# Hi - Fi buffs ?



## Blister (16 May 2012)

Hi 

I am toying with the idea of getting a valve amp to add to my HiFi system 

Anyone on here have any recommendations without needing a Lotto win :mrgreen:


----------



## Racers (16 May 2012)

Hi, Blister

My advise, DON'T

Unless you like swaping valves every couple of years or to find which ones sound best.

What is your present system?

Pete


----------



## Cegidfa (16 May 2012)

Hello Blister,
I recently bought a complete Icon system.
An Icon Stereo 40 mk3 integrated amp, CDX1 valve CD player, both with the Jensen upgrade.
And MFV3 MK2 speakers. The sound is out of this world. I had never heard a valve amp before, and currently have a Meridian system.
The Icon wiped the floor with it. Anyone want a Meridian surround sound system?

Regards...Dick.


----------



## gus3049 (16 May 2012)

Racers":1wfdksk4 said:


> Hi, Blister
> 
> My advise, DON'T
> 
> ...


Couldn't disagree more. I have changed valves twice in the fifteen years I've had mine. My wife who has the ears of a bat, confirms that the deterioration has been minor.

To a degree, it depends on your speakers but 'valve watts' are very different from 'transistor watts'.

My amp is a Leak Stereo 20. In theory 10 watts per channel, in practice 8 watts but it drives every speaker I have with no problem at all, from the 'orribly insensitive 15ohm LS3/5a's and Quad Electrostatics to the home made horns with Celestion units in. A sweeter, more lucid amp I haven't heard and it is possible to get a good one for only a few hundred pounds. All the rubbish about limited bass is just that, through the Quads - my main speakers - it is clean, crisp and articulate. All the instruments sound like the real ones do (I am a guitar maker and instrument repairer), although I'll grant that the lower pipes on the organ are a bit thin by some standards. I do have neighbours however - most people do.

It seems remarkably unfussy about the make of valves too. I'm running Sovtek and they are fine.

Go for it Allen.


----------



## Racers (16 May 2012)

Hi,

I have had experience with valves in TVs so I know about aging and reliability and frequent a HiFi forum where valve rolling (swaping valves for the best sound) is talked about.

Solid state is easer to place (no microphoics) and easier to live with.

Valves seem to be the in thing at the moment, these things pass.

Leak stero 20 are well regarded valve amps and go for quite a lot these days and would probbaly need a re-build.

I have built my pre amp and power amps modified Cd players and enjoy messing around with electronics, but I don't like valves.

Blister might be better changing something else in his system to improve the music.

Pete


----------



## woodaxed (16 May 2012)

Valve watts and transistor watts are the same as long as its in rms , Valve cathodes do deteriorate they loose they oxide coating over a period of time depends on how long the unit has been on etc.
They do have a better tone than transistors.
It also depends on what you are feeding into it if you are using cds etc then you are putting digital recording against 
analog.
then you have speakers and enclosures dependant on what they are made of changes things again.
If you are using eletrostatic speakers then give up.
tbh the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
And just for reference i was in electronics until i discovered wood ive built valve amps etc in the past and do still love them but dont have the money to build them anymore


----------



## gus3049 (16 May 2012)

Racers":chn17dxv said:


> Hi,
> 
> Solid state is easer to place (no microphoics) and easier to live with.
> 
> ...



Pete and I obviously disagree fundamentally about this. The Leak is totally unfussy about where its sited and I have never suffered from feedback problems. Valves have been 'the in thing' for as long as I have been listening to hi-fi (about 50 years now) As far as easy to live with is concerned, in the time I have had the Leak, I have owned various amps, mostly from Quad or Musical Fidelity, only two of them still work properly and one of them after a major rebuild by Quad. I reckon an amp that was made in 1961 and is still going strong (with two change of valves and one of the caps - easy swap) is easy to live with.

Just try it Allen. What is the budget by the way. You can get a fully sorted St20 from Classique Sounds in Leicester for a 'reasonable' sum.


----------



## Racers (16 May 2012)

Hi, Gordon

I remember long days working on valve tv's belching out heat, high voltages every where.
I guess that's why I am anti valve.

Pete


----------



## nev (16 May 2012)

woodaxed":360lfwcn said:


> ... It also depends on what you are feeding into it if you are using cds etc then you are putting digital recording against analog...



 may as well skip the cd altogether. and go wireless too :shock: ... http://www.fat-man.co.uk/docs/product_0 ... Dock.shtml

5-10 years ago I used to work in a hifi shop, but valve stuff was a bit thin on the ground then , apart from the fatman stuff.
With all things hifi, change any component and it'll probably change the sound, you like it more - its better, you like it less its not, regardless of cost, make or component make up.
Any decent hifi shop should let you try something out without obligation.


----------



## Harbo (17 May 2012)

My main system is all valve - EAR Yoshino single ended , valve preamp, valve Leak Trough Line FM tuner ( one of the finest radios money can buy).
I used to be a Hi-Fi nut and built up a small collection.
I have a pair of Quad 11's, preamp and tuner, a pair of Leak TL12.1's and a couple of spare Trough Lines
Quad Electrostatics, Lowther Acoustas and Leak Sandwich speakers.

Not been used seriously for a while and as they seem to be fetching good prices at the moment I'm tempted to pass them on?


----------



## Racers (17 May 2012)

Hi, Harbo

You have some classic stuff that should fetch very good prices.
I would love to have another pair of ELS57 I had a nice all black pair, but i don't think the wife would be to happy.

