The breakup of budget in a (and my) system

[Dank_Vapours]

Wow has this thread bloomed while I slept...

@VOE "improvements closer to the musical source where significant gains can be achieved. Rubbish in > rubbish out etc" - Also makes sense. In my case though, I have a CD/Vinyl collection of approximately 0, and use the USB digital input of the DacMagic Plus connected to a NAS drive equivalent to play FLAC/mp3 etc. The only improvement made in the source side of things would be a more expensive DAC I suppose, but how great a difference that would make is a whole topic in itself I expect (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/do-all-dacs-sound-more-or-less-same-18877) . Yet another thing to demo I guess.

@BigH/VOE/matty49 - your discussion is an interesting read, clear we've got some differing view points here. Those were some interesting distortion figures there matty, and indeed, the ears opinion rules over spec sheets I guess.

@lindsayt - I love the sound of these Hi-Fi orientated meets. I suppose I should keep an eye out on the forums for audio-enthusiasts in the Sheffield area! Very... worrying... what you said about selling prices. We have to rely on reviews and our own eyes/ears to see if we really do get what we pay for then? In my usual line of purchasing, you generally get what you pay for, even in comparison to competing products. I like what you've said about speakers... makes me feel safer in my decision to buy my retro gear! Could you say why though? People propose that newer capcitors/cone materials etc have made them audibly better, you refute that?

@Glacialpath - Thank you kindly for your advice, I can't for the life of me remember what interconnects i'm actually using! They're not cheap, but not on the £50+ side of things. I'll find out when I can and get back to you on that. I have to say, I was a bit of an idiot and didn't test either speaker purchases before handing over the money, simply took their assurances that they were in good working order. In retrospect, if they hadn't, I'd have been royally screwed.

@Vladimir - your post just popped up as i was typing this, guess its your opinion that these technological advances have made a clear audible difference?

So to summarise so far, differing view points on diminishing returns for increased spending at the source vs at the speakers. Please, keep the discussion going, I'm learning a lot!

(Just to add a bit of info, I'm a 3rd year Aerospace Engineering student, so I'm not completely ignorant of the technology, just vastly inexperienced with its real world application)

 

[Dank_Vapours]

**edit** oops, double post. sorry, not sure how that happened...

 

[BigH]

Wow has this thread bloomed while I slept...

@VOE "improvements closer to the musical source where significant gains can be achieved. Rubbish in > rubbish out etc" - Also makes sense. In my case though, I have a CD/Vinyl collection of approximately 0, and use the USB digital input of the DacMagic Plus connected to a NAS drive equivalent to play FLAC/mp3 etc. The only improvement made in the source side of things would be a more expensive DAC I suppose, but how great a difference that would make is a whole topic in itself I expect (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/do-all-dacs-sound-more-or-less-same-18877) . Yet another thing to demo I guess.

@BigH/VOE/matty49 - your discussion is an interesting read, clear we've got some differing view points here. Those were some interesting distortion figures there matty, and indeed, the ears opinion rules over spec sheets I guess.

@lindsayt - I love the sound of these Hi-Fi orientated meets. I suppose I should keep an eye out on the forums for audio-enthusiasts in the Sheffield area! Very... worrying... what you said about selling prices. We have to rely on reviews and our own eyes/ears to see if we really do get what we pay for then? In my usual line of purchasing, you generally get what you pay for, even in comparison to competing products. I like what you've said about speakers... makes me feel safer in my decision to buy my retro gear! Could you say why though? People propose that newer capcitors/cone materials etc have made them audibly better, you refute that?

@Glacialpath - Thank you kindly for your advice, I can't for the life of me remember what interconnects i'm actually using! They're not cheap, but not on the £50+ side of things. I'll find out when I can and get back to you on that. I have to say, I was a bit of an idiot and didn't test either speaker purchases before handing over the money, simply took their assurances that they were in good working order. In retrospect, if they hadn't, I'd have been royally screwed.

