HiFi (Speakers) Q

Phil_aka_Pip

Axe_meister said:

Alas we are at the mercy of the record engineers and producers who these days don't master for decent hi-fi but good enough for MP3 and shit systems, I don't like revealing Hi-Fi as they seem to be biased towards treble and upper mid range and very tight bass and to my ears don't fill the room.
This is where mid range Hi-Fi generally sounds better as they have to make it sound nice to make up for any budgetary short comings. But there is a lot a smoke and mirrors at the high end. The really expensive amps often have the simpelist of circuits with low component count (yes they are of high quality) so in theory should not cost the 1000s they do.

But those few components eg transformers & chokes are very often made of very expensive materials eg silver, and the r&d time (plus burnt out prototypes on the workshop floor), together with low volume sales often accounts for the high ticket price. Natch, as others have said, the law of diminishing marginal returns applies

TTony

I'm just going to have to work on MrsTT.  

I've lived with the aesthetic option (the Bose) for a while now, and that was no real big issue because I wasn't really listening to the music.  

Now, I want to listen to the music, and not just through headphones into the CD player.  My ears had a bit of a treat this morning when I wired the old "proper" speakers up.  I don't really want to go back to speakers designed for appearance rather than speakers designed for sound - ok, everything is a compromise, but I'm going to try to stick with the traditional box design rather than anything that has to cleverly engineer a solution to the sound within the constraints of appearance (a la Bose).

ToneControl

TTony said:

I'm just going to have to work on MrsTT.  

I've lived with the aesthetic option (the Bose) for a while now, and that was no real big issue because I wasn't really listening to the music.  

Now, I want to listen to the music, and not just through headphones into the CD player.  My ears had a bit of a treat this morning when I wired the old "proper" speakers up.  I don't really want to go back to speakers designed for appearance rather than speakers designed for sound - ok, everything is a compromise, but I'm going to try to stick with the traditional box design rather than anything that has to cleverly engineer a solution to the sound within the constraints of appearance (a la Bose).

The current next step to full on speakers without breaking a marriage are the narrow tall speakers like the B&W 603

Quite a few women are able to tolerate these in a living room

Old wide speakers are very hard to gain acceptance

In fact you can see this in action: Other than bookshelf size speakers, Richer sounds mostly sells tall narrow ones & Bose-style as far as I can see, It's hard to find anything wider than 6 or 7 inches

RaymondLin

How about these?

ICBM

TTony said:

The bigger problem is that MrsTT has just returned home and given me the look, followed by the opinion.

"I've already told you what I think" 

.... "but you haven't heard the difference yet" .... 

"I won't hear a difference"

To which the answer is - OK, so it doesn't matter which we use then. Sell the Boses, use some of the money to buy decent stands, and the rest on shoes for her. *That* will bring her round immediately.

chillidoggy

An interesting thread, this.

Just to qualify the 'Chilli Pipeline Theory', I was banging on about the careful matching of component pieces. By that, I'm saying it's silly having a £5,000 CD player when you have a £70 Sony amp and a pair of £100 speakers. I'm not decrying the price people pay for kit, indeed I'm guilty of shelling out a lot of cash for mine, just that whatever you buy should be matched so you have a nice, balanced sound that you like. And that's the important bit, it's what YOU like, not what everyone else says you should like.

Thankfully, Mrs C is equally interested as me about Hi-Fi, so I don't have a problem in that area. If I walked in and announced I was going to spend £10,000 on a new pair of Mark Levinson No33 mono bloc amps, she wouldn't bat an eyelid, not that it's going to happen. But certainly, most women we know are simply not interested in music at all, so I sympathise with those here who struggle.

ToneControl

chillidoggy said:

An interesting thread, this.