Pete


----------



## Harbo (17 May 2012)

Yes the 57's sound fantastic but not very room (wife) friendly - that's why they have been mothballed for a number of years along with the other speakers.
I had plans to build a large music listening room to house all my stuff but it didn't happen 

Rod


----------



## bugbear (17 May 2012)

Valve versus transistor is right up there with freehand versus jig.  

BugBear


----------



## gus3049 (17 May 2012)

Harbo":1789cst9 said:


> Yes the 57's sound fantastic but not very room (wife) friendly - that's why they have been mothballed for a number of years along with the other speakers.
> I had plans to build a large music listening room to house all my stuff but it didn't happen
> 
> Rod



My wife say that if the 57's go - she does.

I know I'm a lucky man.


----------



## Harbo (17 May 2012)

You certainly are - do you want another pair - once read an article about stacked pairs but they were hidden behind acoustic curtains?  

Rod


----------



## Blister (17 May 2012)

My current system is alas all modern  

I have the following 

Technics SL-1200 MK2 turntable fitted with a Audio technica AT120E cartridge 
A set of arm scales shipped in from the USA 
Marantz CD6002 CD player 
Marantz PM6002 integrated amp
Marantz ST7001 DAB/FM/AM tuner

A pair of Tannoy Precision 6p studio monitors 

My problem is , it all sounds somewhat muted / flat , not sure if its I tunes ? 

I have some interesting vinyl , Zeppelin , the Who , Cream , ZZ top albums that I love listening too :mrgreen: 
I am sure the vinyl sounds better than I tunes

So would like to better my listening pleasure :lol: 8)


----------



## Racers (17 May 2012)

Hi, Blister

I think you need to look at what you are feeding into your amp, the turntable and CD are the first place to start, rubbish in=rubbish out.

I don't know your buget so its hard to recommend something.

I have a Rotel RCD965BX CD player with a new masterclock different op-amps etc that sounds very good, thats looking for a new home. a bargan at £60.

Pete


----------



## bugbear (17 May 2012)

Blister":3ibtuxyw said:


> My current system is alas all modern
> 
> I have the following
> 
> ...



None of the kit you list plays Itunes data - how are you doing that?

BugBear


----------



## Blister (17 May 2012)

> None of the kit you list plays Itunes data - how are you doing that?
> 
> BugBear



The only way I could see was to run a cable from my I mac headphone socket into the Aux port on the amp


----------



## cambournepete (17 May 2012)

Blister":1i2kpsc4 said:


> > None of the kit you list plays Itunes data - how are you doing that?
> >
> > BugBear
> 
> ...


You want to invest in a USB/DAC converter. This takes the digital iTunes signal out of your Mac and converts it to analogue to plug into your amp.
Headphone sockets are notoriously poor quality audio-wise...

<edited to correct link typo>


----------



## Blister (17 May 2012)

cambournepete":e904a84t said:


> Blister":e904a84t said:
> 
> 
> > > None of the kit you list plays Itunes data - how are you doing that?
> ...




Hi Pete the link does not work ?


----------



## gus3049 (17 May 2012)

Blister":2xsr2jc0 said:


> My current system is alas all modern
> 
> I have the following
> 
> ...



Sounds a perfectly reasonable system to me. The Stereo 20 would be much better but... as said, a better source will improve things. Audio from the Mac is OK for me, I think it depends on which model you have, Apple seem to think that an iPod sounds good - I thought I was deaf. The record player is a good one so you should try and match all the other bits to that. I don't know much about the digital side of getting audio out so the experts will no doubt advise.

I have iTunes playing via an old Rogers Ravensbrook into Sennheisers and it sounds perfectly good for casual listening. For serious stuff its vinyl.


----------



## Blister (17 May 2012)

> Audio from the Mac is OK for me, I think it depends on which model you have,



I have a 24" Imac :mrgreen: 

and a I pod nano , I phone 4 , I pad 2 all = I mad :mrgreen: 

running OS X


----------



## Blister (17 May 2012)

I was looking at these amps 

http://www.hifiandaudio.com/se_amplist.htm

any opinions on them ?


----------



## cambournepete (17 May 2012)

Blister":3i9p35ti said:


> Hi Pete the link does not work ?


Sorry - it does now.


----------



## cambournepete (17 May 2012)

Blister":1d378w32 said:


> I was looking at these amps
> 
> http://www.hifiandaudio.com/se_amplist.htm
> 
> any opinions on them ?


I do't know anything about the amps, but you'd want to check they can drive your speakers properly and if they can't you'd need new speakers as well...


----------



## Racers (17 May 2012)

Hi, Blister

Improve your front end first, you can’t make fine furniture from pallet wood.

You do realise those amps don't have phono inputs so your turntable won't work.

Use a docking station for your iPhone it will sound much better than the headphone socket.
That’s what I found when I put together a system for my mates garage using his iPhone.

You need to find a good HiFi shop that will lend you things to try at home and listen for a while.

Pete


----------



## gus3049 (17 May 2012)

Hi Allen,

As it seems to be an iTunes versus other souces problem, can I suggest that you visit this forum?http://theartofsound.net/forum/index.php

They have a whole section on digital/computer audio and whilst I am not suggesting that the 'experts' here are not as good, they do seem to have many people there who REALLY know what they are talking about. Getting a good quality DAC fed from the Mac and into your amp may be a solution to your problem, certainly cheaper than the valve amp. This assumes you are happy with the sound from the other sources of course.

Whilst there, visit this thread http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11349 to see what DIY is really all about. Its a friend of one of the dutch guys I know out here. He only works four days a week, all the rest of his time is spent with his hi-fi. There are 24 pages but well worth wading through.

