incorrectly matched Ohms?

[namefail]

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

 

[TrevC]

Budget amplifiers in real world systems are not the same as 'better' amplifiers but with limited power. There are other qualitative factors involved that in my view make a big difference.

What other qualitative factors are you talking about? I'm talking about budget hifi amps, not junk.

I know what you are getting at here but I think the issue revolves around our definitions of "budget hifi amps" and "junk".

As I said above, I feel the most budget amplifiers are chronically underpowered, an issue not helped by their optimistic power ratings. To my mind they are simply inadequate in (my) hi-fi terms. Not junk, as they can produce a pleasing sound, though to my mind (and ears) not really something that I would consider hi-fi. (I know, we have been here before, but suffice it to say that I personally set the bar a bit higher than some when deciding what is and what is not hi-fi).

I would say that most budget amplifiers will probably meet their spec, not that many hifi mags check that these days. I think you are assuming something is worse by looking at the price of it, clouding your judgement. 50 watts per channel at low distortion is going to sound very similar indeed on any amplifier regardless of price. The people in this well executed test couldn't tell, and I suspect, neither could you. http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_ppec.htm

Which is why it's speakers first!

PS Could someone kill the captcha please, it's driving me nuts!!!

 

[davedotco]

Budget amplifiers in real world systems are not the same as 'better' amplifiers but with limited power. There are other qualitative factors involved that in my view make a big difference.

What other qualitative factors are you talking about? I'm talking about budget hifi amps, not junk.

I know what you are getting at here but I think the issue revolves around our definitions of "budget hifi amps" and "junk".

As I said above, I feel the most budget amplifiers are chronically underpowered, an issue not helped by their optimistic power ratings. To my mind they are simply inadequate in (my) hi-fi terms. Not junk, as they can produce a pleasing sound, though to my mind (and ears) not really something that I would consider hi-fi. (I know, we have been here before, but suffice it to say that I personally set the bar a bit higher than some when deciding what is and what is not hi-fi).

I would say that most budget amplifiers will probably meet their spec, not that many hifi mags check that these days. I think you are assuming something is worse by looking at the price of it, clouding your judgement. 50 watts per channel at low distortion is going to sound very similar indeed on any amplifier regardless of price. The people in this well executed test couldn't tell, and I suspect, neither could you. http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_ppec.htm

Which is why it's speakers first!

PS Could someone kill the captcha please, it's driving me nuts!!!

I thought I covered these matters in my post, even going as far as to highlight areas of my own thought processes that were not scientifically consistent in an attempt to be honest.

I have taken part in a number of organised blind tests and know full well just how difficult it can be to tell one amplifier from another and said as much. I have also, as a dealer and enthusiast, been lucky enough to 'live' with a wide range of components and systems and there are considerable differences that can be heard in the real world, away from 'controlled' conditions.

Now maybe you would not have heard these differences, maybe you would. I am trying hard not to be dogmatic about this but the difference in the ability of various budget amplifiers is quite marked in the real situation I describe. Given the low distortion and ample power ratings of these amplifiers, ratings which as you say should make them 'functionally identical', I can only conclude that these specifications are not being met, in these situations, at least

 

[omnibeard]

As much as Dave's dogmatism can grate sometimes, I'm with him on this one.

When my girlfriend moved in she brought with her a bottom of the rung CA Topaz AM1 amp and a pair of Gale 3010S. To my ears, not so much hers, it sounded dreadful. Everything you would imagine - thin sounding with little to no bottom end. Stick the Gales on to a 200w Class A MF amp and believe it or not they sound really quite good. Same with some Dali Zensor 1 I had on trial recently as a bedroom system. On the end of a Denon Piccolo they sounded, to me anyway, awful. Conformed to all the criticisms I have read about them. Again, stick em on the end of the MF amp and they sounded amazingly good.

The OP's speakers, while not the greatest, are certainly not the worst either. They might benefit enormously from better amplification and might be good enough for the OP. In his position I would be tempted to get hold of a decent s/h amp. The Pioneer 400 is a great amp, I have one and love it with the right speakers, but seems a little over valued at the moment considering its age maybe. A better bet for me would be a Sony DB930. Totally undervalued in the second hand market (regularly less than £50 on ebay) and as a stereo amp. I recommend this simply because it is a cheap experiment, and could be sold on for same if not liked. It has masses of power, digital inputs, a half decent phono stage and might make the OP's speakers sing to their maximum capability. It certainly does a good job with the Gales.

