System Builders, How Does Your System get a SOUL?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
A matter of perspective, I suppose. I thought the cheat was the bargain basement baseline, where most amps are not going to be up to the task of driving any $10,000 speaker I'd care to listen to. Why not just ask me to drive the $10k speakers off the headphone output of my iPad? I didn't up the ante, I made the contest real. It is a contest, though, as there are some pretty decent speakers out there at $500 a pair. Still, I'll take the right $500 amp and the $10k speakers, every time, as long as I get to choose them. In fact, I don't need an amp at all. Give me $10,500 to spend on actives and I'll smoke you.
Hell, I'll let you have $500 speakers and a $20,000 amp.Tim
Sort of obvious: no actives, also meaning no self powered bass drivers. The separate amp has to do all the grunt work ...Give me $10,500 to spend on actives and I'll smoke you.
Tim
Actually, you're probably right about the $500; maybe it's just me, but the prices of speakers over there seem to have climbed a bit of late. But I still believe I could do it with a $200 unit ...
Down here in Oz we, meaning quite a number of manufacturers, build very high quality speakers for the money: the typical UK efforts for the same money are somewhat rubbishy in comparison. Very solid carcases, big, meaty inductors for the crossovers, that sort of thing ...
Frank
Which os made speakers are you referring to?
Why not actives? (ps, in any case I'm with Tim) Why not buy second hand amps as well.
I have been belittled a few times lately due to my choice of gear, which in essence revolves around the best speakers you can get and 'forget the rest' (which is why I am with Tim). Admittedly 500 does not quite cover what you need to go active
Anyway, let's change the rules a tad...seein as how it's all for fun. Many would say that you are comitting (arrgh, spelling..anyone else find that what comes naturally when writing suddenly can be hard typing??) a similar 'flaw/sin' as I am, ie concentrating very hard on only one aspect of getting sound. In your case it is amps, in mine speakers.
Seriously, what you are suggesting would be a damned fun day I reckon! I have always set it up more generally (meaning there are many who spread their readies across the board, synergy and all that jazz) whereas you and I concentrate the readies in one area. My 'challenge' has always been 'front end' (for me everything up to the speaker) vs 'back end' (speaker and speaker/room interface). Obviously the dollar amounts have to change from yours, but there ya go, that to me is the basis for a very interesting and educational day.
Behind transparent screens (or other method) is mandatory.
So Frank (all), under the above scenario what are your percentage breakdowns now?? A real stab in the dark on my current is, at most, 10% for front and the rest the back. As I am active, the crossovers etc go in the back end. Amps I get second hand or even freebies (they exist), source is whatever the girls have laying around unused, as you can imagine often dvd players rather than cdps, cables etc are cheap lighting cables from bunnings and the giveaway ICs that come with the consumer gear which explains a litlle why I can get the 10% even if four way plus subs. (could be more, was just a guess but illustrates the approach)
thought I should explain myself a bit more.
To be very broad, let's say there are three amorphous groups in audio...the 'source is everything' guys, you know Linn and Ivor stuff, there are the 'everything counts so we must spread the available funds evenly' guys, and the 'speakers only count' guys, with the possible extension of including the room. I am in the last camp..(are there more sub groups??)
So what would be an appropriate budget to set up this mythical sound off, and what would be each persons view of the percentage allocation of that budget?
It get's tricky when you think about it...'do I include subs? If so, how do I power them and control them yet stay within budget' etc, 'do I include isolation devices?'...there is a bit of thought required from each camp.
Fun and games.
To be very broad, let's say there are three amorphous groups in audio...the 'source is everything' guys, you know Linn and Ivor stuff, there are the 'everything counts so we must spread the available funds evenly' guys, and the 'speakers only count' guys, with the possible extension of including the room. I am in the last camp..(are there more sub groups??)
So what would be an appropriate budget to set up this mythical sound off, and what would be each persons view of the percentage allocation of that budget?
It get's tricky when you think about it...'do I include subs? If so, how do I power them and control them yet stay within budget' etc, 'do I include isolation devices?'...there is a bit of thought required from each camp.
Fun and games.
