Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
High End Audio Brands
- Thread starter jota73
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but you must have two pairs stacked in order to achieve audiophile knighthood.
I like to buy most of my stuff used. I have a Rotel Preamp from the early 90's, I have a Threshold 50wpc amp from the late 80's and a pair of old Celestion DL8 speakers. Excluding the Squeezebox and CD player which is a Yamaha unit (ya I know I can do better but I dont mind it so far), I have spent about $1300. I am incredibly happy with the sound...
I think a good portion of the $$ should be on the speakers if you're buying new. Used of course means anything goes. You might find some crazy deals. Anyway what I'd suggest is to start with a CD player which you can probably get for free from a friend who might not be using theirs. I'm sure there is an ancient receiver or integrated amp sitting in someones closet for free or cheap too. Take these two and then spend some $$ on speakers. I like brands such as Energy, Paradigms, PSB, Axiom, Mission, KEF... list goes on but they all have speakers that sound nice without costing an arm and a leg.
I think a good portion of the $$ should be on the speakers if you're buying new. Used of course means anything goes. You might find some crazy deals. Anyway what I'd suggest is to start with a CD player which you can probably get for free from a friend who might not be using theirs. I'm sure there is an ancient receiver or integrated amp sitting in someones closet for free or cheap too. Take these two and then spend some $$ on speakers. I like brands such as Energy, Paradigms, PSB, Axiom, Mission, KEF... list goes on but they all have speakers that sound nice without costing an arm and a leg.
I would also have to recommend going down the second-hand route. As long as you're careful not to buy shagged gear, you will end up with a helluva lot more than if you bought new.
Take my current setup here in dorms for example;
Speakers: Mission 732 - they were £200 new in the 90's but I got them for £31 second hand this summer just gone, in perfect condition other than missing grilles.
Amp: Aurex SB-A10 - I paid £35 for it second-hand. An amp of similar quality (solid aluminium extruded casing, huge toroidal transformer, still going strong after 30 years) & power (it could easily blow the 100Watt Missions) would set you back £200+ new today.
The only things I bought new were the gold-plated solid brass banana plugs (£12 for 2x pairs) & the speaker wire (£20 for 5 metres).
My total expenditure for this current incarnation is £31 + £35 + £12 + £20 (+10 for a pair of kit-form power metre PCBs to ensure I don't blow anything!) = £108. There is no way in hell that you could buy such a powerful & damned nice sounding setup for short of £350 new. Not a chance.
However you do have to be careful when buying second-hand gear, especially if you are far from an expert when it comes to audio gear - the last thing you want is to get the cabs home, plug them in, to discover that the guy who sold them to you raped them to hell & back & that the coils are completely blown. The best thing you can do is of course to actually listen to the gear before you buy, to make sure that nothing is amiss.
One last thing I have to ask - you're not planning on playing MP3s (or similar) through this new gear are you? Because if so, there's really no point...
Take my current setup here in dorms for example;
Speakers: Mission 732 - they were £200 new in the 90's but I got them for £31 second hand this summer just gone, in perfect condition other than missing grilles.
Amp: Aurex SB-A10 - I paid £35 for it second-hand. An amp of similar quality (solid aluminium extruded casing, huge toroidal transformer, still going strong after 30 years) & power (it could easily blow the 100Watt Missions) would set you back £200+ new today.
The only things I bought new were the gold-plated solid brass banana plugs (£12 for 2x pairs) & the speaker wire (£20 for 5 metres).
My total expenditure for this current incarnation is £31 + £35 + £12 + £20 (+10 for a pair of kit-form power metre PCBs to ensure I don't blow anything!) = £108. There is no way in hell that you could buy such a powerful & damned nice sounding setup for short of £350 new. Not a chance.
However you do have to be careful when buying second-hand gear, especially if you are far from an expert when it comes to audio gear - the last thing you want is to get the cabs home, plug them in, to discover that the guy who sold them to you raped them to hell & back & that the coils are completely blown. The best thing you can do is of course to actually listen to the gear before you buy, to make sure that nothing is amiss.
One last thing I have to ask - you're not planning on playing MP3s (or similar) through this new gear are you? Because if so, there's really no point...
That is not good advice, because if you spent most of your money on speakers and go cheap on the signal source, the speakers will just do a good job revealing the flaws of the system. It's a better approach to balance the investment towards the source (CD player, etc) and work your way towards the speakers at the end of the signal path. You can get very good sound from less expensive speakers if you feed them a good signal. Garbage in, garbage out.
IMO the difference between a $150 CD player and a $2000 CD player is much MUCH less than the difference between a $150 speaker set and a $2000 set.