There is massive value in the s/h market, and with the OP's budget I could put together amp and speakers that would be far from a shoddy set up. Add some Mission 751 to the Sony amp and the whole thing should come to under £100. If you have an i-device or computer with itunes already, chuck in an AEX and for about £150 you have a pretty decent streaming set up. But that's off topic a bit.

The OP does need to sort out his stylus though!

 

[davedotco]

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

The designer in question was not being entirely serious, it was a remark made after work and over drinks.

However the idea that you can change the 'sound' without actually changing the 'quality' of the musical playback did actually strike a chord.

 

[namefail]

Ah, I didn't know there were beers involved.

 

[davedotco]

Ah, I didn't know there were beers involved.

I was a hi-fi dealer, there was always beer involved...... :cheers:

 

[TrevC]

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

The designer in question was not being entirely serious, it was a remark made after work and over drinks.

However the idea that you can change the 'sound' without actually changing the 'quality' of the musical playback did actually strike a chord.

Placement can be as important as speaker quality.

 

[davedotco]

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

The designer in question was not being entirely serious, it was a remark made after work and over drinks.

However the idea that you can change the 'sound' without actually changing the 'quality' of the musical playback did actually strike a chord.

Placement can be as important as speaker quality.

That is precisely the opposite of my views.

Not because placement (and support) is not important, it is, but as I have explained above it only changes the sound of the speakers, the speaker quality is something else entirely.

If you want better 'sound' from your speakers you can change the placement and setup, more bass/less bass, wider/narrower soundstage, etc, etc. If you want better 'music', change the speakers.

 

[TrevC]

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

The designer in question was not being entirely serious, it was a remark made after work and over drinks.

However the idea that you can change the 'sound' without actually changing the 'quality' of the musical playback did actually strike a chord.

Placement can be as important as speaker quality.

That is precisely the opposite of my views.

Not because placement (and support) is not important, it is

If you want better 'music', change the speakers.

At last we agree. But at the same time you contradicted yourself.

 

[davedotco]

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

The designer in question was not being entirely serious, it was a remark made after work and over drinks.

However the idea that you can change the 'sound' without actually changing the 'quality' of the musical playback did actually strike a chord.

Placement can be as important as speaker quality.

That is precisely the opposite of my views.

Not because placement (and support) is not important, it is

If you want better 'music', change the speakers.

At last we agree. But at the same time you contradicted yourself.

If you read the whole of my posts you would know that I consider the 'sound' of a speaker (more bass/less bass etc as explained above) to be fundamentaly different from the 'musical' ability of a speaker.

You may disagree with that view or maybe not even 'get' it, but I have made it pretty clear that is how I see things, so no contradiction at all.

 

[busb]

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

The designer in question was not being entirely serious, it was a remark made after work and over drinks.

However the idea that you can change the 'sound' without actually changing the 'quality' of the musical playback did actually strike a chord.

Seems perfectly feasible to me as does your clarification. I don't have a problem with with your manufacturer's beer soaked analogy neither!

As an aside, I have trouble with what I consider to be extreme objectivism that all similarly spec'd amps must sound the same - justified by the fact that DB ABX "prove" the case, despite the fact that such tests are always skewed in that they can't prove a false negative, only false positives! I've been banging on about the weakness of such tests - one forum member stated that they were the best we have. How can a faulty methodology be the best we have?! DB ABX tests on whether a wine is red or white fail to differentiate between the two but few believe they taste the same! Many people just don't want to recognise ABX is fairly pointless - it lets the looney flat-earthers off the hook!

 

[CnoEvil]

....and here's me avoiding this thread 'cause it looked dull.....how wrong was I.

For those who don't already know, I'm with the view that speakers are only as good as the system they're in ie. need a good source and properly driven.

 

[davedotco]

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

The designer in question was not being entirely serious, it was a remark made after work and over drinks.

However the idea that you can change the 'sound' without actually changing the 'quality' of the musical playback did actually strike a chord.

Seems perfectly feasible to me as does your clarification. I don't have a problem with with your manufacturer's beer soaked analogy neither!

