Source first still important, dumbed down hifi, or is there a problem with your system?

[CnoEvil]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

You see, now you are generalising about things I haven't stated.

I don't believe all digital sources are the same, although most "competent" digital sources are extremely similar.

A budget amp will likely have a poor power supply, low power output and struggle to drive anything but cheap speakers. Amps vary quite a bit. Where I would suggest amp differences are minimal, is where the specs say they are.

Low bit rate is poor quality, although for most purposes anything above 192 VBR is pretty much transparent imo.

Vinyl can sound good, but a good £200 CD player feeding the same system will be better than any vinyl system, at least in fidelity terms. The vinyl may have some pleasing distortion but that's another discussion.

As for the spec sheet. If it's detailed enough and accurate enough...yes, that's all you need.

As for active. Well it makes sense to remove a source of distortion and make sure the drivers are sufficiently powered. Saving money in the process is a nice by product.

I may be buying new passives in the near future though, so I'm certainly not an active only guy.

But all this is irrelevant to the actual, single point that was on the table.

I think you missed the irony in my facetious post........I thought my views were well known on here.

Sorry Frog, ignore the above comment, as thought I was talking to someone else. :doh:

In fact I was generalizing about a few prevalent views on here, so it was not directed at you per se.

 

[TrevC]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Also a budget digital source is going to distort the sound far less than even the best speaker in the world.

 

[TrevC]

Things that are 'good enough' are usually superceded by things that also turn out to be 'good enough'.

CD is an example of how something that should have been consistently spectacular (on paper) turned out to be not fso spectacular, in my opinion. I have some really great CDs, but I also have some atrocious CDs as well, and they are not good enough by a long chalk. Basically they are becoming platters to store overly compressed cr*p on.

The really great CDs prove that it's a great medium.

 

[fr0g]

if it aint there, grab some dodgy mp3s.

??

Borrow a friends copy.

To be honest I was being flippant. When a CD is bad enough for me to not buy it, I rarely want to listen either.

 

[fr0g]

Things that are 'good enough' are usually superceded by things that also turn out to be 'good enough'.

CD is an example of how something that should have been consistently spectacular (on paper) turned out to be not fso spectacular, in my opinion. I have some really great CDs, but I also have some atrocious CDs as well, and they are not good enough by a long chalk. Basically they are becoming platters to store overly compressed cr*p on.

The really great CDs prove that it's a great medium.

Listening to Linn radio proves that 320 Kbps is a great medium.

 

[CnoEvil]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Also a budget digital source is going to distort the sound far less than even the best speaker in the world.

If you say so.

Can you give examples of budget amps that you've heard, that have sounded like premium ones that you've heard?

Have you ever listened to a DCS (multi box) CDP or a Linn Klimax DS and compared them with budget offerings?

 

[CnoEvil]

Listening to Linn radio proves that 320 Kbps is a great medium.

It certainly does......and can sound better than some CDs.

I have some Linn tracks at the three resolutions (320 kbps / CD / 24 bit)....and they get progressively better with the increase in bit rate. What I can't say with certainty, is whether it's down to the bit rate.

What I find, is that there is more ambient info and atmosphere on the 24 bit stuff, making it more like a live event, rather than a replication of one.

 

[steve_1979]

Listening to Linn radio proves that 320 Kbps is a great medium.

It certainly does......and can sound better than some CDs.

I have some Linn tracks at the three resolutions (320 kbps / CD / 24 bit)....and they get progressively better with the increase in bit rate. What I can't say with certainty, is whether it's down to the bit rate.

What I find, is that there is more ambient info and atmosphere on the 24 bit stuff, making it more like a live event, rather than a replication of one.

Some of Linn's 24bit music is mastered differently to the MP3/CD version. That's the difference that you're hearing.

 

[TrevC]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Also a budget digital source is going to distort the sound far less than even the best speaker in the world.

If you say so.

Can you give examples of budget amps that you've heard, that have sounded like premium ones that you've heard?

Have you ever listened to a DCS (multi box) CDP or a Linn Klimax DS and compared them with budget offerings?

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

 

[CnoEvil]

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Try listening to a few.

 

[fr0g]

Listening to Linn radio proves that 320 Kbps is a great medium.

It certainly does......and can sound better than some CDs.

I have some Linn tracks at the three resolutions (320 kbps / CD / 24 bit)....and they get progressively better with the increase in bit rate. What I can't say with certainty, is whether it's down to the bit rate.

What I find, is that there is more ambient info and atmosphere on the 24 bit stuff, making it more like a live event, rather than a replication of one.

I would say it sounds better than most CDs.

And as Steve alludes to, I reckon that's (the increasing quality) part of the sales process. Hard to sell a double the cd price studio master that quite obviously sounds the same.

I have heard differences too. But I bought some studio masters, downsampled to CD quality and MP3 and all sounded identical.

 

[CnoEvil]

Some of Linn's 24bit music is mastered differently to the MP3/CD version. That's the difference that you're hearing.

