I've decided to start a seperate 2.1 music only system using a pair of M80s for another larger area of my house, and as most of you great folks know, I'm completely lost (but learning daily) on the technical side of things, so...

Do I go for an intergrated stereo reciever or seperate amps? And why? What other componets should I look for to achieve good quality sound?

If you were putting a music only 2.1 system using the 80s, what would you do within a realistic (not ridiculus) budget?

What would be your budget for this system ?

Are you talking 2.1 or 2.0, ie are you planning to have a sub as well as the M80s ? If no sub, my first thought would definitely be to pick up a decent used stereo receiver and a big honkin' 2 channel power amp or monoblocks, even if I didn't really need the power.

I really don't know Rick, I don't have a cap limit per say but I think spending something like 10k at one time would be stretching it by a long shot *but* if the componets were bought over a period of time I do believe I can sneak quite a lot of stuff past by the Misses without much being said.

How much would I need?

BrotherBob - I recently purchased a new 2.0 music only system. I would have loved to get seperate amps/receivers. In fact, I spent quite a bit of time checking out Rotel, NAD, Outlaw, etc.. If nothing else the Rotel's look like works of art to me. Basicly for me it came down to my impression that my ears wouldn't be sensitive or educated enough to discern a difference in a system that was much more expensive than I purchased. I wound up going with m60's and an H/K 3480 receiver (120 watts per channel) and I couldn't be happier. This system plays very cleanly to my ears at no matter what level I listen. Sometime at night I'll listen to CD's while the family is asleep in other parts of the house without them even hearing it and it sounds great. I don't feel like I'm missing anything playing the music that softly. But it also plays very loud, in fact, the other day I had the receiver set at 0db (-15db's for me is very loud) and It was uncomfortably loud and I could feel the beat thumping my chest (although it was still very clean). Your m80's are even more efficient, and if you add a powered sub which will take some of the load off your mains I don't think you'll need that much juice.

All that being said, if I had unlimited funds, I'd probably still go for a big honkin' tower of amps. If nothing else, it'd be a blast putting a system like that together. Then you could compete with Tharkon to see who's system plays louder.

Just my 2 cents.

I think I'd probably want a sub. I thought maybe the imput from you folks would help me with some of my decsions, I do believe you guys know a heck of a lot more than I do regarding audio equipmen, I just want the end result of a great sounding music dedicated system that *may* be cranked up from time to time.

I really appreciate the help, you guys have all been very helpful with my other stuff, thanks!

For the record, I agree completely that something like the HK3480 is the smart thing to do and will be more than enough power for any reasonable room... and that if you go with something like an HK receiver the sound will be indistinguishable from a discrete power amp (IMO). I just miss having a big honkin' power amp and miss watching the meter needles dancing to the music (the original multimedia experience )

EDIT -- forgot to ask the usual questions... room size, what kind of music ? Personally I'm not a big fan of subs for music, but then again all my pipe organ recordings are vinyl and I'm not a big hip hop listener.

Actually I was looking at the H/K 3480 and that is when I started wondering about wether to go with seperate or something like the 3480.
What are the benefits of a seperated amp componet system as opposed to a stereo reciever?

And, for a really stupid question...what and how exactly does a pre/amp system do and how are they connected? Bear with me, I can be totally dumb at times.

In reply to:

---

EDIT -- forgot to ask the usual questions... room size, what kind of music ? Personally I'm not a big fan of subs for music, but then again all my pipe organ recordings are vinyl and I'm not a big hip hop listener.

---

Oh sorry, John(right?) the room is 23 x 27 x 12 high and I listen to just about anything, mostly rock, blues and anything and everything Stevie Ray Vaughn or the likes.

The H/K 3480 is a great unit for the $.Adding a sub to that reciever will not take a load off the reciever as the receiver has no crossover unit to it so it will still send a full range signal to the speakers.

If I were to start a 2 channel system I would go the amp preamp route unless you listen to a lot of radio.Even though the 80s are a sensitive speaker they really do like the power put to them.I would go for a 200 watt amp of good quality and a matching preamp.For now I would forgo the sub and add it at a later date if you felt the need for it.

This topic reminds me of a question I've had, maybe someone here knows the answer.

Since volume on my hk3480 is reported in dB's and not the usual 1-10 that I'm familiar with, I have no way of knowing what percentage of the power I'm using at a given listening level. I normally listen to music in the -35dB to -15dB range, but I've gone all the way up to 0db or maybe a bit higher. So my question would be does it cap out at 10db? or 50db? Either way, I'm satisfied that my system will play louder than I ever want it to, I'm just curious. If it turns out that I'm using 75% of my receivers amp, then it's a good thing I didn't get the 80watt model (instead of 120) because then I probably would not have been happy. If I'm only using 20% then the 80watt version would have been plenty.