I wonder where the hi-fi ends and the music starts! It seems it is possible to separate the two in spite of one supposedly being the path to the other.


----------



## gus3049 (17 May 2012)

Harbo":fij1kf1l said:


> You certainly are - do you want another pair - once read an article about stacked pairs but they were hidden behind acoustic curtains?
> 
> Rod



Well Rod,

If you need them taken off your hands...........

........we have a few things that need doing out here before I consider spending on the hi-fi. A new roof would be good for a start.

'course, if you want to pop them in the car and visit, I could look after them for you. The spare room needs a ceiling but the bed is good - genuine antique by Steadman Instrument Repairs.(all the bits are antique, they just didn't start out together!!)


----------



## gus3049 (17 May 2012)

Blister":23ckyojh said:


> I was looking at these amps
> 
> http://www.hifiandaudio.com/se_amplist.htm
> 
> any opinions on them ?



Not without listening to them!! If you want to spend that sort of money, I still say go to Classique Sounds in Leicester and get a refurbished Stereo 20 and a suitable pre-amp. This is after you sort the iMac side of things of course.


----------



## cambournepete (17 May 2012)

Racers":8dk6ime5 said:


> Use a docking station for your iPhone it will sound much better than the headphone socket.


Or even use a dedicated cable such as this to eliminate the docking station...


----------



## nev (17 May 2012)

If you want a bit more sparkle , life , top end, call it what you may have a listen to a Naim amp or possibly Rega or Roksan, (rega would be my pref) and /or some B&W loudspeakers. The Marantz front end is probably one of the least bright of the japanese major brands, but i wouldnt call it flat so amp or speakers would be first on the list. IMHapuO.


----------



## Racers (17 May 2012)

cambournepete":174t8feg said:


> Racers":174t8feg said:
> 
> 
> > Use a docking station for your iPhone it will sound much better than the headphone socket.
> ...




Cough choke £65 they know how to charge!


Pete


----------



## Racers (17 May 2012)

nev":2nykz0mq said:


> If you want a bit more sparkle , life , top end, call it what you may have a listen to a Naim amp or possibly Rega or Roksan, (rega would be my pref) and /or some B&W loudspeakers. The Marantz front end is probably one of the least bright of the japanese major brands, but i wouldnt call it flat so amp or speakers would be first on the list. IMHapuO.



You need to look at the signal going, in if thats where its lacking you will never get it back.

I could add Densen amps and CD players, Dynovector amps, Shahinian speakers, Mogami cables

But then we are talking thousands.

Pete


----------



## nev (17 May 2012)

Racers":3dlhyk7x said:


> You need to look at the signal going, in if thats where its lacking you will never get it back.
> 
> Pete



very true, but if three different sources (vinyl, cd, itunes) produce a similar uninspiring sound there's probably something else in the equation letting it down. 

And blister did say no lotto win  ...
.. if money was no object..

The 'best' I've ever heard and if the lotto win came in .... cannot remember the models but , audionet cd player and amp £2500 each, Wilson Benesch speakers £2500. sublime BUT ONLY when using a nordost valhalla interconnect! at another £2500 :shock: 
(Waits for shouts of derision  ) but without it , the sound was only fabulous. with it... =P~ the hairs on the back of neck not only stood up, they applauded too :wink:


----------



## Racers (17 May 2012)

Hi, Nev

Ipod by the headphone lead poor Cd and turntable would also explain it as well, He need to have a listen to some stuff and go from there.

I heard a £70,000 system once, all Naim at their factory, I wouldn't have paid that much for it.

My speakers are over £3000 now, I didn't pay that much for them.

Pete


----------



## Racers (17 May 2012)

Hi, Blister 

If you are around Nottingham come and have a listen to my system.


Pete


----------



## Eric The Viking (17 May 2012)

I'm with Pete on this. 

In order of greatest effect on sound quality it's roughly this:


Speakers
Room acoustic / environmental noise
CD/other sound source
preamp
interconnecting cables (see below!)
speaker cable
power amp
Martians in outer space
earthquakes and tsunamis in the Pacific
small wars in Central America
Tony Blair
mains cable
little weights you put on your speaker cables and/or mini pylons to lift them off the floor.

When I say CD/other sound source, I'm including the DAC and the encoding scheme (MP3 is dreadful!).

Seriously, although people will tell you otherwise, my dad, who designed audio componentry commercially for forty years, insists power amps are amongst the easiest things to design and make (as long as you do it properly!) and one of the least likely things to affect the sound noticeably (if properly made and not faulty). I have one of his designs, and it's brilliant, although it's not my main system.

Valve amps hum, get hot, distort, give you nasty belts, the pots crackle (because they get hot), and are generally a fragile PITA, to no significant advantage. But they do photograph well and give magazines endless amounts of bull***t to talk about. I don't miss them.

Interconnecting cables: generally their effect is negligible (the expensive cables amount to snake oil in any properly engineered system), with one exception: long runs of REALLY cheap cable will 'deaden' the sound through capacitance effects. For example, running a really cheap cable round the room to get from a PC to the preamp is a poor idea.

Pete's comment about headphone outputs, especially on mobile devices, is important: they are designed for really low impedance loads these days (because they run on low internal voltages), and don't work well into the 10k load of a typical preamp. Expect cracking and distortion, and possibly light bass - general naffness. Using a purpose built DAC gets round this.