Lets put it this way. Lets take my Yamaha CD player. If I was to swap CD players between this unit and say one from Mark Levinson, you may hear a difference but I suspect it wont be as jaw dropping as you think. If I was to keep my Yamaha and went with a set of great speakers such as these, the differnce would be jaw dropping http://www.reference3a.com/lintegale.htm
...yet the money spent would have been equal (the money in terms of the expensive CD player vs the expensive speakers)
Lets put it this way. Lets take my Yamaha CD player. If I was to swap CD players between this unit and say one from Mark Levinson, you may hear a difference but I suspect it wont be as jaw dropping as you think. If I was to keep my Yamaha and went with a set of great speakers such as these, the differnce would be jaw dropping http://www.reference3a.com/lintegale.htm
...yet the money spent would have been equal (the money in terms of the expensive CD player vs the expensive speakers)
Well, I'm just going to agree to disagree, because putting all your eggs into the speaker basket is contrary to everything I've experienced (and learned form competent audio dealers) in 35+ years of listening to music on hi-fi systems.
Well you may do as you wish. I have been around as well. I may not have 35 years of listening experience but I'd say I have 20+. I have owned a variety of equipment and I've been building speakers since I was 15. Also friend worked at a stereo store that carried everything from low end to fairly high end stuff and we did so many tests just for kicks. We hooked up a pair of Mirage M1 speakers to a Yamaha 35wpc receiver and Yamaha CD player and at moderate volumes, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between that combo and the Hafler amp/preamp and Rotel CD player that was driving it originally. Yes there was a difference but if you were not switching back and forth, back and forth, then you wouldnt know. I'm sure you'd know if we pulled the M1's out and put a pair of bookshelf polk speakers in its place.
Also "all your eggs in the speaker basket" is misleading. I did not say dont spend ANY money on the other equipment. I said spend the majority on the speakers.
Speakers have the greatest variance in sound and also are the highest distortion component in the whole chain. If you think swapping a CD player from a Yamaha or Sony to a Krell will make as much difference as switching from cheap speakers to expensive speakers, then I think you're mistaken.
Also "all your eggs in the speaker basket" is misleading. I did not say dont spend ANY money on the other equipment. I said spend the majority on the speakers.
Speakers have the greatest variance in sound and also are the highest distortion component in the whole chain. If you think swapping a CD player from a Yamaha or Sony to a Krell will make as much difference as switching from cheap speakers to expensive speakers, then I think you're mistaken.
I would have to agree.
Gross distortions in the audio reproduction chain begin with the speakers, and probably end with the source.
The sentiment regarding "garbage in garbage out" is a valid axiom, but generally speaking, the difference between a $150 CD player and a $10000 CD player is not going to be akin to "garbage vs clean sound" unless the $150 CD player is just horrible or defective.
Loudspeakers are essentially a "get what you pay for" component, up to a certain price point.
ie: the B&W 800D is a significantly better speaker than a tower from the affordable 600 series, but is probably not significantly better than its little brother 802D.
Of course, a $10000 CD player is a nice addition to an otherwise well endowed system.
By "well endowed" I mean you already have high-end speakers chosen strictly for their sound and build quality, and not as an economic compromise in order to afford an overpriced-built-like-a-tank Krell CD player.
Sure there is. Many MP3 files sound great, and you will still get much better sound quality then regular "PC" speakers.
You definitely want to re-encode your library to a much higher bit-rate, or loss-less, if he plans to go this route. A difference will inevitably be heard.
Peace
A decent soundsystem will merely serve to highlight the flaws in lossy formats. If you're serious about buying a 'high end' system, you really shouldn't be playing anything but lossless formats (CDs, FLAC, Apple Lossless, etc.). Of course MP3s will sound better through a decent system than through cruddy little PC speakers, but they definately won't put the new system to it's full potential; it'll be a waste of your money.
It's true that accurate loudspeakers will tend to reveal the losses in MP3 format, but in theory, so will lower quality speakers. the difference is that the distortions and colorations in low quality speakers tend to be more aurally significant than MP3 compression.
MP3 will sound better accurately reproduced, than pristine source material poorly reproduced.
The losses in MP3 format do not dovetail with the distortions and colorations in loudspeakers.
Good speakers are always a good investment if accurate sound reproduction is important to you.
MP3 will sound better accurately reproduced, than pristine source material poorly reproduced.
The losses in MP3 format do not dovetail with the distortions and colorations in loudspeakers.
Good speakers are always a good investment if accurate sound reproduction is important to you.