Just to qualify the 'Chilli Pipeline Theory', I was banging on about the careful matching of component pieces. By that, I'm saying it's silly having a £5,000 CD player when you have a £70 Sony amp and a pair of £100 speakers. I'm not decrying the price people pay for kit, indeed I'm guilty of shelling out a lot of cash for mine, just that whatever you buy should be matched so you have a nice, balanced sound that you like. And that's the important bit, it's what YOU like, not what everyone else says you should like.

Thankfully, Mrs C is equally interested as me about Hi-Fi, so I don't have a problem in that area. If I walked in and announced I was going to spend £10,000 on a new pair of Mark Levinson No33 mono bloc amps, she wouldn't bat an eyelid, not that it's going to happen. But certainly, most women we know are simply not interested in music at all, so I sympathise with those here who struggle.

I am not sure the spending needs to be equal for each component, 

I think a £100 CD player, a £150 amp (90w+) and £500 speakers would sound way better than spending £250 on each

TTony

That's really what I meant with the comment about how to define the diameter of the "ChilliPipe". It can't be based purely on the cost of the individual components.

chillidoggy

No, Tonecontrol, that's not entirely what I meant. It's a tricky one to explain, and maybe I didn't put it correctly. I did say you should balance the sound, and what I'm saying is that the components should be matched, but NOT by price, rather sonically. I gave an example that (in my opinion) there's no point in spending vast amounts of cash on a particular piece of kit, when the others probably won't do it justice.

Does that make sense? If not, I can't see how to put it any other way!

chillidoggy

TTony, as a general rule the Chillipipe diameter gets larger, the more money you have to spend, which generally gets you a higher quality sound. Laws of diminishing returns apply, though.

Again, I hope that makes sense.

strumjoughlamps

ToneControl said:

I am not sure the spending needs to be equal for each component, 

I think a £100 CD player, a £150 amp (90w+) and £500 speakers would sound way better than spending £250 on each

with a £750 budget I wouldn't be spending the bulk of it on speakers, in my experience its the CD player that needs the most consideration; not sure why you are thinking an amp needs to be 90w+ either.

at the end of the day matching is what its about but I have found the amp is the box that can be the weakest link and still get a great sound.

TTony

chillidoggy said:

TTony, as a general rule the Chillipipe diameter gets larger, the more money you have to spend, which generally gets you a higher quality sound. Laws of diminishing returns apply, though.

Again, I hope that makes sense.

Yes it makes sense.

It also depends on what you want out of the end of the pipe - ie what the kit is intended to do and its target market.  A Bose 5.1 system has a different target market to a similarly priced set of "hifi" speakers so you've got to make sure that you're comparing functionality / quality / intended application as well as price.

I think I made a tactical error with MrsTT.  If I'd got a set of big floorstanders in, we could then have compromised on something a little more discreet, on some nicely designed (and hifi effective) stands.  I didn't think this through properly ...

Danny1969

With regard to the source being the most important I'm wondering about sites like HDtracks.co.uk where you can download in 96K  \ 24 bit 

Are these just upsampled from the original CD's anyway or are they new high res masters taken in 96 \ 24 from the original multitracks ?

Skipped

I see speakers in the same way as I see guitar pickups made in Asia.
You can now get a hell of a lot for your money. Who cares what the cabinet is made from as long as it has a picture of some mahogany stuck on?

And if you go the 24 bit route your outlay for your source will be a £200 USB Dac + the Laptop that you already own. I think you can quickly get to a point where you are saying - Wow...Is my amp good enough? Which is why I think second hand Meridian or  Linn integrated amp is a good idea.

ToneControl

chillidoggy said:

No, Tonecontrol, that's not entirely what I meant. It's a tricky one to explain, and maybe I didn't put it correctly. I did say you should balance the sound, and what I'm saying is that the components should be matched, but NOT by price, rather sonically. I gave an example that (in my opinion) there's no point in spending vast amounts of cash on a particular piece of kit, when the others probably won't do it justice.

