in the past used such amplifiers to great effect for specific purposes. With the move to simpler systems and computer based audio, a power amplifier is probably all many users need, I would love to have access to enough equipment to try some of these things.

For what it is worth some people I know in the pro-audio business do not much rate the A500, may well be snobbishness...... :?

 

[CnoEvil]

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!

My position on Source depends on what it is.

If Vinyl, then I think that anything up to about 40% is where I would be....in fact, back in the day, the advice would have been as much as 50%.

IME. A well designed Streamer (eg. Sneaky DS) can compete with CDPs at 2 to 3 times the price, so can take up a smaller percentage (in my case about 12%, allowing equal budget for Amps and Speakers).

If I had a TT, I would spend my budget much as you have done.

 

[dfalir]

Ok! I had to read all posts twice in order to be able to follow your conversation. And I have read some very interesting posts! Now,

to answer some of you asking / assuming this, no, I am not going to follow my friend's advice. I think that the "rule" that goes like "if your amplifier costs GBP500 then your speakers HAVE to cost GBP2500" in order to get the most out of the system is a "silly" rule. Its not a mathematical type of x the amplifier cost, then 3x (or 4x or 5x) the speaker cost.

What I believe is this.

If you have a budget of 3000 GBP

I believe that I will get a far better outcome if I purchase the best rated amplifier, the best rated source and the best rated speakers that all cost rougly the same amount (in our case 1000GBP each) , than if I buy the best rated speakers for 2000, and then I am left with 1000GBP to buy the best rated amplifier and the best rated source for 500 each. Dont get me wrong here. When I say best rated I mean the best possible in each price range, regardless of the price range.. I mean 5* speakers for 2000GBP or 5* speakers for 1000GBP.

I believe this because I think that ALL PARTS of the system contribute EQUALLY to the end result. May be a component provides something more or something less to the whole system than another component , but certainly there is not rule saying that the speakers must be X times more expensive than any other componenet in order to get the most out of a system...

In other words you can not say that a 500GBP (5*) source a 500GBP (5*) amp, and a 2000GBP (5*) speakers will DEFINATELY sound better than if the source and the amp and the speakers are in the same price range. Again, assuming that for both combinations you have matched the components to you personal "ear" taste...

What do you think?

 

[nopiano]

I think it depends on two things:

1. Your preference for sound

2. Your room and domestic preferences

we get some posters saying they want head banging bass, while other say they listen mainly to jazz or string quartets. To use just a couple of examples. If you like small stand mount speakers and don't mind ones with no grilles, then KEF LS50 will work with amps from around £400 to £4000 with incrementally better results. That's because they are exceptionally resolving. But if you want floorstanders with heavy bass than they aren't an option and you might look for something else, and more costly. I would personally choose the LS50, but others would not.

I agree with Cno that if I was using a turntable in a new system I might blow almost 50% on it! but nowadays many folk use a MacBook and USB DAC with powered speakers, and then the principles are quite different.

 

[Vladimir]

Hypothtical situation:

You have 3000 GBP and you enter a fairly large and well supplied hi-fi store. What do you go to listen to first? Speakers, amps, sources, cables or stands?

 

[Overdose]

Assuming that you have the StreamMagic as a source, then do yourself (and your wallet) a favour and just go and get a demo of some Event Opals or equally capable active speakers and any need to worry about system synergy or amplifiers being up to the job, goes straight out of the window.

 

[CnoEvil]

Hypothtical situation:

You have 3000 GBP and you enter a fairly large and well supplied hi-fi store. What do you go to listen to first? Speakers, amps, sources, cables or stands?

I personally would decide on the Type / Class of amp, and then sort speakers to match. It can of course be the other way round.

I believe that the Amp is the heart of the system, and the system should be built round that....for example, the only way to get the sound of a Valve Amp, is to get a Valve Amp.

Though there are no hard and fast rules.

 

[BigH]

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.

Yes but that was a Turntable based system. It does not apply so much with digital. there have been articles in Hifi mags where tested compared players like Sony play station against top range cdplayers and had a job to tell the difference.

I don't there are any hard and fast rules. I would go for a more balanced approach. Some speakers seem to need better amps than others do. As Dave says speakers prob. make the biggest difference to the sound. I have found the difference between cdp and amps to be small.

 

[CnoEvil]

In other words you can not say that a 500GBP (5*) source a 500GBP (5*) amp, and a 2000GBP (5*) speakers will DEFINATELY sound better than if the source and the amp and the speakers are in the same price range. Again, assuming that for both combinations you have matched the components to you personal "ear" taste...

What do you think?

I think you have been given some interesting things to think about.

Hi-fi is something that, once your eyes have been opened to some interesting possibilities, you then have to find your own path...by demoing.

eg. Valve or Solid State; Active or Passive; Class A or Class D; Sealed, Ported or Electrostatic Speaker etc.

Trust what you like (not what someone else tells you is preferable),

 

[davedotco]

Hypothtical situation:

You have 3000 GBP and you enter a fairly large and well supplied hi-fi store. What do you go to listen to first? Speakers, amps, sources, cables or stands?

Hypothetical answer:

Go to a decent dealer and get him to play you systems that he knows works well at and around your budget.

If you hear a system you really like buy it, get the dealer to install and do not allow him to leave until you are happy.

 

[Esra]

Another good example

take these speakers (they are really amazing what you get for the money)

http://stereo.ru/before/profile.php?tree_id=59&product_id=16335.html

with an amp say twice the cost they probably sound crap but give them some juice and current (say Kandy2 upwards) they can sing easily in the 1-1.5k class speakers range.

 

[BigH]

Hypothtical situation:

You have 3000 GBP and you enter a fairly large and well supplied hi-fi store. What do you go to listen to first? Speakers, amps, sources, cables or stands?

Hypothetical answer:

Go to a decent dealer and get him to play you systems that he knows works well at and around your budget.

If you hear a system you really like buy it, get the dealer to install and do not allow him to leave until you are happy.

Haha, my local dealer made me listen to B&W CM1s. He said Kefs were boomy.

 

[TrevC]

eg. Valve or Solid State; Active or Passive; Class A or Class D;

Not valve, unless you like distortion and unreliability. Class AB preferably. I've never demoed an amplifier in my life, they all sound so similar. Speaker sonic differences are huge however and it would be best to borrow some if you can.

 

[BigH]

Hypothtical situation:

You have 3000 GBP and you enter a fairly large and well supplied hi-fi store. What do you go to listen to first? Speakers, amps, sources, cables or stands?

It must be cables they must make the biggest difference there are more pages on this forum about them than anything else

Some people hear night and day differences and even the wife can tell them apart.

 

[TrevC]

If I put a £39 CD player through my pre/power amp combo, do you think it would sound any good? If I then spent £4000 on speakers, would it sound better? 'No' and 'no' are the answers that are truthful.

I thought like you until I found I was unable to detect any significant difference between an Arcam CD player and a cheapo Asda DVD player, both playing burned CDs. They sounded slightly different, true, but I couldn't decide which I preferred. Speakers are where you get the biggest bang for your buck, as our American friends say.

 

[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)?

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

Exactly. I haven't given enough information for anyone to know if either (a) or (b) would be a good choice to make. It's all a big fat "it depends. It depends what exact amplifer and speakers I'm talking about. It's impossible to judge if a system will sound any good on the basis of how much the amp cost compared to the speakers. It's impossible to tell what a system will sound like based on the maximum power output of the amp, without further information.