Sorry for the ramble and the fact that it's off topic, but I figure BrotherBob would probably like to know how many watts are "more" than enough.

Rick, I absolutely don't listen to the radio whatsoever so that wouldn't be an issue. What amp preamp would you suggest? I've always been one of those guys who doesn't get it mentally untill I have it and play around with it for a period of time. The benefit of the amp-preamp route is because of the power output?

The benifit of the seperate amp is the power supply.Usually a seperate amp will have a more robust power supply than a reciever will.This means when you get the urge to really get to cranking up you music you will not run the risk of clipping the amp ie running out of power.As far as connecting the preamp and amp all you do is connect the pre to the amp using a pair of interconnects.The H/K is a pretty sweet unit if you are looking to keep the costs down.There is certainly nothing wrong with it.

Frank,

I really have no idea to your question.I have a Rotel preamp with the old fashion volume control.A freind of mine does have the 3480 and runs it at -15 quite a bit and has never had a problem with it over heating or distorting.

In reply to:

---

The H/K is a pretty sweet unit if you are looking to keep the costs down.There is certainly nothing wrong with it.

---

It's great to get different ideas, sure helps.

What would the cost of an amp/preamp be then? Around.

I have not shopped around for one in a while.My Rotel units were around $1600 for the pair.The H/K is by far a less expensive unit,not saying it is not a good unit it is.

Thanks Rick, I guess I'll take the info from you all and start looking around. I just don't want to get into the situation where at some point in time I'll tell myself '...should've got the other stuff.' Thanks for the help, I'm betting your system sounds absolutely awesome.

Thank you Rick.I will say this,I have had it together for around 18 months or so with not wanting to upgrade a thing.I am quite satisfied with it.

In reply to:

---

Adding a sub to that reciever will not take a load off the reciever as the receiver has no crossover unit to it so it will still send a full range signal to the speakers.

---

To make it clear I was referring to when you use the line level sub out on the receiver.

>>And, for a really stupid question...what and how exactly does a pre/amp system do and how are they connected?

First off, there is not much inherent advantage to separate pre-amp / power amp systems other than modularity (you can, for example, upgrade the power amp and sell the old one) and probably a tiny advantage from having separate power supplies and isolated cabinets.

The main "advantage" (as others have mentioned) is that it becomes impractical to fit a big honkin' power amp into the same cabinet and same power supply as the rest of the pieces -- pre-amp, tuner, surround processor etc...

The pre-amp is responsible for taking input from a variety of sources, adjusting the volume to whatever loudness you want, applying processing like tone controls, then outputting a signal at a standard level to the next stage (power amp).

The power amp is responsible for going from a standard line level input to whatever power level you need to drive your speakers. It does all the heavy lifting and usually has very few controls other than maybe a second level control.

As long as you don't need insane power it is more cost effective to put everything in one box and call it a receiver. You can share power supplies, power cords, cabinets, switches, fans, all that junk.

The only downside to buying a nice receiver then adding a power amp later is that you can't sell the power amp in the receiver to defray the costs of the new amp. This is not a big deal now that stereo receivers are relatively inexpensive.

My thinking would be to go with a 3480 as a start (or any good integrated amp) and add a power amp later if you feel the need. I wouldn't go with any less power than a 3480, though... if you want a "fine stereo system in a large room" then lots of clean power is always a good thing to have. There is nothing magical about the 3480 other than it has decent power, a very solid high current power amp, looks nice, and is reasonably priced.

You don't need no steenking sub IMO.

EDIT -- two other points :

1. One reason people buy separate components is that the very best "cost no object" electronics tend to be built as separate components because the primary reason for integration is saving cost... which is not a factor there.

2. Remember that with most receivers the connection between pre-amp and power amp is actually brought out to jacks on the back of the receiver. If you look at most high end stereo receivers you will see a pair of jumpers connecting the two pre-amp out RCAs to the two power-amp in RCAs. Just disconnect the jumpers and you can insert any kind of signal processing between the pre and power amps (eg. an electronic crossover for a sub). You can also disconnect the jumpers and cable from the pre-amp outs to a separate power amp if you want. You would not use the speaker outputs on the receiver in that case because the signal would be going to the external power amp not the built in power amp.

Thanks for the explaination, I'll check out all of my options. I'm get the speakers first and then work from there.

Prima Luna tube amplifier, Marantz SA-8260 CD Player, or Ah! Njoe Tjoeb CDP with upsampler. JMHO.

2x6spds, I'm curious of your thoughts on the PrimaLuna. I've just started getting interested in tubes, and am slowly building my funds towards an amp. So far I've only gotten halfway through building a preamp. I know this is an integrated, but have been looking at it along with ASL MG SI 15 DT. The PrimaLuna sounds pretty idiot proof, which is right up my alley. Funny, I live about 10 minutes away from Upscale Audio, but have never ventured in there. I don't think my pocket book will allow me to look at "high-end" audio stuff .

