We would usually recommend spending more on the CD than the amp or speakers. Is this good advice?

[davedotco]

**** thread this has turned out to be. I find personal attacks very distasteful, and very unbecoming of so-called adults.

As for the subject matter, I pretty much agree with the Major. I think differences between CDP's are going to be quite subtle, compared to the differences between speakers.

Once again the talk is about 'differences'. Not improvements, not better, just different.

Speakers are passive devices (yes even active ones) in the sense that they can only play the music that is played into them. In that respect I am with Thompson (cough, splutter) the quality of the source is paramount. However this does not mean that it has to be expensive, some digital sources, properly set up, can be superb, at very modest cost.

I am loath to make absolute assertions here, but I feel that amplifiers that are good 'enough' cost rather more than £200, and that a better amplifier allows the speaker to produce the music in a more realistic manner, be it down to 'control', transparency or dynamics.

 

[radiorog]

Dr

Ok.....so the thread roles on..

My answer would be the source. (you may have read me earlier in this thread ref my CDplayer history)

The reasoning being if knowing the limits of this 3x250 quid system there would be no reason to upgrade the speakers or amp seeing I'd just get more of the same maybe louder in terms of sound quality I'd be forever swapping speakers and amp. (rubbish in rubbish out)......I'd never be happy.

If an upgrade of the source got me improvements i.e a cleaner, more detailed and separated sound then I'd know the following upgrades of amp and speakers would improve my music also.

I hope you guys are not saying speakers and amp just because I made it clear in this thread I think the source is the most important link in the hifi chain...... ;-)

No, it's because it's the right answer.

TrevC.....it's been awhile.....

Ok look at it logicaly let's say I have a 250quid HTC 1 mobile phone connected via 3mm Jack to my amp as my source.

The sound quality to my speakers is not great - so I upgrade my speakers.....

What sort of improvement will I get?

Say I upgrade my amp, any better?

But say I upgrade my source to a 500quid used audiolab cd8200 off eBay......... And play CD's?

Curious to see if the penny drops.

Say you start with a £250 marantz amp and upgrade to a k3, an abrehamsen, or devialet, for example, and at the same time upgraded to say, some £3000 harbeths speakers. With the HTC 1 the sound would be hugely improved. Soundstage would be created to a level where you simply think it didn't even exist before. The realism of the music and tones would be almost in another universe. No contest here.

Keeping the marantz and br2's, (if in remembering the OP) and upgrading to the best CD player in the world, containing the best DAC in the world, would improve finer detail, but it would be really hard to hear these details. The overall sound would still sound the same as with the HTC, as in the realism, soundstage, tonal depth.

To delve further down this route, why not simply settle for just the HTC, with its own speaker and internal DAC. Why add a separate amp and speakers at all. In fact, get an iPhone and that will obviously sound way better than any separate speaker and amp combo.

 

[ID.]

**** thread this has turned out to be. I find personal attacks very distasteful, and very unbecoming of so-called adults.

As for the subject matter, I pretty much agree with the Major. I think differences between CDP's are going to be quite subtle, compared to the differences between speakers.

Once again the talk is about 'differences'. Not improvements, not better, just different.

Speakers are passive devices (yes even active ones) in the sense that they can only play the music that is played into them. In that respect I am with Thompson (cough, splutter) the quality of the source is paramount. However this does not mean that it has to be expensive, some digital sources, properly set up, can be superb, at very modest cost.

I am loath to make absolute assertions here, but I feel that amplifiers that are good 'enough' cost rather more than £200, and that a better amplifier allows the speaker to produce the music in a more realistic manner, be it down to 'control', transparency or dynamics.

