Hi - Fi buffs ?

[cambournepete]

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.

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]

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

 

[nev]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

... 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.

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]

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:

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]

Bose

Buy Other Sound Equipment

 

[Benchwayze]

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

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

 

[Blister]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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

Gordon , No I don't

 

[nev]

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]

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]

(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