The total budget - $10,500 is more than enough to go active. You could build and amplify a set of Orions for that money. Hell, you could probably have them built for you for that money. And I don't care what is amplifying them, I'd love to see Frank come up with a $500 pair of speakers that could do anything in a room with a pair of Orions other than embarrass themselves.
By the way, I'm assuming an un-tuned or anechoic room. Can't tune it for both sets of speakers. I guess Frank would be ok with that. Can't say I ever remember him spending a moments thought on the room, other than to say that it didn't matter.
Tim
Yes. I'm in the transducers matter most but they have to be appropriately amplified camp. Headroom and speakers go together. And the room, though I'm not as particular about it as some.
Tim
Tim,
You are using as an example a dipole speaker (the Orion's) - an excellent and unconventional solution where global sound quality will be very much affected by the reflections in the room, making the electronics less dominating. They are also a good example of a proper (and needed) use of active filters - when you use conventional speaker units, manufactured to be used in a closed box, in a dipole design, their frequency response is a disaster. You really need active crossovers to equalize it.
The Orion's are much more than a simple active speaker - they are also another way of listening to music. BTW, one day you will explain me how you can dream about a speaker that has the following in the recommendations list :
speaker separation >8 ft
Listening distance 8 ft to 18 ft
Room acoustics: Fairly live with RT60 of 400 ms to 700 ms[/I]
They seem more appropriate for me than for you!
I know of it because some time ago I considered them seriously - not for the technicalities, but for the enthusiastic acoustic descriptions of their subjective sound quality written by Siegfried Linkwitz .
I can dream of Orion's, Micro, because variety is the spice of life. I currently listen to active monitors in a nearfield configuration. What I get from that is excellent detail, reasonably flat response, good room resonance control without a bunch of traps and, from the monitors, an extremely precise horizontal image. I like it. I understand that the kind of pinpoint imaging I'm getting from my monitors is not natural, but I'm mostly listening to studio recordings anyway, and I find really precise pinpoint imaging to be a viable substitute for the visual location cues I get from a live performance.
Big, full-range, bipolar speakers out in the middle of a lively room are, you're right, the polar opposite of my nearfield listening experience. But I like that, too. And while I've heard a lot of omni-directional designs, I've heard nothing that touches the Orions. If I had the room for it, I'd have a set of Orions (I'm very tempted by the Plutos). But I'd still have my nearfield set-up at the other end of the house. There is more than one valid listening experience. And I'm a subjectivist .
And yes, I know the Orions would totally screw with Frank's big amp/small speakers test. I could go in another direction; give me the aforementioned $500 AVR with four amps bridged to a reasonably high-current 200 - 250 watt per channel stereo output. Now give me a pair of very high quality box speakers that present a reasonably easy, even load -- Vienna Acoustics' Beethoven Concert Grands will do. That set up would, I believe, kill any $500 speaker pair Frank can come up with, regardless of what he powers them with. And the system will come in $5k under budget.
Tim
Big, full-range, bipolar speakers out in the middle of a lively room are, you're right, the polar opposite of my nearfield listening experience. But I like that, too. And while I've heard a lot of omni-directional designs, I've heard nothing that touches the Orions. If I had the room for it, I'd have a set of Orions (I'm very tempted by the Plutos
). But I'd still have my nearfield set-up at the other end of the house. There is more than one valid listening experience. And I'm a subjectivist .And yes, I know the Orions would totally screw with Frank's big amp/small speakers test. I could go in another direction; give me the aforementioned $500 AVR with four amps bridged to a reasonably high-current 200 - 250 watt per channel stereo output. Now give me a pair of very high quality box speakers that present a reasonably easy, even load -- Vienna Acoustics' Beethoven Concert Grands will do. That set up would, I believe, kill any $500 speaker pair Frank can come up with, regardless of what he powers them with. And the system will come in $5k under budget.
Tim
Hello Terry
That’s tuff for me and I will expalin why. I simply could not afford the speakers I wanted so I went the DIY route and decided to clone designs I was interested in. The biggest issue with a DIY effort is your time. Hard to put a number on what that’s worth. Especially if are having fun doing it.
