Older Arcam mid-range vs new Marantz budget?

[Anonymous]

Explains a great deal

Sniviliastionism,

Please quit:

1) The attacks on members
2) The constant sales pitch. Getting boringly familiar.

One and only warning.

I apologise if it seems like an attack, I would call it banter.

As for the sales pitch. I am simply recommending what I have based on previous components. In this case, someone looking for WAF and a tidy system, it seemed very logical. He isn't interested...fine, its all good.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I would call it banter.

A term which, as we know, covers a multitude of sins. Leave it out.

 

[chebby]

I heard the Aktimate Maxi and the 9.1 at the same time with the same source and I preferred the Epoz. I have no doubt other people would think otherwise, and good on them.

John's full write-up at the bottom of this page.

Makes more sense to read what John liked and disliked about both speaker systems and weigh those comments against the cost/value for money of each. (Especially if you factor in the cost of adding a £900 subwoofer for the AVIs.)

 

[Anonymous]

I heard the Aktimate Maxi and the 9.1 at the same time with the same source and I preferred the Epoz. I have no doubt other people would think otherwise, and good on them.

John's full write-up at the bottom of this page.

Makes more sense to read what John liked and disliked about both speaker systems and weigh those comments against the cost/value for money of each. (Especially if you factor in the cost of adding a £900 subwoofer for the AVIs.)

Ok. That makes more sense. Thanks. So John was being a bit mischeivous. Strangely though, I just tried turning off my sub, and listening for a while. For my money, they have just as much real bass as most speakers their size. One thing I found with some similar sized speakers that "pretended" to have more bass, was that it was more of a smeared "woomph" sound, rather than an accurate representation of what was on the track. I don't know the technical terms, but for my money, that gets a little tiring. Give me quality over quantity any day.

 

[John Duncan]

So John was being a bit mischeivous.

Moi?

Strangely though, I just tried turning off my sub, and listening for a while. For my money, they have just as much real bass as most speakers their size. One thing I found with some similar sized speakers that "pretended" to have more bass, was that it was more of a smeared "woomph" sound, rather than an accurate representation of what was on the track. I don't know the technical terms, but for my money, that gets a little tiring. Give me quality over quantity any day.

Theoretically I would agree with you (accuracy is good, right?), but in practice I think this only works to a degree and can mean the difference between 'meh' and 'ooo'. After all, I don't know about you, but I listen to music (and sometimes I 'feel' it or 'experience' it, depending on whether the neighbours are in), I don't measure it. And further, as hinted at in my comments in that other thread, the room that a speaker's in - and its position within that room - will almost certainly have more control over that difference than anything else, so the n'th degree of accuracy equipment can offer can be largely moot.

That said, if we're all looking for lack of distortion, we should probably all just go and buy the OP's original suggestion of a PM6004 with it's 0.0008% quoted THD...

 

[Anonymous]

So John was being a bit mischeivous.

Moi?

Strangely though, I just tried turning off my sub, and listening for a while. For my money, they have just as much real bass as most speakers their size. One thing I found with some similar sized speakers that "pretended" to have more bass, was that it was more of a smeared "woomph" sound, rather than an accurate representation of what was on the track. I don't know the technical terms, but for my money, that gets a little tiring. Give me quality over quantity any day.

Theoretically I would agree with you (accuracy is good, right?), but in practice I think this only works to a degree and can mean the difference between 'meh' and 'ooo'. After all, I don't know about you, but I listen to music (and sometimes I 'feel' it or 'experience' it, depending on whether the neighbours are in), I don't measure it. And further, as hinted at in my comments in that other thread, the room that a speaker's in - and its position within that room - will almost certainly have more control over that difference than anything else, so the n'th degree of accuracy equipment can offer can be largely moot.

That said, if we're all looking for lack of distortion, we should probably all just go and buy the OP's original suggestion of a PM6004 with it's 0.0008% quoted THD...

Very good distortion figures. Of course when that is then fed through the speakers...Now...if you got a pair of them, bi-amped, preferably with an active crossover...