I know that's your opinion, but for me, the jury is still out. I seldom see things in black and white.

 

[TrevC]

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Try listening to a few.

Why?

 

[davedotco]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Also a budget digital source is going to distort the sound far less than even the best speaker in the world.

If you say so.

Can you give examples of budget amps that you've heard, that have sounded like premium ones that you've heard?

Have you ever listened to a DCS (multi box) CDP or a Linn Klimax DS and compared them with budget offerings?

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

The difference is in the way the amplifier handles itself when operated close to and sometimes just beyond its 'limits' which happens a lot in real world situations.

I guess that if the written specifications were more complete and measured what happens in difficult situations they might tell you what is going on but I have never, ever, seen a written spec that comes anywhere close to that.

When Alan Shaw issued his now famous "Harbeth Challenge" he was at pains to point out that the amplifiers under test had to be working 'within their design parameters' something that is very often not the case in the real world.

 

[CnoEvil]

I would say it sounds better than most CDs.

And as Steve alludes to, I reckon that's (the increasing quality) part of the sales process. Hard to sell a double the cd price studio master that quite obviously sounds the same.

I have heard differences too. But I bought some studio masters, downsampled to CD quality and MP3 and all sounded identical.

I am certainly not saying Steve is wrong, but I am not knowledgeable enough to know the possible advantages of recording and playback in 24 bit. I am not necessarily convinced by people dogmatically beating me over the head with "the truth".

ATM. It's all academic, as the only way to get the better sounding version, is to pay through the nose and get the Studio Master, which I don't think is worth the extra. I got mine free from Linn (as an offer), when I bought the DS.

 

[CnoEvil]

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Try listening to a few.

Why?

The reason you hold the views that you do, is because you hang on to a load of theory, but seldom listen to anything to see if it holds up. I suppose it's the difference between preaching versus doing.

 

[TrevC]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Also a budget digital source is going to distort the sound far less than even the best speaker in the world.

If you say so.

Can you give examples of budget amps that you've heard, that have sounded like premium ones that you've heard?

Have you ever listened to a DCS (multi box) CDP or a Linn Klimax DS and compared them with budget offerings?

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

The difference is in the way the amplifier handles itself when operated close to and sometimes just beyond its 'limits' which happens a lot in real world situations.

I guess that if the written specifications were more complete and measured what happens in difficult situations they might tell you what is going on but I have never, ever, seen a written spec that comes anywhere close to that.

When Alan Shaw issued his now famous "Harbeth Challenge" he was at pains to point out that the amplifiers under test had to be working 'within their design parameters' something that is very often not the case in the real world.

So, when using a budget amp or a premium 60 WPC amp "within their parameters" they won't sound any different, which is the point I was making.

 

[davedotco]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Also a budget digital source is going to distort the sound far less than even the best speaker in the world.

If you say so.

Can you give examples of budget amps that you've heard, that have sounded like premium ones that you've heard?

Have you ever listened to a DCS (multi box) CDP or a Linn Klimax DS and compared them with budget offerings?

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

The difference is in the way the amplifier handles itself when operated close to and sometimes just beyond its 'limits' which happens a lot in real world situations.

I guess that if the written specifications were more complete and measured what happens in difficult situations they might tell you what is going on but I have never, ever, seen a written spec that comes anywhere close to that.

When Alan Shaw issued his now famous "Harbeth Challenge" he was at pains to point out that the amplifiers under test had to be working 'within their design parameters' something that is very often not the case in the real world.

So, when using a budget amp or a premium amp "within their parameters" they won't sound any different, which is the point I was making.

in the case of power amplifiers you are correct, integrated and pre-amplifiers can, and often are, deliberatly 'voiced' to sound differently so differences can be heard.

However this slightly sidesteps my point, which is that in an awful lot of systems, amplifiers and not just budget ones either, are not being used "within their parameters" and it is the way amplifiers behave under those conditions that makes the difference.

Naturally in an ideal world amplifiers would never be used in that way but the reality is that they are, and with the current trend for matching budget amplifiers with more demanding speakers this is becoming more common.

 

[TrevC]

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Try listening to a few.

Why?

The reason you hold the views that you do, is because you hang on to a load of theory, but seldom listen to anything to see if it holds up. I suppose it's the difference between preaching versus doing.

I have a clue and also hang on to more of my money. :bounce: :bounce:

 

[matt49]

When Alan Shaw issued his now famous "Harbeth Challenge" he was at pains to point out that the amplifiers under test had to be working 'within their design parameters' something that is very often not the case in the real world.

Indeed, and for precisely this reason he's now retreated somewhat from his position that 'amps don't make any difference (provided they're operating within da da da)'. There was an interesting exchange between AS and an amp designer on the Harbeth User Group forum recently. What the amp designer showed was exactly what you're saying: an amp working within its design parameters will regularly go into clipping during dynamic passages.

Another well understood technical reason why some designs sound better than other is crossover distortion.