I have encoded mp3s using LAME at 320kbit constant bitrate, stereo and I can barely tell the different between it and the original CD. I have to really switch back and forth a lot to tell. Where I notice is most is in the top end. The MP3 sometimes had this faint fuzzy noise sometimes around cymbals ... but thats all I can notice. I'm sure if I had better speakers and possibly a better CD player, the difference would be a little more noticable. Overall I think a well encoded MP3 is still decent to listen to, but of course given the choice of MP3 or the original source, I'd always go for the original..
The "best" brand is what you can afford and you like the sound of. Go to a high end stereo store and you will hear stuff that will blow your mind and could put you in debt for years.
Listen to a lot of equipment and make your mind as to what is "best" for you.
My current setup:
B&W 640's (coming up on 17 years now)
Proceed AMP2, PRE, CDD and PDP
Monster Cable interconnects (many flavors)
Be sure to properly isolate your speakers - aka spike them.
I think you're correct in your assertion. Let's put it this way, even listening to SACD or DVD-A (in stereo not surround) and comparing that to a decent CD player, and you'll have to listen for the differences and know what to listen for. It's really not night and day. I've heard A-B comparisons on $10,0000+ speakers and system while in school and that was in a room built for acoustics.
Of course playing tracks with surround on a SACD or DVD-A and you'll be quite impressed and realize how much more superior they are to CD's.
"Best" in the audiophile world is a little too subjective. Your ears will tell you whats best for you. Grab some CD's with songs you know inside and out and go to a higher end hi-fi shop and audition some speakers. "Best" should be what ever sounds the best to you at the $$$ you're willing to spend.
Once you find a set up you like it can probably be had used at considerable saving @ http://www.audiogon.com/ The forums there are pretty decent too.
My set up
Rega Apollo
Rega Cursa3 pre-amp
Rega Exon3 monoblocks
B&W 804S
QED Silver Anv IC's and Bi-Wire cable,
Once you find a set up you like it can probably be had used at considerable saving @ http://www.audiogon.com/ The forums there are pretty decent too.
My set up
Rega Apollo
Rega Cursa3 pre-amp
Rega Exon3 monoblocks
B&W 804S
QED Silver Anv IC's and Bi-Wire cable,
Great advice. The best anyone can offer.
Rega is nice stuff. I worked for the original US importer/distributor back in the 80s. I still have the Rega RB300 arm mounted on my Linn Sondek LP12.
just got back from holidays and read all answers! very useful! thanks a lot.
Just one more question... APERION AUDIO is a brand a good friend of mine has been talking for a while..is it that good? is it worth?
once again thanks!
Just one more question... APERION AUDIO is a brand a good friend of mine has been talking for a while..is it that good? is it worth?
once again thanks!
I looked at these : Gigaworks HD40 / T40 http://asia.creative.com/products/welcome.asp?category=4
But from what I read I liked the reviews on M-Audio Studiophile AV 40 Speaker System (they sell them on apple store had peoples personal reviews )
well..after reading through all the posts. I think you are looking for the highend speakers...mis understood, I thought you were looking for speakers to connect directly to desktop not to amp/receiver...
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/StudiophileAV40-main.html
Hope this helps some in your decision
I don't mean to sidetrack from the o.p thread but i wanted to ask your advice Cluv. It sounds like you have alot experience.
I am also interested in finding quality speakers. I want to be able to hear all the instruments when I am hearing music, big booming bass is not important. In your opinion what would be the best "audiophile " 2.0 speakers for desktop..under $300 *I know its not high end audiophile level...but its all I have to work with. Any advice?
Realistically, if you don't want to spend an arm and a leg for speakers, but your really picky about sound, I would go with Klipsch...ESPECIALLY (yes, I'm saying this loud and not just using caps for the heck of it) if you're buying their ProMedia 2.1 or 4.1 systems for computer speakers. If your looking for really good sound for a pre-packaged deal for home theater, the Onkyo HT-SP908 is one of the best all-in-one's you'll find for about $900.
Bose is way too overpriced for what you get, and you're getting the end product more of their cost of over marketing the product then anything else. Honestly, the couple of friend's that do have Bose systems have heard the Klipsch 4.1 computer speakers I have, and admit that they sound better than anything they have heard. When I tell them I only payed $150 for them, there mouth usually drops to the floor when the realize how much they got overcharged for Bose.
And yes, I have a strong dislike for Bose products.
This is why and a really good read!
http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html
Excerpts from link above:
"The $1300 Bose Acoustimass system implements five dual-cubed, 2.5-inch, paper-cone satellite speakers. Incidentally, you can buy these exact same drivers for $35 a pair here.
Unlike any other speaker or amplifier manufacturer, Bose refuses to publish any frequency response charts or distortion data on their products (and with good reason). And thus a few independent audiophiles, industry professionals, and newsgroups have taken it upon themselves to benchmark test the much debated Acoustimass system. The resulting numbers are always consistent. Here is a pretty credible one sourced from the August 1999 issue of Sound and Vision magazine...