Hi StPatGuy

I have an ASL MG S1 15DT. It is absolutely superb - the most musical of all my amps (Onkyo Integra M504, Yamaha M80, Kenwood KA9100). I spoke with Kevin from Upscale a few times, and he thinks the Prima Luna is much better than the ASL. I can hardly imagine this, because the ASL sounds so good, but Kevin has always been square with me.

I haven't made it over to Upscale either, but someday I'll have the time.

I think the challenge about high end sound is to try to get there for as little money as possible. Sometimes, for me, this means "buy used." I have a pair of Thiel CS 3.6 speakers which I got from local classifieds for a few dollars more than a pair of M80s. I paid much less for the Onk and Yamaha M80s than I could get comparable amps new.

Then there are giant killers like the ASL MGS115DT and the Prima Luna, and great CDPs like the Marantz and the Ah! Njoe Tjoeb which compare favorably to units costing thousands of dollars. (IMO) BTW, there's another giant killer CDP - the Philips SACD1000, which is out of production, can only be had used, and has reliability issues. (there are guys out there who can modify the Philips, cure the reliability issue and take this CDP up to a level where few CDPs can compare.

Thanks 2x6,
I've read your posts in the past regarding the ASL and it looks like a good place to start with tubes. As with other SET amps, though, attention must be paid to speaker pairing (from what I understand). Gives me a good excuse to buy some M3s! The Prima Luna offers more power, so I'm guessing it would be easier to drive a variety of speakers. In any case, I'm still in the process of learning about tubes, but haven't yet taken the jump.
The Ah! Njoe Tjoeb is also a tempting unit. Another piece of equipment that seems to outperforms its price. Although, it still is pretty expensive to me. Until I win the lottery, that is. . .

I would:

1. Not get a sub with the M60s or the M80s. Unless, of course, you like muddy bass. The M60s and M80s provide more than adequate amount of tight, deep, clear bass. Even better if you have a good amp.

2. Get a tube integrated. The Primaluna Prologue One ($1k) or Two ($1,350). You will get gorgeous warmth, tonality, harmonics, deeper bass, more defined bass, and all the power or loudness you would ever want. Look, I'm not big on suggesting products to people but figured I throw something different to the usual Rotel, NAD, Outlaw, combinations. My opinion is that there are now a couple of tube integrateds that are cheaper or as cheap as a pre/pro combo from brands like Rotel, NAD, etc...

3. Use the above amp with a cheap cd player. In the meantime, save for a big time player. The Primaluna will provide unbelievable detail from the cheapest players. This was my experience.

Do all the above and you will have one sweet system. Do it differently and you will still have one sweet system (due to the M80s). You can't lose!

haha! didn't read the thread. 2X6 spds beat me to it!

oh, and if you would like a ridiculously large soundstage to go with your music at home, plan on investing in a decent turntable. just another thought.

>>Get a tube integrated. The Primaluna Prologue One ($1k) or Two ($1,350).

Wow... I didn't even know you could *get* tube integrated amps. This sounds like a great idea...

Only concern, I guess, is that the system is going into a fairly large room IIRC. Will this be a problem ?

And not only will a tube amp provide amplification, it'll also heat and light your home!

Noch einmal?

Bren R.

Bridgeman, I don't know if your room would be too big. You could call Kevin at Upscale Audio and I'm sure he would give you an honest answer. My room is about 13' X 20'. Plenty loud with the M60s. But, I don't really like to listen at super loud levels. I think the M80s are even more sensitive than the M60s, no?

It's just a thought. There are great benefits to solid state amps as well. Sometimes I miss what I perceive as as the more punch my NAD had. But then, in accordance with my preferences, I listen to that tone and I fall in love, all over again.

There is also the hybrid like the Unico from Italy. There's one up for sale at audiogon right now. Word is this is a very dark sounding amp - might be a bit much for a first time tuber. But it has a lot of power. The Primaluna is one of the less tubey sounding tube amps I've heard, imo.

Also you might try a Cayin TA-30 Intergrated.. This closely related to the prologue and I believe manufactured by the same Company.. Please excuse the finger prints..

I use my M80’s for stereo only. I ended up buying an Outlaw sub and really like it. I found that the speakers themselves just didn’t have enough base for my tastes. The crossover setting usually resides at 80, and the volume is around 50%, about 1DB higher than the M80’s.

As far as those tube amps are concerned, I think they’re but ugly. Is there a cover that goes over the tubes, or are they always exposed?

>>As far as those tube amps are concerned, I think they’re but ugly

Well, there goes the primary reason for buying tube amps

I think there is normally a perforated metal cage that goes over the tubes but I imagine most of the owners take the cage off except when the kids are playing ball games in the room.