As an aside, I have trouble with what I consider to be extreme objectivism that all similarly spec'd amps must sound the same - justified by the fact that DB ABX "prove" the case, despite the fact that such tests are always skewed in that they can't prove a false negative, only false positives! I've been banging on about the weakness of such tests - one forum member stated that they were the best we have. How can a faulty methodology be the best we have?! DB ABX tests on whether a wine is red or white fail to differentiate between the two but few believe they taste the same! Many people just don't want to recognise ABX is fairly pointless - it lets the looney flat-earthers off the hook!

As I have said many times, blind testing (conventional or ABX) helps tremendously in 'grounding' peoples opinions, seeing (hearing?) 'night and day differences' virtually disappear when the visual stimulus is removed is a salutary experience for anyone taking part.

This is not to say that amplifiers can not be told apart in blind tests, quite clearly in some cases they can, but the differences are much smaller than most people imagine.

There is the 'other' issue to deal with too, mant people, myself included, think that the 'feel', the communicative qualities of an amplifier can only be truly evaluated over time, yet such scientific experiments that have been carried out suggest very strongly that our hearing memory is not reliable and that we, mostly, simply adapt to the sounds we are used to having lived with them

 

[busb]

...

As an aside.

Some years ago a loudspeaker manufacturer explained it like this.

"Imagine you go to a concert and find that the band (orchestra whatever) is not very good. You can move your seat elswhere in the hall and the sound changes each time you move, but the quality of the performance stays the same".

He may well have said that Dave and I'm sure a gentleman of your experience smelt the BS. I don't see the validity of his proposition comparing Hi-Fi reproduction of recordings to a bunch of under rehearsed asses that can't start and stop at the same time.

The designer in question was not being entirely serious, it was a remark made after work and over drinks.

However the idea that you can change the 'sound' without actually changing the 'quality' of the musical playback did actually strike a chord.

Seems perfectly feasible to me as does your clarification. I don't have a problem with with your manufacturer's beer soaked analogy neither!

As an aside, I have trouble with what I consider to be extreme objectivism that all similarly spec'd amps must sound the same - justified by the fact that DB ABX "prove" the case, despite the fact that such tests are always skewed in that they can't prove a false negative, only false positives! I've been banging on about the weakness of such tests - one forum member stated that they were the best we have. How can a faulty methodology be the best we have?! DB ABX tests on whether a wine is red or white fail to differentiate between the two but few believe they taste the same! Many people just don't want to recognise ABX is fairly pointless - it lets the looney flat-earthers off the hook!

As I have said many times, blind testing (conventional or ABX) helps tremendously in 'grounding' peoples opinions, seeing (hearing?) 'night and day differences' virtually disappear when the visual stimulus is removed is a salutary experience for anyone taking part.

This is not to say that amplifiers can not be told apart in blind tests, quite clearly in some cases they can, but the differences are much smaller than most people imagine.

There is the 'other' issue to deal with too, mant people, myself included, think that the 'feel', the communicative qualities of an amplifier can only be truly evaluated over time, yet such scientific experiments that have been carried out suggest very strongly that our hearing memory is not reliable and that we, mostly, simply adapt to the sounds we are used to having lived with them

I always smile when people say "night & day differences" as much as when that other over-used term: "It sounds like the band is playing in my livingroom!" gets used.

Your "other" issue, I find fascinating. I can remember buying a particular amplifier many years ago. It intially didn't sound much better than the one it replaced. It went out of my mind & I got on with listening to music through it. After a month or two, I noticed aspects of particular LPs I hadn't previously. We pay good money for fairly subtle but still tangible improvements! When is the "running in" of electronics merely acclimatisation to a slightly different presentation? When I hear "improvements" to SQ, I have in the back of my mind just how damned clever our brains are at interpreting sounds & question if it's just imagined.

 

[Vladimir]

....and here's me avoiding this thread 'cause it looked dull.....how wrong was I.

For those who don't already know, I'm with the view that speakers are only as good as the system they're in ie. need a good source and properly driven.

// Sources and electronics are only as good as the speakers they output through.

// Speakers are only as good as the source and electronics feeding them.

We are speaking the same things here, the chicken or the egg first... pointless? :?

What does make sense is from engineering perspective to ponder which component benefits most from improvements before it hits the wall of marginal returns. Sort of engineering ROI (return on investment).

In this Hi-Fi debate there are 2 transducers camps, Source first or Speakers first. Electronics camp were almost nonexistent, until valve amps had their recent revival. For SS amps there isn't much you can do except with few of them you can upgrade the PSU. usually its buying a different one or biamping.