Hope that helps. Mind the Martians and don't get lured into buying anything made of oxygen-free crystal-aligned anything - it'll give your wallet serious headaches and you won't hear any difference.

Cheers,

E. (ex- audio professional).


----------



## cambournepete (17 May 2012)

Eric The Viking":11u0x4fa said:


> ...power amps are amongst the easiest things to design and make (*as long as you do it properly*!) and one of the least likely things to affect the sound noticeably (*if properly made and not faulty*)...


Therein lies the rub, most are designed down to a price and therefore not "done properly". :? 



Eric The Viking":11u0x4fa said:


> (ex- audio professional).


The benefit I have as a software engineer who just about knows which end of the soldering iron to hold (it's not the hot end btw ) is that I don't _know_ that mains cable, interconnects and speaker leads _*can't*_ make much difference, therefore I *can *hear (and see on my TV) a difference, as can SWMBO. 

I reckon it's worth spending a bit to get not-bottom-of-the-range cables. The last ones I bought (HDMI and mains) were from Mark Grant and were his cheaper ones, but much better (IMHO) than the standard cheap cables supplied with TV and Sky box. I've also bought low end Kimber cables from Russ Andrews, which sound good to me.

I do generally agree about the equipment/room order you put though


----------



## gus3049 (17 May 2012)

Eric The Viking":xhdefdan said:


> I'm with Pete on this.
> 
> In order of greatest effect on sound quality it's roughly this:
> 
> ...


Its easy to quote professionals. My brother is a professional electronics man. he designed the guidance system for the blue streak rocket (yes yes I know it failed but that was the German bit) His list AND MINE would be entirely different from yours - he has his own opinions you see which are affected by his own ears and experience. You cannot state your opinions as fact.

Speakers would come well below source and amplifier, they can only try and reproduce what came before. Whether you accept it or not this is just one man's opinion and the result of listening with one set of ears. There is a vast difference between what may measure well and sound well - to my ears at least and to many others obviously.

My valve amp does not distort or get particularly hot or crackle and has never given me a belt - it is after all, properly designed and also sounds superb, better than all my tranny amps.

Allen has to use his own ears to decide what is the best solution after reading all the alternatives.

I agree with the items on the list after the amp except for Tony Blair, he after all, is the most important thing in the whole universe after me.


----------



## cambournepete (17 May 2012)

gus3049":7ou2ro85 said:


> Speakers would come well below source and amplifier, they can only try and reproduce what came before.


That's undoubtedly true, but as the bit that actually makes the sound they can have the greatest effect on that sound. Personally I think a balanced approach tends to work best, maybe in cash terms spend 30% on the source (assuming only one), 25% on amp, 25% on speakers and 20% on cables/stands. If you spend too much on the front end then your very cheap speakers won't show most of the difference anyway.



gus3049":7ou2ro85 said:


> Allen has to use his own ears to decide what is the best solution after reading all the alternatives.


Probably the sanest advice in this thread 
Go to some hifi shops (there are many in London and listen to different systems and components and see which dealer demonstrates to you the best understanding of what you want (and hopefully the best sound). Ideally try those with proper demo rooms.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 May 2012)

.................and then go and find better prices on line! Unfortunate, but true.


----------



## nev (17 May 2012)

nev":30hy2qc4 said:


> If you want a bit more sparkle , life , top end, call it what you may *have a listen to* a Naim amp or possibly Rega or Roksan, (rega would be my pref) and /or some B&W loudspeakers...



You will note that I didnt say 'you need' or 'you should get' , but 'have a listen to'. I merely suggest the above brands for their audio traits (IME) within a certain price range. If you were in my shop, in my demo room, I'd ask you what you thought was lacking or overwhelming or wrong or not right with your setup, and substitute bits of kit one at a time to try and find the correct combination. There are only two deciding factors in making the decision - what YOU like the sound of, and what YOU like the sound of!

which brand of or style of 'hifi' is the best? is like saying which is the best colour? tastiest meal? or most beautiful woman? all a matter of personal taste, and ive never found two people to agree. :wink:


----------



## Benchwayze (19 May 2012)

Harbo":2it45j4s said:


> You certainly are - do you want another pair - once read an article about stacked pairs but they were hidden behind acoustic curtains?
> 
> Rod


Valves? I remember those things first time around.
I don't think I'd want to drop a valve radio down the garden steps. Even accidentally.

The year is 2012 gents! :wink:


----------



## gus3049 (19 May 2012)

Benchwayze":9qinlkg9 said:


> Harbo":9qinlkg9 said:
> 
> 
> > You certainly are - do you want another pair - once read an article about stacked pairs but they were hidden behind acoustic curtains?
> ...





Not all 'progress' is for the right reasons, valve amps are extremely expensive to produce properly but trannies are cheap as 'chips'  So naturally 'its progress init?' The best sounding transistor amps I have are Quad 50d's which use transformer coupling to the output. But its those transformers that cost an arm and a leg. They are close but still not as good as the valves.

The Stereo 20 is almost as old as I am so it must be good.

I'll stick to my valves for music ta very much but the Mac uses them modern fings so that's OK too.


----------



## Benchwayze (19 May 2012)

Hi Gordon, 

For similar reasons I love my vinyls. Yet they have all been 're-mastered' by me, cleaned up acoustically and put onto CD. These I can misplace, mistreat without too much worry; if I have bad luck, I can make another copy easily. Why do I keep the vinyls? It's nice to listen to them now and again. But I really can't understand how anyone can say that vinyl gives a better, cleaner sound. To my ears, it just ain't so. A CD is cleaner, clearer and I can hear things on them I don't get with vinyls. 