Does that make sense? If not, I can't see how to put it any other way!

ok, matched by quality of sound/spec that's fine

I think that "good" CDs and amps have come down in price a lot more than speakers as technology has advanced, which is why I'd spend more on the drivers 

 

ToneControl

strumjoughlamps said:

ToneControl said:

I am not sure the spending needs to be equal for each component, 

I think a £100 CD player, a £150 amp (90w+) and £500 speakers would sound way better than spending £250 on each

with a £750 budget I wouldn't be spending the bulk of it on speakers, in my experience its the CD player that needs the most consideration; not sure why you are thinking an amp needs to be 90w+ either.

at the end of the day matching is what its about but I have found the amp is the box that can be the weakest link and still get a great sound.

As I say, I think the speakers are the weakest link in most setups I have seen

Why a minimum 90w amp?

Easier to explain with maths

20-30 years ago people used to advocate 20w amps for hifi

These were hifi buffs who played things quietly, and they could get away with it. 

Bear in mind that studios would not use 20w (unless they had monitors that were 12dB more efficient - e.g. old Tannoys) - this low power doctrine was solely for hifi buffs 

Vinyl masters were more compressed than (not messed up) CD masters are today, so the mean to peak difference was 8dB I think, as opposed to 15dB for CDs

So - to play an album on an LP with a 20w amp, without transients distorting, then playing a CD at the same apparent level, you need 7dB more headroom on the CD's amplifier

A 100w amp is 7dB louder than a 20w amp, Hence needing a more powerful amp 

Also AFAIK most guitarists like to play their hifis louder than hifi buffs, so I think 180w a channel is advisable, I used a NAD amp this spec, and when I had to replace it with a 60w a channel, the drums and percussion immediately sounded flat and distorted

strumjoughlamps

ToneControl said: matched by quality of sound/spec that's fine

I think that "good" CDs and amps have come down in price a lot more than speakers as technology has advanced, which is why I'd spend more on the drivers 

 

also nowadays you cannot dismiss all in ones... in similar vein to cameras where now CSC and premium compacts provide better IQ to budget DLSRs the like of Denon, Onkyo and Yamaha are producing micro systems that match and better budget separates.

ToneControl

http://www.crownaudio.com/db-power.htm

monquixote

In the modern world there isn't a great deal of point in buying an extremely expensive CD player. 

A CD player is comprised of two bits: A transport and a DAC. 

The purpose of the transport is to deliver the bits on the CD to the DAC. The most basic streaming player will do that with perfect fidelity every time so a £10K CD transport can only aspire to be as good as a basic sound card or Sonos. 

At that point you are just dealing with a DAC so why not just spend your cash on a dedicated DAC hooked up to a streaming player with SPDIF. 

Someone at this point may mention jitter, but even the £179 SB3 I used to have had 50ps of jitter which is bugger all and most DACs will come with stacks more than that without it making any difference whatsoever. (something I've verified myself in a lab with a scope and a generator).

TTony

One of the benefits of living way out in East Anglia, is the eBay "collection only" auctions don't have a particularly wide catchment area, so bargains can occasionally be had.

Like these ...

... for £70.

Acoustic Energy Aegis 3 speakers.  Reasonably old, reasonably well reviewed in the day, and cheaper than buying a set of stands for my existing DL6s.  I'll collect them on Thursday.

Nothing wrong with the DL6s as far as I know, but I'm sure they'd sound better on stands rather than the floor and I'd like something to compare them against.  Buying those ^^ is cheaper than a set of stands, allows me to compare them, and I'd expect to get the cost back if I re-sell them on evilB in due course.

The only - and it's only a very very slight problem - is that MrsTT has yet to appreciate the aural quality of proper speakers over the Bose system.  Or accept the visual impact of having another set of speakers in the room.  Apparently, our compromise is currently that I can set up the hifi in the summerhouse.  I'm working on a way to do that too (with help from Mr MQ).

For anyone who doesn't know MrsTT, there is a definite chance of those ^^ speakers making a re-appearance on eBay whereas I may not be making any appearances in public until the bandages come off.