 

[TrevC]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Also a budget digital source is going to distort the sound far less than even the best speaker in the world.

If you say so.

Can you give examples of budget amps that you've heard, that have sounded like premium ones that you've heard?

Have you ever listened to a DCS (multi box) CDP or a Linn Klimax DS and compared them with budget offerings?

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

The difference is in the way the amplifier handles itself when operated close to and sometimes just beyond its 'limits' which happens a lot in real world situations.

I guess that if the written specifications were more complete and measured what happens in difficult situations they might tell you what is going on but I have never, ever, seen a written spec that comes anywhere close to that.

When Alan Shaw issued his now famous "Harbeth Challenge" he was at pains to point out that the amplifiers under test had to be working 'within their design parameters' something that is very often not the case in the real world.

So, when using a budget amp or a premium amp "within their parameters" they won't sound any different, which is the point I was making.

in the case of power amplifiers you are correct, integrated and pre-amplifiers can, and often are, deliberatly 'voiced' to sound differently so differences can be heard.

However this slightly sidesteps my point, which is that in an awful lot of systems, amplifiers and not just budget ones either, are not being used "within their parameters" and it is the way amplifiers behave under those conditions that makes the difference.

Naturally in an ideal world amplifiers would never be used in that way but the reality is that they are, and with the current trend for matching budget amplifiers with more demanding speakers this is becoming more common.

To "voice" a preamp would require some deviation from a flat frequency response, so I don't really agree with you on that point. Line level signals don't usually need any preamplification, so a selector switch and a pot will suffice.

Obviously using inefficient speakers on an underpowered amplifier won't sound good, but I'm not talking about that.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Some of Linn's 24bit music is mastered differently to the MP3/CD version. That's the difference that you're hearing.

Ylou have some proof of this, that the mastering is the only difference? It isn't hard to create rips yourself from the same CD at different rates and compare, but, if you do do that, you'll probably find there are differences.

That's for critical listening, of course, which few of us do all the time. Long wave radio is fine for casual .

 

[CnoEvil]

I have a clue and also hang on to more of my money. :bounce: :bounce:

You will certainly hold onto more money, and for that alone, you are probably one of the sanest people here......though it doesn't stop you from being wrong!

 

[TrevC]

When Alan Shaw issued his now famous "Harbeth Challenge" he was at pains to point out that the amplifiers under test had to be working 'within their design parameters' something that is very often not the case in the real world.

Indeed, and for precisely this reason he's now retreated somewhat from his position that 'amps don't make any difference (provided they're operating within da da da)'. There was an interesting exchange between AS and an amp designer on the Harbeth User Group forum recently. What the amp designer showed was exactly what you're saying: an amp working within its design parameters will regularly go into clipping during dynamic passages.

Another well understood technical reason why some designs sound better than other is crossover distortion.

Crossover distortion was a problem in tiny 60s Jap radios where high power consumption was a no no.. In a modern amplifier? Highish bias removes it entirely.

 

[davedotco]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Also a budget digital source is going to distort the sound far less than even the best speaker in the world.

If you say so.

Can you give examples of budget amps that you've heard, that have sounded like premium ones that you've heard?

Have you ever listened to a DCS (multi box) CDP or a Linn Klimax DS and compared them with budget offerings?

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

The difference is in the way the amplifier handles itself when operated close to and sometimes just beyond its 'limits' which happens a lot in real world situations.

I guess that if the written specifications were more complete and measured what happens in difficult situations they might tell you what is going on but I have never, ever, seen a written spec that comes anywhere close to that.

When Alan Shaw issued his now famous "Harbeth Challenge" he was at pains to point out that the amplifiers under test had to be working 'within their design parameters' something that is very often not the case in the real world.

So, when using a budget amp or a premium amp "within their parameters" they won't sound any different, which is the point I was making.

in the case of power amplifiers you are correct, integrated and pre-amplifiers can, and often are, deliberatly 'voiced' to sound differently so differences can be heard.

However this slightly sidesteps my point, which is that in an awful lot of systems, amplifiers and not just budget ones either, are not being used "within their parameters" and it is the way amplifiers behave under those conditions that makes the difference.

Naturally in an ideal world amplifiers would never be used in that way but the reality is that they are, and with the current trend for matching budget amplifiers with more demanding speakers this is becoming more common.

To "voice" a preamp would require some deviation from a flat frequency response, so I don't really agree with you on that point. Line level signals don't usually need any preamplification, so a selector switch and a pot will suffice.

Obviously using inefficient speakers on an underpowered amplifier won't sound good, but I'm not talking about that.

There are all kinds of ways an amplifier can be voiced without deviating from a flat frequency response but that is difficult to prove without actually showing how it can be done.

The power issue is, in my view, much more of an issue, I accept that a lot of modern music has a very limited dynamic range but when dynamic material is used, nominal 60 watt amplifiers can find themselves in distress very easily indeed, and not just into difficult speakers either.