I'd agree with you on valves where my guitar amplifier is concerned, but for portability, and reliability I prefer the modern alternatives.


----------



## gus3049 (19 May 2012)

Benchwayze":ivru1s5f said:


> Hi Gordon,
> 
> For similar reasons I love my vinyls. Yet they have all been 're-mastered' by me, cleaned up acoustically and put onto CD. These I can misplace, mistreat without too much worry; if I have bad luck, I can make another copy easily. Why do I keep the vinyls? It's nice to listen to them now and again. But I really can't understand how anyone can say that vinyl gives a better, cleaner sound. To my ears, it just ain't so. A CD is cleaner, clearer and I can hear things on them I don't get with vinyls.
> 
> I'd agree with you on valves where my guitar amplifier is concerned, but for portability, and reliability I prefer the modern alternatives.



I did all that too but for convenience rather than anything else, also it makes it a doddle getting them onto iTunes as well.

My copies in general, sound better than the original commercial CD but then the source was not as frequency limited for effect. But they are still more limited than vinyl. CD clearer? possible but doubtful, better? not in a million years. Just because measurements say one thing doesn't mean that there isn't something missing. Those frequencies outside 20htz to 20khtz must have some effect. To me it just makes it plain more musical and I regain all the width, depth and height information that disappears with CD. I've never heard anything on a CD that I didn't on the record. For some reason I have several duplicates, things like Rumours - Fleetwood Mac are incomparably better on the vinyl.

Anyway, all that matters is that we are all happy with our music, how it gets delivered is irrelevant really - unless you are more of a hi-fi fan than a music fan of course.

As an aside, I have the bits for two or three new pairs of speakers in the loft. They have been awaiting my retirement. Well, the retirement is here. How come I don't have the time to play with the damn things?


----------



## Benchwayze (20 May 2012)

Well Gordon, 

Itunes are a mystery to me. I believe it's downloaded and uploaded music exchange? 
But as I tend to do without 'Music-to-go', and have no 'portable devices', I rely on Radio, CD players or the PC to listen at home. (I used to have a Sony Walkman, but only to listen to audio-books' on train or coach journeys!) 

I see HI-Fi as a tool rather than a hobby, so maybe that's why I find the clarity of a CD better than a scratchy old vinyl! I am getting a Bose Hi-Fi this year as a Golden Wedding Pressie for the Missus and me. But only because I'm told either Bose or Bang-Oluffsen are the best. Bose happens to be the nearest store to me. :mrgreen:


----------



## cambournepete (20 May 2012)

Benchwayze":8vscwrzg said:


> ... I'm told either Bose or Bang-Oluffsen are the best


Hmm, depends on your definition of "best".
Best sound? - No.
Best styling? - B&O maybe, if it's to your taste.

If you're thinking of getting one of the Bose Wave Music Systems at £600 then I'd seriously suggest spending an extra £200 to get this.


----------



## Benchwayze (20 May 2012)

cambournepete":3mbabpsg said:


> Benchwayze":3mbabpsg said:
> 
> 
> > ... I'm told either Bose or Bang-Oluffsen are the best
> ...



That looks more like a beehive. And there's no way to play my vinyls! :lol: 

I fancy the Wave® music system III with Wave® connect kit, (Bose model.) 
And with a choice of colours I won't have to redecorate right away! :mrgreen:


----------



## gus3049 (20 May 2012)

Benchwayze":397i3pyv said:


> Well Gordon,
> 
> Itunes are a mystery to me. I believe it's downloaded and uploaded music exchange?
> But as I tend to do without 'Music-to-go', and have no 'portable devices', I rely on Radio, CD players or the PC to listen at home. (I used to have a Sony Walkman, but only to listen to audio-books' on train or coach journeys!)
> ...



Gulp,

Whoever told you that Bose or Bang and Oluffsen are the best are either deaf or daft (apologies if they are friends of yours, just explain that I live in France and am beyond the pale thereby). Both are merely OK but B&O are a prime example of form over function and Bose use huge amounts of frequency shaping to achieve what they claim is good bass - lots but quality - nope - not for me, they do well in the cinema with all that overblown treble and bass - great drama but accurate - no. I find their 'wave' type radios unlistenable. I used to have to sell the damn things to customers and I still suffer the results of the gritted teeth :shock: )

If its the music you want, go to a good dealer and listen. If you want to spend the sort of money those two cost, you can achieve brilliant results. As you can see by this thread, its pointless asking for recommendations as we all seem to have different ears. Happy to supply a shortlist though :roll: 

iTunes includes downloads but I have precisely five in my library. All the other music is imported from my own CDs or vinyl. I find it a convenient way of organising my collection and listening, its not the highest quality but good enough for casual listening. For quality, I go straight in to the main listening room, turn on the amp (speakers are mains powered and on all the time) bung on a record and 'go straight to heaven, do not pass go'

Happy anniversary


----------



## DTR (20 May 2012)

Benchwayze":319fqf9x said:


> Bose



*B*uy* O*ther *S*ound* E*quipment


----------



## Benchwayze (20 May 2012)

Thanks Gordon, Dave. 
I will do some surfing then.

After the event, when I recover from the 'party'!


----------



## Blister (20 May 2012)

Going back to me for a while :lol: 

A DAC was suggested to get my I tunes to sound better through my Hi Fi I have at the moment 

Went to PC world , I may have well come from the planet Zog judging by the blank faces when I explained what I wanted to do , and was told just used the headphone jack :roll: 

Same in Curry's :roll: 

Then went to Richer Sounds , yes they had 2 in stock both Cambridge audio , but NO leads :?: " We dont sell the leads " Try PC world or Curry's 

Now , I think I have worked out what DAC is , Digital to analog converter :?: am I correct ??