I fall into that camp and think the speakers are the most important part of the mix. That said I have been slowly improving my 2 channel system and it has been a fun experience doing so. I had several vintage preamps I was using that I got used for very little money. I ended up purchasing a modern preamp the Emotiva USP-1 and was very happy with it. I then decided to go the outboard DAC route and use my CD player and a universl DVD player as transposrts and compared the analog outputs with the output of the DAC. Well surprise surprise with the CD player very little if any difference. The DVD player however was another story. The analog section in the DAC was better sounding.
After those experiences I still consider the speakers the most important part of the mix but will be spending some more cash upgrading my amplifier shortly. For the mix I would but about 50%-60% into the speakers and the rest elsewhere.
Rob
That’s tuff for me and I will expalin why. I simply could not afford the speakers I wanted so I went the DIY route and decided to clone designs I was interested in. The biggest issue with a DIY effort is your time. Hard to put a number on what that’s worth. Especially if are having fun doing it.
I fall into that camp and think the speakers are the most important part of the mix. That said I have been slowly improving my 2 channel system and it has been a fun experience doing so. I had several vintage preamps I was using that I got used for very little money. I ended up purchasing a modern preamp the Emotiva USP-1 and was very happy with it. I then decided to go the outboard DAC route and use my CD player and a universl DVD player as transposrts and compared the analog outputs with the output of the DAC. Well surprise surprise with the CD player very little if any difference. The DVD player however was another story. The analog section in the DAC was better sounding.
After those experiences I still consider the speakers the most important part of the mix but will be spending some more cash upgrading my amplifier shortly. For the mix I would but about 50%-60% into the speakers and the rest elsewhere.
Rob
Here's my take on the matter:
We hear what we hear through our speakers - which is pretty darned important - but not solely because of our speakers. As such, I've always been a huge proponant is getting the source right first. As is well evidenced by my setup, I would list it as SOURCE, SPEAKERS and lastly power/pre AMPS. It's worked well for me, but YMMV.
We hear what we hear through our speakers - which is pretty darned important - but not solely because of our speakers. As such, I've always been a huge proponant is getting the source right first. As is well evidenced by my setup, I would list it as SOURCE, SPEAKERS and lastly power/pre AMPS. It's worked well for me, but YMMV.
Now we are talking, John. My whole point is that there is always a human element involved. If someone has a crappy source in front of their awesome speakers, it will add a whole lot of soul. And likewise with amps. A lot of it depends on what we like, what sets us off, and what we have gotten used to.
Thanks for that insight, Tim. Just had a look at Stereophile's review of the same, and I think the Vienna's wouldn't do the trick for me, unless some significant tweaking was done: one problem for me is that they're too tall, signifcant effort would be required to stabilise them vertically; plus, they're rather reticent in the treble, "laid back" is the term used, which would need "work", perhaps ...
Rather than giving a particular unit straight off, I'll mention 2 styles that would do it: a very efficient, easy load bookshelf that can handle high power, but may be quite "boisterous" and even raucous with lesser amps; or a less efficient, passive studio monitor that can handle high power, unfortunately the latter appear to be a dying species, a great shame because they offer excellent value for money. Two brands that fit these categories are Klipsch, and Dynaudio.
One thing I wouldn't worry about are the lowest octaves: too much money has to be spent here to get genuinely good results, poor value for money in the overall equation.
Frank
IF you weren't allowed to do much internal tweaking of the gear I'd probably do 20% on speakers, 80% on amp. Probably, the more I could re-engineer the insides of all the gear the more it would settle down to equal portions for each area, because then you're worrying about paying for the intrinsic quality of the key component parts of each component.
Frank
In the cheaper area, the well known Brit speakers, the ones starting with "M" always seemed poor value for money compared to our stuff ...
Frank
"Reticent" trebles? Silk tweeters. I'd call them smooth. I'd call what Klipsch do the sound of bacon frying. For $500 a pair in a Klipsch, your gonna get an RB-51. Actually $550, but I'll give you the 50 bucks. I'm at an advantage, here; I've heard them. I've sold them. And the Viennas too. You're gonna have to tweak the space time continuum to get those Klipsch stand their ground with anything in a league with the Beethoven's, regardless of what you amplify them with. And the Beethovens are half the budget you gave me.