To reiterate the above, the Acoustimass's bass module responds to 46 Hz to 202 Hz at ±2.3 dB, while the satellites respond to 280 Hz to 13.3 KHz at ±10.5 dB. This is, by the way, the only speaker that I have ever seen tested with a ±10.5 db allowance. Still, this leaves a frequency gap between the satellites and bass module of about 80 Hz! That is 80 hertz of sound that is completely erased within the system's internal crossovers! I wonder how Bose figured out which 80 hertz matters least in the audible spectrum? I will tell you though that that gap accounts for a HUGE loss in midrange sound, which is responsible for the majority contralto, baritone, and tenor vocals in music, and many sound effects in home theater."
Bose is way too overpriced for what you get, and you're getting the end product more of their cost of over marketing the product then anything else. Honestly, the couple of friend's that do have Bose systems have heard the Klipsch 4.1 computer speakers I have, and admit that they sound better than anything they have heard. When I tell them I only payed $150 for them, there mouth usually drops to the floor when the realize how much they got overcharged for Bose.
And yes, I have a strong dislike for Bose products.
This is why and a really good read!
http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html
Excerpts from link above:
"The $1300 Bose Acoustimass system implements five dual-cubed, 2.5-inch, paper-cone satellite speakers. Incidentally, you can buy these exact same drivers for $35 a pair here.
Unlike any other speaker or amplifier manufacturer, Bose refuses to publish any frequency response charts or distortion data on their products (and with good reason). And thus a few independent audiophiles, industry professionals, and newsgroups have taken it upon themselves to benchmark test the much debated Acoustimass system. The resulting numbers are always consistent. Here is a pretty credible one sourced from the August 1999 issue of Sound and Vision magazine...
To reiterate the above, the Acoustimass's bass module responds to 46 Hz to 202 Hz at ±2.3 dB, while the satellites respond to 280 Hz to 13.3 KHz at ±10.5 dB. This is, by the way, the only speaker that I have ever seen tested with a ±10.5 db allowance. Still, this leaves a frequency gap between the satellites and bass module of about 80 Hz! That is 80 hertz of sound that is completely erased within the system's internal crossovers! I wonder how Bose figured out which 80 hertz matters least in the audible spectrum? I will tell you though that that gap accounts for a HUGE loss in midrange sound, which is responsible for the majority contralto, baritone, and tenor vocals in music, and many sound effects in home theater."
That is part of what I need. I want to replace my Bose companion, that I have with my desktop (iMac Aluminium).
I saw the mAudio AV40, but also was checking the AV40 DX4, I see several differences between them but how would each of those have an impact on sound quality? which would be more suitable for what I am looking for? (both have the same price tag)
Can both be connected directly to my computer without the need of a preamp?
Exactly correct. If people here think debates between the Mac and PC camps are heated, you ain't seen nothing until you hear people arguing about Levinson vs. Krell, or Linn vs. Naim, or Vandersteen vs. Thiel, Audio Research vs. Conrad-Johnson, Burmester vs. Goldmund, etc.
I'd agree with False's suggestion, but would add that I'd only buy gear from a company that has been around a while and has a proven track record of building and supporting gear that doesn't break often. Some examples: Naim, Linn, Rotel, Vandersteen, Rega, Thiel, Audio Research, Conrad-Johnson, Wilson Audio, Arcam, ProAc, etc. That's not to say that you'll never have a problem with a piece of gear from any of those companies, but in my experience you are far less likely to have a problem and far more likely to have one taken care of quickly and correctly.
As long as I'm at it, I might as well point out that the source really does control, and anyone playing a $150 CD player into a $500 amplifier driving $10,000 speakers is an idiot. You will get FAR better music by reversing the budget, and even better would be to sensibly allocate funds. If the music is not recovered at the source, the very best amplification and speakers cannot restore it. The quality of the music that comes off the CD or hard drive or LP establishes the ceiling of how good it can sound. We used to do blind tests with people, and invariably people--even nutty audiophiles--preferred the system with the superior source.
The suggestion to spend the "majority" of your money on speakers is one of the most common, and wrong, suggestions in all of hifi. Even speaker designers tell people that--you're better off with a great source and amp with a lower-end model from an expensive speaker line. That said, when you can put it ALL together music is simply awesome.
And finally: Bose?
The worst sounding speaker company of all time, the only competition being the Michael Green "tunable" speakers (has ANYONE else ever heard them? No? Be thankful...) Bose cannot play a tune, are boomy, tizzy, hollow, and just awful. Brilliantly marketed, though.Now THERE'S a truly spectacular speaker!