If I am the next question is why am I then going backwards , Is digital supposed to be better than analog ?

Not being a computer buff does my Mac have digital output , is it called optical output or firewire or !!!!!! :? 

Or do I need something else ??

MY HEAD HURTS :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## Eric The Viking (20 May 2012)

I'm proud to say I once got asked to leave a Bose factory outlet store in Colorado.

I was actually genuinely interested in a pair of their smaller speakers (for foldback for our church music group). They happened to be on display in the store and I happened to have time to spend, so I went in and enquired.

The sales person was fine - extolling 'musicality' etc. - until I asked about on- and off-axis frequency response, and polar patterns, both of which matter for the application. At that point, to my complete surprise, he turned quite nasty and asked me to leave.

Bose have a long history of accusations of 'snake oil' marketing. In the 1970s and 1980s they had a range of speakers with movable paddles set into the corners. There was all sorts of guff about how these improved stereo imaging, which, of course, was very unlikely. My father-in-law had a pair, and I tried at length, unsuccessfully to get them to work as advertised. The stereo image remained 'elusive' no matter what we tried.

The item you describe, John, uses a ported enclosure for the speakers, with an impedance-matching folded horn arrangement. It almost certainly uses electronic equalization too (necessary and not unusual, as it partially corrects for the deficiencies of the enclosure). I've no doubt Bose have some patents on it, but the broad concepts have been around for 75-80 years. 

Bose have also been accused of buying up acoustic patents to sit on them, and been widely accused of being litigious (to the extent that it features on their Wikipedia page, although the page's discussion has 'editors' trying to get the relevant paragraphs removed). I'd refer you to these comments.

Before settling on a Bose product, I would recommend you look at similar things from other people, notably the likes of Sony, Roberts and Cambridge Audio (if the latter two have something that meets your requirements). All those I can recommend.

I do have some slight regard for Bose PA, having used it on numerous occasions, especially the 'flowerpot' design (802). It's not outstanding, however and companies such as JBL and Electrovoice have long had better products, IMHO, and (again IMHO) 802s are horrible (unusable) without the companion equalizer box, which used to be hard to get off hire companies!

Again IMHO, their longstanding reluctance to produce technical specs is telling.

E.

PS: I have worded this post VERY carefully!


----------



## gus3049 (20 May 2012)

Blister":1nvtch8a said:


> Going back to me for a while :lol:
> 
> A DAC was suggested to get my I tunes to sound better through my Hi Fi I have at the moment
> 
> ...



Hi Allen,

Whats going on?? Are you trying to hijack this thread or something??

It never occurred to me to ask you what the settings you have on iTunes are?? If you are listening MP3's then there is no chance. All the music should be imported as Apple Lossless files (I assume you know how to set this???) The difference in quality is vast - who knows, you might not have to spend any dosh at all, merely re-import ALL your music!! :roll: 

If you already do this, back to square one and the digital experts!!


----------



## Blister (20 May 2012)

> (I assume you know how to set this???)



Gordon , No I don't


----------



## nev (20 May 2012)

yes DAC = digital to analogue . your cd player/ ipod /mac/ whatever has one built in already.
By having an external one you are bypassing the ''inferior'' built in dac and using ''superior'' equipment to convert the digital signal to analogue so it can be amplified by the er.. amplifier.
The usual result with an external dac is maybe a little more detail and expanse to the music and slightly more than little difference to the amount of money in your pocket


----------



## Eric The Viking (20 May 2012)

Blister":56bp5mx9 said:


> I think I have worked out what DAC is , Digital to analog converter :?: am I correct ??
> If I am the next question is why am I then going backwards , Is digital supposed to be better than analog ?
> Not being a computer buff does my Mac have digital output , is it called optical output or firewire or !!!!!! :?
> Or do I need something else ??



Quick bit of history:

When Edison first recorded sound his system was analogue. The air vibrations made a variable depth groove in a rotating wax cylinder. The varying depth was an analogue (US: "analog") of what had happened to the air - sound waves are fast pressure changes (vibrations). Edison used them to directly power the cutter in the wax, by vibrating a diaphragm it was attached to.

All sound recording since has used the same idea, although the diaphragm is almost always nowadays used to create a varying electric current or voltage. That bit will always stay analogue. 

At the other end, your speakers get an analogue electrical signal to make them move. That bit will always stay the same too*.

In the middle, something records the signal and plays it back (or transmits it, for radio). That, too, used to be analogue - varying magnetism on tape, or a wiggly groove on the surface of a record. But it's changed:

Nowadays, the original analogue signal from a microphone is stored digitally. It's measured very accurately thousands of times a second, and those numbers are stored. This approach gives a more accurate result.** Later on, when you want to listen, they're converted back to an analogue signal (with a Digital to Analogue Convertor, or DAC), to make your speakers or headphones work.

. . .

At some point before it reaches the speakers, _every_ audio system has to turn digits back into an analogue signal. If you plug headphones into an iPod, the conversion happens just before the built-in headphone amplifier. The thing is, those iPod headphone amps don't match well with other things than headphones (and arguably they're not very good at headphones, either!). To get better quality out, you can get at the digital stored signal, and convert it with something else, to give you better quality.

So all 'digital' systems are also analogue (at the ends).

Hope that makes sense,

E.