I personally think they look great,like a work of art

I'm with you there, wid. They're beautiful to look at, and as to the good ones, beautiful to listen to.

In reply to:

---

I personally think they look great,like a work of art

---

Yeah, kind of a "Dogs Playing Poker" or "Velvet Elvis"...

Bren R.

Bren, you should really recuse yourself from posting in threads dealing with tube amps.

Enough, you guys! There's been an awful lot of talk about tubes lately. I can't take it. I want one, but can't afford one right now. Aargh. Stop tempting me with pictures and going on about beautiful sound. I'm putting my foot down on this one.

So there.

Dude, I bet a Halo setup sounds just as good.

In reply to:

---

Bren, you should really recuse yourself from posting in threads dealing with tube amps.

---

Me, JohnK, Alan...

Actually I like tube amps. On stage and in the studio. Once that nice warm sound's been committed to CD, I like a perfect reproduction of it in my home.

Same reason I don't put a wah or overdrive in an effects loop on my stereo.

Bren R.

Man, that would just be fun. A wah pedal attached to your stereo. I wonder what that would sound like...

In reply to:

---

Actually I like tube amps. On stage and in the studio. Once that nice warm sound's been committed to CD, I like a perfect reproduction of it in my home.

---

[mode="devil's advocate"]
So I take it you've painstakingly treated your basement for optimal sound reproduction and have no SPL deviations across the entire audible spectrum?
[/mode]

In reply to:

---

So I take it you've painstakingly treated your basement for optimal sound reproduction and have no SPL deviations across the entire audible spectrum?

---

Nah, of course not. That's something everyone will chase and no one will catch.

But I do refrain from using light bulbs as amplification circuits.

Bren R.

In reply to:

---

Nah, of course not. That's something everyone will chase and no one will catch

---

Now there is something I can agree with.

In reply to:

---

Now there is something I can agree with.

---

What? WHAT? You brought a glass down into the den of audio equilibrium? You know what that will do for the refracted sound waves? Geeeez...

And honey... when I calibrated this room, I did it on the assumption that you'd always be about 125lbs, you're probably up aroun... okay, sorry, sorry... uh, put down the Zippo and can of WD40!

Bren R.

I drive M60 with Rotel pre-amp RC-1070, amp RB-1080, and cd player RCD-1072.

The first impression is the sound is a little harsh. But i figure out that because of my room acoustic. I add some acoustic foam to reduce first reflection point and it sounds much better. I'm still working on it until i'm tired ...:)

So what is the actual budget then? You mention "long shot" for $10k, but that does not provide clear price points.

Depending on your budget, you could be looking at a wide range of products.

Actually I have been looking hard at the Rotel RB-1080 amp and the RC-1070 preamp, I read some good things about Rotel and the dealer which is about 40 miles away is the closest dealer of any brands...that I've found so far.

Budget? Probably realistically 5 or so, give or take a little either way.

[edit] Oh btw, that budget would be for the speakers and amps, preamps. I have a couple of cd players and the sub, if need will be added at a later point in time.

"Once that nice warm sound's been committed to CD, I like a perfect reproduction of it in my home. "


bwahhaahaha, was this serious? are you talking about cds or lps? did you type "nice warm sound" and "cd" by mistake? has to be a typo.

In reply to:

---

did you type "nice warm sound" and "cd" by mistake? has to be a typo.

---

This is referring to playing through a tube head in a recording setting, for distribution on CD.

Does the sound grow cold when it's digitized? All those frigid 1s and 0s? Soooo cold... cold...

Bren R.
... cold, you guys.

Riffman,

That has to be one of the more inaccurate stereotypes in audio today. An average CD player playing a carefully mastered CD can output digital bits that will decode into the exact waveform of the original master recording (with all the inherent warmth or coldness intended by the recording engineer). Try telling me the average turntable playing a record mastered and pressed with the utmost care can output the original waveform.

I don't think it will. There is a difference between an analog continuous wave and the clocked digital output of a CDP. Haven't you heard the difference? Reconcile theory v. experience in favor of experience. Phlogiston. Lysenko.

2x6, I neglected to include a vital step.

Today's average D/A converter reverts the digital bitstream into an analog continuous wave. At that point, before it is sent along to whatever amp you happen to own, it is truer to the original source than what a turntable can outputs.

What's worse, the more times you play a vinyl album, the worst it'll sound each time. Imperceptibly at first, but it adds up.

Amen.

I really wanted to go back to the "good ol' days"... I remember good vinyl having this mystical quality unparalleled on any 8-track I'd heard.