@Vladimir - your post just popped up as i was typing this, guess its your opinion that these technological advances have made a clear audible difference?

So to summarise so far, differing view points on diminishing returns for increased spending at the source vs at the speakers. Please, keep the discussion going, I'm learning a lot!

(Just to add a bit of info, I'm a 3rd year Aerospace Engineering student, so I'm not completely ignorant of the technology, just vastly inexperienced with its real world application)

You can try different DACs and speakers. One thing is a different sound can take some time to get used to. If you don't find a substantial difference then save your money.

 

[matt49]

No, I'm not saying that, because I too am extremely generous. My point is that getting the source "right" first is key, then the amps and lastly the speakers. If you already have the source/amps, then blow whatever you like on the speakers if it suits and you get a meaningful benefit from it. Pound for pound or pound for sound, I believe you get more from the system if you compromise the speaker budget and get better equipment upstream. If you've already satisfied yourself with that then go for it with the speakers. The OP was asking about the breakup of a budget.

Yes, exactly: this is about the breakdown of the budget in a digital system.

My point has simply been that digital audio has made the old-fashioned "source first" idea obsolete.

Here's an example. My system has a cost ratio of: 1 : 20 : 30 (music server : integrated amp/DAC : speakers). It might seem unbalanced, but it's actually the norm among people who own the same amp/DAC as me.

Matt

 

[lindsayt]

I don't think that speakers have particularly moved on from 1964, never mind 1994.

Ferrofluid cooling, titanium/berilium/ceramic/diamond tweeters, metal/kevlar cones for LF and MF drivers, larger motors with stiffer and lighter components, neodymium magnets etc. How about Laurence Dickie's Nautilus and Giya or even MBL speakers? Active speakers? Active DSP crossovers?

Surely some of this counts as progress.

Active speakers? Every speaker I've seen in the flesh from 1964 (apart from Quad ESL 57's) was designed to be easily converted from passive to active as the owner wished. Nothing new about active speakers.

Metal cones? Bozak were using spun aluminium cones before 1964. They put a very thin latex coating on them to prevent them from ringing - which is a curse of so many modern uncoated metal drivers.

Larger motors? Don't make me laugh. Would you like to look at the size and weight of the motors on my 1964 speakers?

Lighter components? Again no. Phenolic compression drivers from the 1960's are lighter than modern conventional cones and domes. The higher efficiency of such designs means that they don't need ferrofluid cooling.

Active DSP? You get a flatter in room frequency response at the expense of putting another layer of electronic components slap bang in the middle of the signal path.

Kevlar bass drivers. Some people like them. Some people like doped paper. No right or wrong here, nor intrinsically better or worse. Just different.

Also, speaking to someone that's been designing and building speakers and amplifiers since the 1960's, he says that the general quality of basic electronic components: resistors, capacitors, inductors have got worse. There used to be a certain over-engineering to them, which has been taken over by the modern trend to reduce manufacturing costs. For sure you can buy boutique modern capacitors, such as Jensen paper in oil, but these are just modern versions of very old designs.

And then there's the loss of the widespread use of alnico magnets, due to Cobalt shooting up in price in the 1970's.

You also have the modern ubiquitous use of ports. The trend for slimline speakers and the loss of properly sized bass cones.

Plus the trend for low efficiency, low impedance speakers. Which is fine if you actually like the sound of high powered solid state amps. Not so great if you prefer SET's.

The proof of the pudding is to take a speaker from one of the better brands from 1964 and compare it to your choice of modern speaker. The better brands in 1964 included Altec, AR, Bozak, EV, JBL, Klipsch, Quad.

Nautilus and MBL are fine speakers. So are JBL Hartsfields, EV Patricians, Klipschorns, Quad ESL 57's, Altec Vott's.

 

[Vladimir]

I replaced a pair of AR11s with my current B&W CM1. The little milk cartons kicked some monkey coffin ars.