-----------------
*for reasonable values of 'stay the same' - there are things you can do that aren't _quite_ analog, but for this purpose I'll ignore them.

**gross simplification, I know.


----------



## gus3049 (20 May 2012)

Blister":3c3lql4d said:


> > (I assume you know how to set this???)
> 
> 
> 
> Gordon , No I don't



Aha :? 

Go iTunes preferences (thats on the iTunes menu to the right of the Apple). It should open as the 'general' settings. There is a button marked 'import settings'. The first list shows 'import using' just choose Apple Lossless from the list. In future, when you want to import you can right click on the track to choose the import or go the the 'advanced' section in the menu bar and just choose 'import as Apple Lossless'

Easy peasy. try it and see if it makes a difference for you


----------



## gus3049 (20 May 2012)

Blister":m8wy3432 said:


> > (I assume you know how to set this???)
> 
> 
> 
> Gordon , No I don't



Or, it has further occurred to me.......if you have lots of room on your hard disk, you could just import the music as AIFFs (choice in the same place as lossless)

This basically, will store a full size digital copy of a CD or whatever so, in theory at least, there should be no drop in quality at all. I just did a test with a bit of Bob Marley. No woman no cry AIFF - 40.9mB / Lossless - 26.5mB so it will use quite a bit more space.

If you use the Mac's drive however, you are still dependent on that for the ultimate quality as well as the internal DAC. I tend to import straight from my CD player or record player and use Audacity to split it all up and make any adjustments..


----------



## gus3049 (20 May 2012)

And.... I have just had a listen to both!! Lossless is really very good but there is definitely an improvement in the air around the performers and a naturalness in the treble with AIFF. Probably marginal though. It always seems to be the treble that suffers most with compression. My wife just can't listen to MP3's but manages to put up with Lossless if she can't grab the record player for those weird groups she listens to ('to which she listens' to be correct), you know, the sort that eat chickens on stage an' stuff and use Dickens' characters as names. 

I am training her to like Bach. We have reached Vivaldi with success but she thinks that Mozart is a lightweight and Beethoven just throws notes up in the air and when they come down there is no meaning. Its interesting because she has no preconceived ideas about classical or baroque music and so listens with 'innocent' ears. I, having been lumbered with all the baggage of being classically trained tend to accept the traditional view of what's good and bad or indifferent. I am tending to go back to the music I started with ie. guitar and baroque, the latter because it is generally 'like jazz man'. The classical and romantic periods are fading from my consciousness.

And its all her fault.

But then.....



.......what isn't? :lol:


----------



## Blister (20 May 2012)

OK 

done that 

Do I have to do it every time I download something or does it stay in that format 

Thanks


----------



## gus3049 (20 May 2012)

Blister":119w30sw said:


> OK
> 
> done that
> 
> ...



It'll stay like that from now on. Anything downloaded from iTunes direct will have whatever Apple used but when you do it from CD it will use your settings.


----------



## gus3049 (20 May 2012)

After listening to the bits on the Mac, I then went into the other room.......


....it was like being at the concert instead of hearing it on the radio!! Some tweaking went on today to the SIR turntable I use - a new motor housing in beech instead of the old MDF one, bigger, heavier and more stable. The bass is slightly firmer I think but then, in this case, I did it as it looks better than the old one!


----------



## Blister (20 May 2012)

Rather neat Gordon :mrgreen:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 May 2012)

Gordon - Beethoven is Beethoven, Mozart is the world.
Bach is the universe.
(I forget where I read that)


----------



## gus3049 (20 May 2012)

phil.p":1yck2242 said:


> Gordon - Beethoven is Beethoven, Mozart is the world.
> Bach is the universe.
> (I forget where I read that)



Hmmm, I hadn't heard that one.

For me Bach is the father, Clapton the son and Ron Carter the Holy Ghost!! But I do allow a few others to the services. I seem to have missed out on Ronnie's heavy metal stuff though. She dragged me along to a Judas Priest concert when we were still in the UK and I can still hear the ringing in my ears. The treble shrieked like banshees, I'm not surprised that she finds my electrostatics a bit laid back at the top end!!

If she really need a fix, we keep her old system upstairs. Giant JBL's and 200 watts per channel (RMS) of Pioneer amplification. The neighbours love it. I'll stick to my 8 watts and Bach.


----------



## gus3049 (20 May 2012)

Blister":1mpwfpok said:


> Rather neat Gordon :mrgreen:



Well, I'm a turner ain't I. Its round so its in my comfort zone. Dead easy to make your own - ish 

Like everything though, its very easy to make a bad one. Making a good one is a little more difficult. We have been using this one instead of the old Garrard 301 (you should see the silly money they go for these days), so I reckon its not too bad.


----------



## Eric The Viking (20 May 2012)

Garrards are way overpriced. 

The ones in the Beeb used to rumble horribly (all idler drives do), yet you still see them go for daft amounts (they have grey crackle finish, rather than cream).

I'm a Technics/Sugden person: SP10II aand BD2a. 

What are you using for bearings and how is it damped overall? 

E.

PS: I'd rather be EMT if the budget would ever stretch, but not these days!


----------



## Racers (20 May 2012)

Hi,

BOSE, Better Off with Something Else.

Lots of storys about just how cheap the drivers are, some thing like 50 cents.

B&O nice to look at.

Pete


----------



## gus3049 (20 May 2012)

Eric The Viking":1dcwrv25 said:


> Garrards are way overpriced.
> 
> The ones in the Beeb used to rumble horribly (all idler drives do), yet you still see them go for daft amounts (they have grey crackle finish, rather than cream).
> 
> ...