In camp Source first they are mostly flat earths with turntables. They all sorted their amps and speakers quickly but they enjoy the masochistic, income burning, loooong fiddling and fine tuning when it comes to their decks. They buy the speakers, position them to the single possible available position in their room (usually the worst for room acoustics) and start upgrading the turntables and phono pre's.

When the source is digital, people go to Speakers first camp for higher ROI. Theres not much you can do here except keep buying different ones.

In the Speakers first camp there are the speaker fetishists, engineering and specs geeks, including "don't forget room acoustics treatment" nags. You can fiddle here as well till you go mental. Spikes, stands, positioning, cables (oh god the cables), cable platforms and other accessories, room treatments, even interchange different speakers if they are mini monitors so you keep more than one pair.

No one ever from the Source first camp ever needed a special listening room. They all usually deport themselves in basements where they can stack wall to wall vinyl shelves. The Speakers first camp break down walls, dedicate special listening rooms etc.

Which path is the right for the original poster of this thread?

Irelevant! He has Eltax speakers. Its a no brainer!

 

[CnoEvil]

// Sources and electronics are only as good as the speakers they output through.

// Speakers are only as good as the source and electronics feeding them.

We are speaking the same things here, the chicken or the egg first... pointless? :?

I don't have a black and white view.

The source is very important, but with digital, doesn't need to eat up as big a percentage of the budget as a TT did......and a good streamer, even less than a CDP.

I am not of the view that sticking expensive speakers on a cheap amp is a good idea, and ime sounds a lot worse than cheap speakers on an expensive amp. Common sense and balance is what's needed.

I see 2 sensible approaches.

1. Choose the speakers first and then get an amp to drive them them to their potential, and to your taste.

2. Choose the amp first, which is important if you are into Valves, for example; and then get appropriate speakers that you like the sound of.

- Either approach will be eff'd up with a poor source or in a "poor" room. Conversely, an expensive source won't fully shine in a cheap system.

I'm basically saying that speakers are not necessarily the most important element, but it's the amp/speaker mix that counts (with an appropriate source and in a room that has reasonable acoustics).

 

[Vladimir]

I see 2 sensible approaches.

1. Choose the speakers first and then get an amp to drive them them to their potential, and to your taste.

2. Choose the amp first, which is important if you are into Valves, for example; and then get appropriate speakers that you like the sound of.

That's clever, I like it!

We should have a poll, Speakers & Rooms Acoustics vs Source & Preamps vs Amplification. Or just agree with whatever Dave says and ruin his day.

 

[CnoEvil]

I see 2 sensible approaches.

1. Choose the speakers first and then get an amp to drive them them to their potential, and to your taste.

2. Choose the amp first, which is important if you are into Valves, for example; and then get appropriate speakers that you like the sound of.

That's clever, I like it!

We should have a poll, Speakers & Rooms Acoustics vs Source & Preamps vs Amplification. Or just agree with whatever Dave says and ruin his day.

Dave for Pope, I say! :bounce:

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Pope & King. Sence prevails I say. Simply put, we need a balanced system. Waste of money spending shed loads on an amp if ur using a Dansette multichanger or vikky verky. With a tt system I would 'protect' my vinyl with the best deck/cartridge affordable within my overall final budget but with other sources it doesn't matter which upgrade path you choose. Speakers will (probably) influence the sound more than other things at any given price point so need to be demoed more neccessarily than an amp or player. But positioning and room acoustics are vital considerations giving the need for home demos if possible.

Here endeth the writing.

 

[davedotco]

I see 2 sensible approaches.

1. Choose the speakers first and then get an amp to drive them them to their potential, and to your taste.

2. Choose the amp first, which is important if you are into Valves, for example; and then get appropriate speakers that you like the sound of.

That's clever, I like it!

We should have a poll, Speakers & Rooms Acoustics vs Source & Preamps vs Amplification. Or just agree with whatever Dave says and ruin his day.

Dave for Pope, I say! :bounce:

Some of my pronouncements may be "ex cathedra" but I don't like dressing up.

I'll just tell you what I told the other bloke in the funny red hat, 'get someone else'........

 

[Vladimir]

Some of my pronouncements may be "ex cathedra" but I don't like dressing up.

Yes, that is the best way.