I think the issue wasn't whether one needed a good source, it was his claims that you are better off spending your money upgrading the source as that will net you the most improvements. My own experiences have been that there's been very little difference between a cheap FiiO DAC and another costing 10 times the price (the extra money did give me the functions and connectivity I wanted). I'd be prepared to say that with a fixed budget, you'd get far greater leaps (improvements!) by lleaving your source as a computer or AEX feeding the FiiO and upgrading the speakers and amp. Several thousand pounds spent on the speakers and amp (or just speakers if your amp is "good enough") will give a far greater improvement than spending several thousand pounds on a better CD player or DAC.

For some reason I'm also an amp first kind of guy, and would want something better than a PM6005 depending on the nature of the speakers it was driving. I think with the Marantz range pretty reliable all round competence seems to kick in around the PM8005. My ideal amp would be something like a Luxman 507uX, and I'd be happy pairing it with just about any speakers, but then again it might just be that the VU meters have hypnotized me and planted biased subconscious thoughts about Luxman that are as much about visual appeal, brand image and pride of ownership.

 

[davedotco]

No real issue with any of that though the point about digital sources was there to make things clear.

Streaming can be excellent and cheap but the thread was, originally, about CD players and I am not at all comfortable with the modern idea that pretty much any transport will do, my experience tells me different.

Speaking generally, once the quality of the source has been achieved then clearly value for money upgrades will be found in amps and speakers. I could, at this point, explain the advantage, value wise, of integrating the amps and speakers but that is for another thread.

Once again I lean on my experience in both the hi-fi and the pro world which tells me that adequate amplification costs rather more than some seen to think, particularly if like me (and probably yourself) you want to avoid the 'generic hi-fi' sound produced by most budget systems.

 

[ID.]

That's ok. According to the book of Thompson streaming or some other device playing back files can never sound as good as a CD player, because.

 

[tonky]

I don't think Thompson said that streaming lossless would be worse than the same CD played through a CD transport. - If you could clarify Thompson?

tonky

 

[TrevC]

...... *ROFL*

TrevC, oh so sneaky good thing I quoted you before you edited your post.......

I tell you, some of you lot.......

I corrected it. Is that OK?

 

[TrevC]

adequate amplification costs rather more than some seen to think, particularly if like me (and probably yourself) you want to avoid the 'generic hi-fi' sound produced by most budget systems.

What is generic hifi sound and how do I get to hear it?

 

[davedotco]

adequate amplification costs rather more than some seen to think, particularly if like me (and probably yourself) you want to avoid the 'generic hi-fi' sound produced by most budget systems.

What is generic hifi sound and how do I get to hear it?

It is flat, lifeless and lacking in energy and presence.

Most mainstream systems sound that way and they all sound remarkably similar once to get past the presentational 'qualities' of different speakers and rooms.

 

[TrevC]

adequate amplification costs rather more than some seen to think, particularly if like me (and probably yourself) you want to avoid the 'generic hi-fi' sound produced by most budget systems.

What is generic hifi sound and how do I get to hear it?

It is flat, lifeless and lacking in energy and presence.

Most mainstream systems sound that way and they all sound remarkably similar once to get past the presentational 'qualities' of different speakers and rooms.

I think I've heard one. A Sonos thing.

 

[tonky]

Sonos - it has its place - but to bracket it in even a generic hi-fi label is much overstating it.

tonky

 

[Vladimir]

adequate amplification costs rather more than some seen to think, particularly if like me (and probably yourself) you want to avoid the 'generic hi-fi' sound produced by most budget systems.

What is generic hifi sound and how do I get to hear it?

It is flat, lifeless and lacking in energy and presence.

Most mainstream systems sound that way and they all sound remarkably similar once to get past the presentational 'qualities' of different speakers and rooms.

That would be cheap Japanese mid-fi sound. Make something with a **** power supply in the UK and price it up, suddenly it's audio nirvana.

*dance4*

 

[TrevC]

Sonos - it has its place - but to bracket it in even a generic hi-fi label is much overstating it.

tonky

You are probably right!

 

[Infiniteloop]

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm[/url]

Er, No thanks.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/proaudio/behringer-a500.html

What do you expect? It's better, more powerful, less distorted etc than that valve thing you own. In any case it sounded just as good as the expensive amp in the test.