Having not had a turntable hooked up since about 1989, my heart beat faster as I sat in front of Cubase waiting to preserve forever bro's copy of a Metallica/Pushead picture disc (total number of times played - 4), I dropped the needle and... what? No... no no no... it can't be... I captured one song, and it wasn't what I remembered. Well, okay, it's a new cheap Sony PS-LX250H, magnetic cartridge... it's the turntable. Borrowed bro's BSR, changed cartridges to a brand new one he had, same thing. Finally brought out the big guns and borrowed the audio tech's turntable, brand name I'd never even heard of before, thing wasn't just a belt or direct drive, it had a light chopper that monitored rotation speed and corrected wow/flutter on the fly. Still not what I remembered.

Much like trying to play Activision's H.E.R.O. on the Atari 2600 emulator, sometimes you can't go home again.

Bren R.

jeez. I just re-read my post. My spelling is heinous lately. But not my CD player. It's fantastic!

In reply to:

---

jeez. I just re-read my post. My spelling is heinous lately.

---

I hate to break it to you, but as you get older, assuming this is a universal, your spelling gets worse. I'm misspelling words now that I NEVER would have misspelled. If I didn't have this handy dandy spell checker, my posts would look like the Axiom web page when translated into "Elmer Fudd."

Weww, thew's nothing wong with thawt!

Great thread!!

Thanks for starting it brotherbob.

"That has to be one of the more inaccurate stereotypes in audio today. An average CD player playing a carefully mastered CD can output digital bits that will decode into the exact waveform of the original master recording (with all the inherent warmth or coldness intended by the recording engineer). Try telling me the average turntable playing a record mastered and pressed with the utmost care can output the original waveform."

OK, I will. That's nice information and I appreciate it from a learning standpoint but listening has nothing to do with waveforms. Basically all but a very few lps outperform my cds/SACDs for which I have copies in both formats. And, about 20 people I know agree with me - most of them don't have turntables. Besides, most recording folks, esp in rock, are disgusted at how their music comes across on cd. If people spent more time listening to the actual bands/producers/engineers instead of scientists, more people would be aware instead lps remain a niche market, enjoyed by musicians, engineers, poor students, and audiophiles.

I don't know if this is a factor but when ripping my LPs onto CD the big thing I found is that because of the fixed-point digital format you have to be really paranoid about not clipping the CD recording, cause it sounds BAD !!

There seem to be four options :

1. Keep the recording levels low -- sounds crappy and lifeless

2. Compress the he** out of the signal -- sounds loud and lifeless

3. Run through the entire recording to find the highest peak and adjust level for that -- you end up like #1 but only after 4 hours of cursing

4. Some combination of the above -- fudge recording levels on a track by track or moment-by-moment basis to get high levels and good sound normally but dampen down the peaks.

Strictly speaking #3 is a no-brainer these days -- just capture the audio at a much higher resolution than 16 bits/sample so you can play with the levels and not lose anything.

I think this is one of those tube/SS things. LPs are generally worse except for one important thing -- when you overdrive them the sound degrades gracefully unless the cutting needle rips through to the adjacent track. CDs are superior in every respect except they can't handle the peaks.

In theory I assume HDCD and SACD should be better, but so far I imagine the different mixes overshadow any technical differences. Thoughts ?

In reply to:

---

If people spent more time listening to the actual bands/producers/engineers instead of scientists

---

If ppl actually listened to scientists we wouldn't have global warming.
Hence, i beliieve people have been listening to anyone but. Maybe it is time for a change.

In reply to:

---

OK, I will. That's nice information and I appreciate it from a learning standpoint but listening has nothing to do with waveforms.

---

Meaning what... it has more to do with the psychological effect of listening to an analog source - analog is inherently smoother, right?

A waveform is the visualization of the voltage used to create the sound wave - listening has everything to do with waveforms... that's what any player - vinyl, CD, cassette, reel-to-reel - is doing, rebuilding the waveform from the recorded information. Unless you've got the original chanteuse in the room with you moving air with her lungs and vocal chords, you need a representation of that to send to your speakers. This is a waveform.

CD players rebuild it at 44,100 times a second with 65,536 different amplitude levels by reading data off a disc with a laser. Record players do it by running a needle attached to a magnet (talking moving magnet cartridges here - what you'll often find in home electronics) through a groove cut in a record... little bumps on the inside of the grooves vibrate the needle back and forth, which causes the magnet, suspended between two coils to disrupt the energy flow through the coils, causing DC voltage to be produced. I forget the exact voltage range - been a while since I needed to know this... but it's a lot lower than line level, which is why there are phono preamps.

So as you see, all any player does is recreates the original waveform.

In reply to:

---

Besides, most recording folks, esp in rock, are disgusted at how their music comes across on cd.

---

I will agree with this. Most old-school engineers don't understand digital and can't mix well for it. And the young ones compress the hell out of everything for that massive wall-of-sound, louder=better sound that's prevalent on new CDs.

Technically, vinyl can record more minute changes (nearly an infinite amount of resolution - there are more than 65,536 physical sizes of these bumps on the inside grooves on a record) but by the time you factor in the pressing process, in which a lot of the fine detail is lost, and the fact that vinyl is a sacrificial medium - with a stylus tip exerting 2 tons of tracking force into the groove, it breaks down with every play.