This is not a reality-based discussion.
Tim
After I posted this 'mind game', I realised I can't actually participate! I simply don't know enough about what is available out there speaker wise to do so. And what's more, I rarely read reviews even IF I thought they were valuable.
I'm like Rob.
Tim, I have heard the orions and to be honest they did not do too much for me. I have only ever heard one other dipole (an alon, and that had a sealed bass so not THAT OB if you follow). Only a survey of two, but I get the idea for me that OB is too 'thin'.
What did come to mind later about 'concentrating' on one small part that wethink ismor impotnt than others is that it can be even further brokn down. (arggh this keyboard, leaves out letters and stuff)
Let's take my area (speakers) from a manufacturers viewpoint. Some is all about 'use the best quality drivers' you can. Others think that the rewards are in inert cabinet materials and shape, others yet again are 'forget what drivers, it's all in the crossover' Same deal I guess about amps, 'power supplies' vs 'output devices', trannies vs tubes. Let's not even get into dacs! OS vs non os yada yada.
But Tim, even tho OB does not (it seems) fully float my boat, yes, I agree that combo (in my book) would still win over franks combo.
Hiya Rob
yeah, that is my 'prob' too mentioned above. Agreed about the time, and that is not just the physical building of the buggers.
OTOH, apropos to being 'criticised' about my approach, if done properly (speaker I mean) it parlays that monetary investment even more. I have no idea how much it would cost commercially to get 'my speakers', many many thousands of dollars.
I use a dvd player (or more truthfully I use whatever is laying around, as they usually have been stoeln from the girls it just 'ends up' being a dvd player) but it does not matter toooo much as I take digital out. Never use the dac stage in them.
Thanks for the percentages, interesting.
Cheers John. Rough percentages?
Is this a 'theoretical' approach? What I mean is, does it 'just make sense' to you or is it because you have tested that idea somehow.
I once set up and participated in something along these lines. We had the one constant pair of speakers, yet two very different chains feeding it. We used a switch box controlled by the listener themselves at the LP. No need for others and instant switching.
Short rendition of the long story, it was one the the very first cdps made (1987 type stuff) using those el cheapo ICs (radio shack things for two bucks) yada yada (even the speaker wires on the cheap front end was electrical wall wiring I picked upo from home, renovating so just grabbed some wire floating around)
The other was an up to date $10 000 cdp, class a amps, whizbang ICs and speaker cables, audiophile pres, you get the idea.
Man, flick the switch and I couldn't beleive it. Thought the switch MUST be broken.
No difference. I am (as pointed out recently) 'one of the fringe hardcore objectivists' so I analytically did not expect much difference....but when I actually heard 'no difference' I was stunned. That was when you start thinking (in spite of my stance) that there must be SOME difference, yet there was none.
So, for me, that was enough to say to myself (even if such a small sample size) that there are more important fish to fry in audio. Others do not agree and that is fine too.
For sake of honesty and completeness i should add that one or two extra details. There were differences that others heard, and preferred (mostly but not completely) the more expensive front end vs the cheaper. The expensive one was around twenty thousand dollars, the cheap we could net begin to know (what is a 1987 cdp worth??).
The quickest from memory anyone started to get a handle between the two was about twenty minutes. Only after that (of course) could thoughst about preference begin.
I was simply not bothered to spend more than five minutes with it. In my book twenty thousand should have yeilded an instant and unmistakeable improvement. I was completely uninterested in spending that amount of time to tease out differences.
Which is interesting in that it exposes again the very different approaches we all have to audio. There were reports along the lines of 'the pain of the expense is forgotten in the long term enjoyment' tyoe stuff. Well, sure. But that is not my approach, and is I think part of why I have what I have for the money outlayed.
No source frank?
Anyway, no internal tweaking. This is an off the shelf demo done blinded.
Anyway, these things never happen but boy, would it not be a fun, entertaining and educational day?
Maybe we need a third room in this 'demo'..... (oh frank, thanks. You-amps-I did not include as a seperate category..is 'amp alone' a different camp than 'front', 'everything', 'back'??) so the rooms are front end, back end and everything counts.