Better? - The guy reviewing it said 'I doubt that it can be used in home-project studios and Hi-Fi systems.'

Too funny!

 

[Gazzip]

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

Looking at the spec sheets for the test gear the YBA2 power amp used in the "high end" system only delivers 70W in to 8 ohms, whereas the A500 used in the "cheap as chips" system is in the many 100's of Watts in to 8 ohms. Given that ATC recommend a minimum 100W per channel to drive the SCM12's I would say that the "high end" amplifier is significantly under powered for driving those monitors. Nothing like skewing the test to deliver the result you want!

 

[Vladimir]

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

Looking at the spec sheets for the test gear the YBA2 power amp used in the "high end" system only delivers 70W in to 8 ohms, whereas the A500 used in the "cheap as chips" system is in the many 100's of Watts in to 8 ohms. Given that ATC recommend a minimum 100W per channel to drive the SCM12's I would say that the "high end" amplifier is significantly under powered for driving those monitors. Nothing like skewing the test to deliver the result you want!

Part of the test is not driving either amp into clipping. The test is not looking for which amplifier is more powerfull and better at driving difficult loads, but if there are qualitative difference in sound when all quantitative things are equal.

The difference between 70Wpc in 8 ohms and 100 of the same is only slightly above a dB.

You need to read this and learn a bit about these tests and why they are done.

 

[Infiniteloop]

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm[/url]

Er, No thanks.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/proaudio/behringer-a500.html

What do you expect? It's better, more powerful, less distorted etc than that valve thing you own. In any case it sounded just as good as the expensive amp in the test.

Better? - The guy reviewing it said 'I doubt that it can be used in home-project studios and Hi-Fi systems.'

Too funny!

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

I asked you to choose one and you chose the Behringer..........

 

[Gazzip]

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

Looking at the spec sheets for the test gear the YBA2 power amp used in the "high end" system only delivers 70W in to 8 ohms, whereas the A500 used in the "cheap as chips" system is in the many 100's of Watts in to 8 ohms. Given that ATC recommend a minimum 100W per channel to drive the SCM12's I would say that the "high end" amplifier is significantly under powered for driving those monitors. Nothing like skewing the test to deliver the result you want!

Part of the test is not driving either amp into clipping. The test is not looking for which amplifier is more powerfull and better at driving difficult loads, but if there are qualitative difference in sound when all quantitative things are equal.

The difference between 70Wpc in 8 ohms and 100 of the same is only slightly above a dB.

You need to read this and learn a bit about these tests and why they are done.

Sorry Vladimir but unless I am missing something, and it has been a long day, the article says NOTHING about how hard the amps were driven in the method section which describes the test. One can only assume therefore that there could have been clipping.

 

[Vladimir]

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

Looking at the spec sheets for the test gear the YBA2 power amp used in the "high end" system only delivers 70W in to 8 ohms, whereas the A500 used in the "cheap as chips" system is in the many 100's of Watts in to 8 ohms. Given that ATC recommend a minimum 100W per channel to drive the SCM12's I would say that the "high end" amplifier is significantly under powered for driving those monitors. Nothing like skewing the test to deliver the result you want!

Part of the test is not driving either amp into clipping. The test is not looking for which amplifier is more powerfull and better at driving difficult loads, but if there are qualitative difference in sound when all quantitative things are equal.

The difference between 70Wpc in 8 ohms and 100 of the same is only slightly above a dB.

You need to read this and learn a bit about these tests and why they are done.

Sorry Vladimir but unless I am missing something, and it has been a long day, the article says NOTHING about how hard the amps were driven in the method section which describes the test. One can only assume therefore that there could have been clipping.

The test subjects couldn't tell the difference between both amps. The result didn't show the Behringer was better, so why would you asume the YBA was clipping? First thing that is done in these tests is to level match with a very tight tolerance and set the amplifiers at levels withut clipping (probably not using more than 10W).