In reply to:

---

If people spent more time listening to the actual bands/producers/engineers instead of scientists, more people would be aware instead lps remain a niche market, enjoyed by musicians, engineers, poor students, and audiophiles.

---

How many engineers actually record in an analog state now, anyway? It looks like the A-D codes on CDs are no longer used that often (anyone remember the first time they bought a CD with a (DDD) code on it? Digital recording, Digital mastering, Digital delivery?) If they were still used, I'm not sure there would still be a lot of AADs out there. Even for the engineers, flying faders, if nothing else, have made the move to digital very appealing. One touch and all the faders zip to the last preset position for that track.

I remember vinyl. I remember pops, clicks, fights about how best to store vinyl (like glass - it's just a very slow moving liquid - stand it up on end, it gets ripples, lay it down, the grooves flatten out), the magic touch of setting all the balance controls on the tone arm until you had the needle riding in the track just perfectly - for that one recording. The high fidelity EPs at 45RPM on a 12" platter. I remember all that, as a piece of history.

Bren R.

Bren...that's one of the best/most informative posts I've read on here in a long while.

Thanks.

In reply to:

---

like glass - it's just a very slow moving liquid

---

There is actually no conclusive evidence that suggests glass is a liquid. The following quote comes from here.


"There have been many claims (especially by tour guides) that such glass is deformed because the glass has flowed slowly over the centuries. This has become a persistent myth, but close inspection shows that characteristic signs of flow, such as flowing around, and out of the frame, are not present. The deformations are more consistent with imperfections of the methods used to make panes of glass at the time. In some cases gaps appear between glass panes and their frames, but this is due to deformations in the lead framework rather than the glass. Other examples of rippling in windows of old homes can be accounted for because the glass was imperfectly flattened by rolling before the float glass process came into use."

I place myself in the camp that most kinds of glass (including all modern types) are not liquid.

Today I learned about flat glass. I love it when I get random information from unexpected sources. And who would of thought that they use molten tin to make flat glass!

jr

chessaro, now your analogy makes no sense and has no relation to the topic at hand. any scientist would tell you so.

"Bren...that's one of the best/most informative posts I've read on here in a long while.

Thanks. "

Agreed! But I still prefer vinyl. Cleansed records on a decent table will not have pops or hiss. It's a pain in the rear-end but I still prefer it. There are days when I'm lazy or don't have a copy on vinyl - that's when I play the cds.

The soundstage is massively wide and emanates beyond the speakers. The science may tell us it's not as exacting as digital and although I believe this, I prefer that glorious soundstage. It's also a warmer sound. Btw, there is nothing wrong with trying to have a verbiage or language to represent how things sound. If we humans didn't have a language to express ourselves, we probably wouldn't have the ability to know if things sounded different in the first place.

Roffmuff,

In reply to:

---

now your analogy makes no sense

---

I'm sorry you don't understand.
I'll dumb it down for you next time.

Random musings about thoughts/ideas posed in this - and similar threads;

- there is no scientific measurement to show "warmth", "forwardness", "openness" or "wide soundstage" of equipment.
- glass is not an interesting subject, except when my drink is empty.
- the medium of vinyl is flawed, but with exceptional care, IMHO it sounds better on a turntable of quality, than that of a CDP of quality.
- CD sound has vastly improved from the original mass marketed machines from the mid 1980's
- BrenR needs to get out more often, he spends FAR too much time researching...."It's a little known fact" - Cliff Claven
- If we listened to scientists, we would land on Mars - oh wait, we missed just that ONCE, when we could not determine if the measurements were in Metric, or Imperial units - proving that it really WAS rocket science!!!

Seemingly we have entered another of the "Great Audio Debate Topics" threads!

Chess, that edge seems to have returned with you...it does nothing to enhance your intelligent thoughts.

In reply to:

---

The science may tell us it's not as exacting as digital and although I believe this, I prefer that glorious soundstage. It's also a warmer sound.

---

Now we're getting somewhere. Your preference is all that really matters, and no scientist in his/her right mind will dispute that. Scientific evidence simply tells us that CDs are truer to the source than vinyl. Evidence does not and cannot definitively tell us which is better, since better is a loaded term and means something different to each individual. Properly written conclusions should not tell us which is better.

Your choice of playback technology, speakers, and the number of digital vs. analog components you have in the signal path will all have an effect on the final sound that arrives at your ears. Therein lies the beauty of audio. You can tailor the sound to your liking in so many ways, and at so many different price points.

And chess, watch the torch....

In reply to:

---

BrenR needs to get out more often, he spends FAR too much time researching...."It's a little known fact" - Cliff Claven

---

Well, if I could tell you about the mating rituals of the yellow-breasted sapsucker and I wasn't an ornithologist, I'd agree with you.