 

[John Duncan]

Of course when that is then fed through the speakers...

...then i look forward to the availability of measurements showing that they perform substantially - and audibly - worse than something else. In the meantime, I guess i'll just have to listen.

 

[bigblue235]

Always risky that the thread will go downhill when AVI is mentioned. Anyhoo...

Anyone else have any opinions on the comparison between older, more expensive kit and newer but cheaper gear? What about the folks that have changed from separates to all-in-one systems? Was there a noticeable performance difference?

 

[plastic penguin]

Always risky that the thread will go downhill when AVI is mentioned. Anyhoo... Anyone else have any opinions on the comparison between older, more expensive kit and newer but cheaper gear? What about the folks that have changed from separates to all-in-one systems? Was there a noticeable performance difference?

Can't answer your question directly. However, I still use a 35 year old tuner with the Leema/CD73/MAs and, cpmparing it with newer budget hybrid DAB/FM tuners, it betters them in pretty much most areas, the possible exception being the newer kids on the block produces slightly punchier, deeper bass.

Likewise when I replaced my old Pioneer amp SA-706 in 97 with Arcam Alpha 7 the Arcam had better clarity, but the Pioneer wasn't outgunned by budget Cambridge amps at the time. This was a long time ago, so can't be anymore specific than that.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Very good distortion figures. Of course when that is then fed through the speakers...Now...if you got a pair of them, bi-amped, preferably with an active crossover...

Getting tiresome, snivilisationism...

 

[paradiziac]

Getting back to the OP's question...

Speaking in general terms, the biggest recent advances have been in DAC chips and computer transports/interfaces. Apart from that, good electronics, as always, need lots of current regulation and good output stages...that means stuff like big, heavy transformers, capacitors, higher quality op-amps etc. extra regulatory circuits etc. -- I doubt the cost of these components has altered much. If these things didn't matter, there would be no £3000+ CDP's/amps on the market.

So I would guess that modern budget CD players have closed the gap a bit, budget amps maybe slightly less so.

The Marantz is reassuringly heavy. Following the above logic, you might be struggling with a mini system.

Food for thought: given that we are all trying to get something for nothing, perhaps price is a good guide. As someone posted earlier, the used price of your Arcam gear is about the same as the new Marantz. So you'd expect roughly the same sound quality.

As far as speakers go, I read somewhere a report of a magazine comparison of a current Dali speaker with an equivalent 20+ year old model. I think the conclusion went along the lines of the new model being only very slightly better. More striking was the different presentation, which reflects the "fashion" of the day.

 

[the record spot]

A dedicated CD player brings nothing extra to the table, other than another box.

Which makes me wonder, as I have from time to time, if hifi objectivists are also OCD sufferers when it comes to tidiness...I think it must be so.

 

[Overdose]

Which makes me wonder, as I have from time to time, if hifi objectivists are also OCD sufferers when it comes to tidiness...I think it must be so.

Obviously the words of a man who hasn't seen my front room. :rofl:

A CD player plays CDs

A DVD player plays DVDs and CDs

A BluRay player plays.......etc

My Pc plays all, bar SACD (no real loss)

Just how many disc spinners does a man need?

I'm more interested in listening to the sound coming from my speakers rather than looking at what equipment is making it, so less is more.

 

[bigblue235]

I'm more interested in listening to the sound coming from my speakers rather than looking at what equipment is making it, so less is more.

As am I, but I tend to find slight performance differences in the various boxes, so I prefer to use the one I like best for the job. An external DAC would maybe level the playing field, but that's a plan for further down the line. I'd maybe go for it now if I could tell myself that Sonos is worth the price difference over Squeezebox/Apple TV/etc., but I haven't managed to justify it yet

 

[the record spot]

Obviously the words of a man who hasn't seen my front room. :rofl:

I'm more interested in listening to the sound coming from my speakers rather than looking at what equipment is making it, so less is more.

You're right, I haven't but I wasn't really referring to your setup or your particular preferences, just ones I've heard coming from the wider community who favours that kind of approach. Your earlier comment had reminded me, hence my comment.