By your logic the cheaply made Behringer A500 is undisputedly better than the much much more expensive quality build YBA because the A500 it is just a bit more powerfull. The subjectivists claim the YBA is better in all aspect and despite being less powerfull, it is more powerfull.

 

[TrevC]

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

Looking at the spec sheets for the test gear the YBA2 power amp used in the "high end" system only delivers 70W in to 8 ohms, whereas the A500 used in the "cheap as chips" system is in the many 100's of Watts in to 8 ohms. Given that ATC recommend a minimum 100W per channel to drive the SCM12's I would say that the "high end" amplifier is significantly under powered for driving those monitors. Nothing like skewing the test to deliver the result you want!

It wouldn't matter unless the lower powered amp was used flat out.

 

[TrevC]

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm[/url]

Er, No thanks.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/proaudio/behringer-a500.html

What do you expect? It's better, more powerful, less distorted etc than that valve thing you own. In any case it sounded just as good as the expensive amp in the test.

Better? - The guy reviewing it said 'I doubt that it can be used in home-project studios and Hi-Fi systems.'

Too funny!

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

I asked you to choose one and you chose the Behringer..........

As an example. Doh. I have an old Sony at the moment, to read the model I would have to go on my knees and pull it out, and it isn't a current model.

 

[TrevC]

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm[/url]

Er, No thanks.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/proaudio/behringer-a500.html

What do you expect? It's better, more powerful, less distorted etc than that valve thing you own. In any case it sounded just as good as the expensive amp in the test.

Better? - The guy reviewing it said 'I doubt that it can be used in home-project studios and Hi-Fi systems.'

Too funny!

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important thing? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

 

[Gazzip]

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

Looking at the spec sheets for the test gear the YBA2 power amp used in the "high end" system only delivers 70W in to 8 ohms, whereas the A500 used in the "cheap as chips" system is in the many 100's of Watts in to 8 ohms. Given that ATC recommend a minimum 100W per channel to drive the SCM12's I would say that the "high end" amplifier is significantly under powered for driving those monitors. Nothing like skewing the test to deliver the result you want!

Part of the test is not driving either amp into clipping. The test is not looking for which amplifier is more powerfull and better at driving difficult loads, but if there are qualitative difference in sound when all quantitative things are equal.

The difference between 70Wpc in 8 ohms and 100 of the same is only slightly above a dB.

You need to read this and learn a bit about these tests and why they are done.

Sorry Vladimir but unless I am missing something, and it has been a long day, the article says NOTHING about how hard the amps were driven in the method section which describes the test. One can only assume therefore that there could have been clipping.

The test subjects couldn't tell the difference between both amps. The result didn't show the Behringer was better, so why would you asume the YBA was clipping? First thing that is done in these tests is to level match with a very tight tolerance and set the amplifiers at levels withut clipping (probably not using more than 10W).

By your logic the cheaply made Behringer A500 is undisputedly better than the much much more expensive quality build YBA because the A500 it is just a bit more powerfull. The subjectivists claim the YBA is better in all aspect and despite being less powerfull, it is more powerfull.

My logic states that equally specified products should be used in a test like this. On that note different cables were used in both systems and the Behringer was balanced on a wooden chair. It all smacks just a little too much of somebody trying to make a (their) point at the expense of objectivity.

You just change the amp. You don't change everything. Balanced on a chair?! Objective? Give me a fecking break.

 

[Vladimir]

And the limping gazelle proudly wonders off in the tall grass...

 

[Gazzip]

And the limping gazelle proudly wonders off in the tall grass...

Come on... SURELY you see my point? Set up the A500 with a similar spec "exotic" amp, not a significantly different spec. Use the same cables, the same source and the same support system. If they run the test and get the same results then it means something. Why change 80% of the equipment? How was that advancing anyone's understanding of anything?