I used to have a BD2a, not bad at all for the dosh. I do like the Direct Drives though, because they were Japanese, the hi-fi snobs wrote them off.

The basis of my deck is the Origin Live kit. Just the platter and the bearing remain of that, all the other bits are turned out of cherry or MDF (Now the motor is in Beech). The motor is out of an old AR deck that was particularly speed stable. The layer holding the bearing is on spikes located on specially made metal plates sitting on rubber grommets. The bottom section has sorbothane feet. I do apologize Maam but the special plates are 5p coins with a dimple drilled in them - defacing the Queens dosh, I'm sure its an offense of some kind. I have suffered no feedback problems at all. The bass is particularly clean and it really make the Quads sing - very tuneful, the whole system. Hopefully the pic will show how it fits together.

The deck has the approval of my wife's ears which, as I'm sure I may have mentioned before, bear an incredible likeness to those of a bat. (In sensitivity terms you understand) She is only coming up to 60 so we can't call her an 'old' one can we?

I had the Garrard built into a huge marble plinth which did a lot toward curing the rumble but I can still hear it on some of the CD transfers I made. I spent a year transferring all the vinyl to CD as I was having trouble justifying the space taken up in the cupboard we used to occupy in the UK. Out here in France, space is the least of our problems so I now have two complete sets of music plus probably about 30% of it on the Mac as well :shock: I still play the vinyl more than the CDs though.


----------



## Modernist (20 May 2012)

Excuse me if I am deviating from the OP but I have a problem.

I use a Cambridge DACMagic to interface the PC with my Naim system. I store the CD's as FLAC files which I gather is lossless and all is well. I playback using VLC Media player. 

Ripping CD's I use DBPoweramp and the converter to make any MP3's etc for the car (B & O Audi which is excellent and much better than the Bose).

So far so good. The problem is ripping from Internet sources, most notably iPlayer. but also any internet radio source. At the moment I record onto MiniDisc from the PC via a Digital/Optical converter (Sony) then via an analogue/USB converter which came with Audacity to the PC. Audacity saves as WMA so this is also virtually lossless I believe. That seems a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial when the signal is digital in the PC in the first place. Am I missing something? I do use Station Ripper but this seems to be limited to particular sources.


----------



## nev (20 May 2012)

Modernist":3vpcth65 said:


> Excuse me if I am deviating from the OP but I have a problem.
> 
> I use a Cambridge DACMagic to interface the PC with my Naim system. I store the CD's as FLAC files which I gather is lossless and all is well. I playback using VLC Media player.
> 
> ...



This intrigued me  so i had a fiddle with the pc. (as my web connection is pants downloading music not something ive had the opportunity to do), but..

If i go to sound settings - hardware - profile and set it to digital stereo output (as opposed to analogue - the speakers), save and close.
then launch sound recorder. 
the pc then records the 'internal' digital sound instead of the microphone.
so i set internet radio playing and press record. voila. 
then save file as flac or preferred file format.
you can then play lossless file thru dac to naim?
does that do what you want it to do?
(linux mint and included software btw)


----------



## bugbear (21 May 2012)

gus3049":1s27wvkb said:


> Gulp,
> 
> Whoever told you that Bose or Bang and Oluffsen are the best are either deaf or daft (apologies if they are friends of yours, just explain that I live in France and am beyond the pale thereby). Both are merely OK but B&O are a prime example of form over function and Bose use huge amounts of frequency shaping to achieve what they claim is good bass - lots but quality - nope - not for me, they do well in the cinema with all that overblown treble and bass - great drama but accurate - no.



I wouldn't lump the two together.

Bose are the very worst kind of snake oil. Note the adverts which tell you to apply for details INCLUDING prices!? Alarm bells or what?

B&O merely charge (a lot) for very nice design, which I feel is honest.

Better sound than B&O is available for the same money, but it won't be an ornament to your room in the quite the B&O manner.

BugBear


----------



## Eric The Viking (21 May 2012)

bugbear":1sjh9v3f said:


> B&O merely charge (a lot) for very nice design, which I feel is honest.
> 
> Better sound than B&O is available for the same money, but it won't be an ornament to your room in the quite the B&O manner.



That's a fair point. 

B+O did produce some clever and good stuff - not leading edge, but nothing to be ashamed of - and the minimalist design was always well executed.

In contrast, my ex-BBC SP10 systems look, ahem, somewhat 'industrial' (but then I suppose they were!).

I have an exceedingly tolerant spouse.

E.


----------



## Modernist (21 May 2012)

nev":2eke6rwa said:


> This intrigued me  so i had a fiddle with the pc. (as my web connection is pants downloading music not something ive had the opportunity to do), but..
> 
> If i go to sound settings - hardware - profile and set it to digital stereo output (as opposed to analogue - the speakers), save and close.
> 
> ...



Did that and the recorder appears and starts to record but no signal is received??

I am using Realtech soundcard and software with optical out to the DAC.

I feel we are getting close - does it work on yours?


----------



## nev (21 May 2012)

Modernist":35euv403 said:


> Did that and the recorder appears and starts to record but no signal is received??
> 
> I am using Realtech soundcard and software with optical out to the DAC.
> 
> I feel we are getting close - does it work on yours?



yes. i went to listen now on http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_two?lang=en and then hit record (on sound recorder) and it worked fine.
I am using a bog standard compaq presario laptop with whatever sound card is in it as std? maybe your cards settings need a tweak? :?


----------