The fact I know a whole lot about my chosen career - that just makes me highly employable. Off now to go produce a couple of video "stingers" for the local electric company. Bet they're glad I'm like Cliffy.

Bren R.

In reply to:

---

there is no scientific measurement to show "warmth", "forwardness", "openness" or "wide soundstage" of equipment.

---

But there could be if we simply came to a universal consensus as to what each term really means.

If "warmth" means a slightly depressed upper treble, then that is certainly measureable.

If "forwardness" means a flat or slightly accentuated area in the frequency response, then that is certainly measureable.

If "soundstage width" means the lateral distance to the left and right of the phyisical location of the speakers from which sounds appear to emanate, then that can certainly be measured as well, using only human ears, no less.

All you have to do is define your variables. These things can all be measured. Using human ears as a tool of measurement is not un-scientific. You just need access to many human ears so you can plot enough data points to be able to draw meaningful conclusions from the trends.

BIBH,

Great post. If most people thought like you we would all be at piece on this earth... At least temporarily

i partly agree with everything that has been said here..

yet, i dont completely agree with none of it..

so where does that put me?

bigjohn

Anyone who cannot spell a simple online user id correctly deserves the torch let alone from one who's attitude is derogatory to that which they have no clue.
And that ISN"T rocket science.
Mind you, if the Americans would change over to a metric system instead of an archaic imperial one...{/duck mode} American furlongs of 2x4s {/sidestep}

In reply to:

---

i partly agree with everything that has been said here..

yet, i dont completely agree with none of it..

so where does that put me?

---

In Texas!

YES...

always quick to point out the obvious..

bigjohn

sorry Chesseroo. I should have got my point across much more polite than I did. I simply don't think believing what scientists say about soundwaves has anything do do with preferences in listening. Nor do I think, 'progress' is an issue with said preferences. These thngs are not universal; it's up to each person to determine what they like. My bad, Chesseroo!

And again, I have a hard time finding people who come to my house who like my cd player over my turntable. A real hard time. Some don't care but the ones who are into music seem to prefer the turntable. Should they have paid more attention in physics class?

Then again, if people like that the wave is closer to the original source, great! I just have a hard time even comprehending this is as reason for a preference.

I may have missed the equipment list (yes, I believe that there are differences between equipment - and I am an electrical engineer with 20years of design work) but what do you have that your friends listen to?

To take Chess' point, if you define the what it is you enjoy in the sound, there is an explanation to be put forth.

You are absolutely correct that the preferences are personal. But there is always some realm of science to explain things in life!!!

Chess - re: Metric - absolutely the US should abandon the Imperial measurement system. They are quite alone in clinging to this system devised - and abandoned by British rulers. The Metric system is based in - GASP- science!!!! LOL

In reply to:

---

the US should abandon the Imperial measurement system

---

i am glad you think so.... now HUSH..

it ALL boils down to what we know. i know exactly for far a foot is, and exactly how far a yard is. if you tell me its one mile, i got a real good idea how long that will take me to walk. and i know exactly how many bowls of cereal i can get out of a half-gallon of milk. and i used to be pretty good at measuring dry ounces at a time.

but, i dont have a clue how far a meter is, much less a kilometer. i couldnt tell you how much a kilogram is, and i have a slight understanding of liters. simply cause coke is sold in 2 and 3 liters.

so, while the argument will go on forever. i just hope it never changes.

bigjohn

Come on bigjohn, everyone knows that 14 grams is a half (ounce),and that 7 grams is a quarter (ounce) and an ounce is well..... a full bag.


And by the way, we did try the metric system.........it didnt work.

Riff,

I'm very passionate about science and the people in my profession and i'm not keen on seeing it put down so often especially when it is the very science principles which invented our home audio systems. Many professions get bashed constantly (e.g. lawyer jokes galore) but the scientists are a struggling lot who have a ton on their plates, who get little recognition for it and even less money to do it with although the cost of research is probably greater than any other single profession. Did everyone know there is no Nobel Prize (let alone ANY reasonably distinguished prize) for Biology?
Did anyone know that i can buy a marble pestle and mortar for our lab through a typical equipment supplier like Fisher Scientific for $300 and yet get the same thing from Walmart for about twelve bucks!!??
Oh science equipment is damn pricey and unfortunately Walmart does not sell 1.2% Deactivated Florisil and toxaphene standards.