I'm like Rob.
Tim, I have heard the orions and to be honest they did not do too much for me. I have only ever heard one other dipole (an alon, and that had a sealed bass so not THAT OB if you follow). Only a survey of two, but I get the idea for me that OB is too 'thin'.
What did come to mind later about 'concentrating' on one small part that wethink ismor impotnt than others is that it can be even further brokn down. (arggh this keyboard, leaves out letters and stuff)
Let's take my area (speakers) from a manufacturers viewpoint. Some is all about 'use the best quality drivers' you can. Others think that the rewards are in inert cabinet materials and shape, others yet again are 'forget what drivers, it's all in the crossover' Same deal I guess about amps, 'power supplies' vs 'output devices', trannies vs tubes. Let's not even get into dacs! OS vs non os yada yada.
But Tim, even tho OB does not (it seems) fully float my boat, yes, I agree that combo (in my book) would still win over franks combo.
Hiya Rob
yeah, that is my 'prob' too mentioned above. Agreed about the time, and that is not just the physical building of the buggers.
OTOH, apropos to being 'criticised' about my approach, if done properly (speaker I mean) it parlays that monetary investment even more. I have no idea how much it would cost commercially to get 'my speakers', many many thousands of dollars.
I use a dvd player (or more truthfully I use whatever is laying around, as they usually have been stoeln from the girls it just 'ends up' being a dvd player) but it does not matter toooo much as I take digital out. Never use the dac stage in them.
After those experiences I still consider the speakers the most important part of the mix but will be spending some more cash upgrading my amplifier shortly. For the mix I would but about 50%-60% into the speakers and the rest elsewhere.
Rob
Thanks for the percentages, interesting.
Cheers John. Rough percentages?
Is this a 'theoretical' approach? What I mean is, does it 'just make sense' to you or is it because you have tested that idea somehow.
I once set up and participated in something along these lines. We had the one constant pair of speakers, yet two very different chains feeding it. We used a switch box controlled by the listener themselves at the LP. No need for others and instant switching.
Short rendition of the long story, it was one the the very first cdps made (1987 type stuff) using those el cheapo ICs (radio shack things for two bucks) yada yada (even the speaker wires on the cheap front end was electrical wall wiring I picked upo from home, renovating so just grabbed some wire floating around)
The other was an up to date $10 000 cdp, class a amps, whizbang ICs and speaker cables, audiophile pres, you get the idea.
Man, flick the switch and I couldn't beleive it. Thought the switch MUST be broken.
No difference. I am (as pointed out recently) 'one of the fringe hardcore objectivists' so I analytically did not expect much difference....but when I actually heard 'no difference' I was stunned. That was when you start thinking (in spite of my stance) that there must be SOME difference, yet there was none.
So, for me, that was enough to say to myself (even if such a small sample size) that there are more important fish to fry in audio. Others do not agree and that is fine too.
For sake of honesty and completeness i should add that one or two extra details. There were differences that others heard, and preferred (mostly but not completely) the more expensive front end vs the cheaper. The expensive one was around twenty thousand dollars, the cheap we could net begin to know (what is a 1987 cdp worth??).
The quickest from memory anyone started to get a handle between the two was about twenty minutes. Only after that (of course) could thoughst about preference begin.
I was simply not bothered to spend more than five minutes with it. In my book twenty thousand should have yeilded an instant and unmistakeable improvement. I was completely uninterested in spending that amount of time to tease out differences.
Which is interesting in that it exposes again the very different approaches we all have to audio. There were reports along the lines of 'the pain of the expense is forgotten in the long term enjoyment' tyoe stuff. Well, sure. But that is not my approach, and is I think part of why I have what I have for the money outlayed.
No source frank?
Anyway, no internal tweaking. This is an off the shelf demo done blinded.
Anyway, these things never happen but boy, would it not be a fun, entertaining and educational day?
Maybe we need a third room in this 'demo'..... (oh frank, thanks. You-amps-I did not include as a seperate category..is 'amp alone' a different camp than 'front', 'everything', 'back'??) so the rooms are front end, back end and everything counts.
Similar threads