Science cannot explain everything, at least not yet, maybe it will never get there, but as BBIBH stated, "To take Chess' point, if you define the what it is you enjoy in the sound, there is an explanation to be put forth."
The Axiom research has taken ordinary people and i imagine some extraordinary ppl as well and run science tests to see what generally folks prefer.This information is not new and at least from Ian's point of view, goes back to the early 1980s equating to nearly 25 years of experience and research to this date. From such information they can say that a majority of listeners seem to select a more neutral speaker as opposed to one which is, well, not neutral as a preferred sound. Such conclusions can only come from analysis of things like waveforms as Bren described.
Folks should not be so quick to dismiss the data that science can generate even if it does pigeonhole people into profiles. Everyone is unique and has their own preferences but i dare say there are alot more common preferences in many regards than people realize. Honestly i don't know anyone that likes to hear a speaker with 10dB spikes in the 4kHz and higher range. There must be something to that.

Go Team Metric.

Hey BigJ,
How many drams in a digit?
3.14159265
Oh waitaiminute, that's pi.
Feet in a yard? 3
Inches in a foot? 12
Rods in a furlong? 40

Are you SURE you don't want to move to a system based on multiples of 10?

Damn...

This is getting to be quite a lot of information to digest regarding the M80 stero sound system suggestions....Seperates vs recievers vs tubes, vinal vs cd, analog, digital, science, human factor, old school, new school, metric, imperial, ounces....baggies?

Heck, all I wanted was a kick ass sound system!

In reply to:

---

based on multiples of 10

---

i understand the theory of it.. and i see why on paper, it would seem easier.

but if you lined up 10 americans, and marked off 20 meters, and TOLD them it was 20 meters, then asked how far is that? 9 of them would say , "oh about 60 feet"..

thats what we know, and nobody wants to change.

bigjohn

I was only in Europe for 2.5 weeks and you'd be amazed how quickly you get used to metric measurements. It's really not difficult at all.

Though I found it odd that coke bottles were 33cl. 33 would seem to imply that their goal was 1/3, what's the impetus behind that? If you're using the metric system, why 1/3? Isn't the metric system based on 10's? It would seem to my mind that the obvious size for that bottle of coke would be 30cl or even 35cl, no? What am I missing?

"thats what we know, and nobody wants to change. "

Exactly.

That's a good question spiff.
Why are bottles of beer 341mL rather than even 500s?
I can only guess that the beer companies have researched the average, non-bloating level of fluid which humans can drink without having to waste material before finishing a bottle.
Who knows?
I know that i don't.

As Rick(BrotherBob)has rather gently pointed out, this discussion hasn't exactly been focused on the concerns that he raised. As to whether a stereo receiver or separates would be more advisable, it would seem the simplicity and economy of the receiver would be the choice except in the highly unlikely case that the power available in the receivers was inadequate.

Rick also asked about other items which would contribute to "good quality sound", but instead several suggestions relating to obsolescent audio technologies were made. Regardless of whether someone personally prefers these, they certainly don't represent "good quality" in an era when digital samples precisely reproduce the sine waves that comprise all of music.

"Why are bottles of beer 341mL rather than even 500s?"

Because there is about the same amount of alcohal in a bottle of beer (341ml/12 oz.) as there is in a glass of wine(142 ml/5 oz.) or a glass of whisky (43ml/1.5 oz.).

I love ask jeeves.

besides, who really is gonna get used to an announcer saying, "And the 'Skins only need 4.572 meters to win the Super Bowl!!" nobody's gonna want to hear that! (not that they ever would, even with the measurement in yards)

They'd just say "about 4 and a half meters"

The Metric system is based on.....GASP ... Science!

The reason that the metric sizes are seemingly odd, is that they took the existing sizes, and made the change in measurement systems, not adjusting sizes.

Besides, who asks for 12 oz or 341 ml of pop? Nobody, they ask for a bottle/can of pop.

Nobody wants to change? Wow what a broad statement! The US is one of the only countries not using the Metric system. Do you realize how subjective the Imperial systems was? The King would have his foot measured to define length of "foot". Imagine a small king, or a large king, and the anomalies of the changes. Luckily, the standards stuck for the current Imperial system. Funny...the US hanging onto something developed by another country! You mention "10 Americans....", but there are far more who would not want the Imperial system to return.

Change in general is a part of life. I was a young lad when Canada changed to the Metric system, and while it took time to understand, I managed. I suggest the fear of change is greater than the impact of change - at least in this case.

>>I was a young lad when Canada changed to the Metric system, and while it took time to understand, I managed

Yep, same here. I still work entirely in feet and inches

Seriously, most industries here have NOT changed. Try building a house in metric. Heck, ask Axiom how tall an M60 is in metric and you're going to have to wait while they pull out the calculator.

How would we measure audio amp output ? Therms per hour or something ? Seriously, I was an early adopter of the metric system because I ran a darkroom at the time and everything worked better in metric, but after about 5 years I just went back to feet and inches. Our road signs are in Km but that's pretty much it AFAIK.

And yes I live in Toronto

So, what do they call 2x4s in Canada?

You mean 1-5/8" x 3-5/8"?

Dimensional lumber is still referred to with the Imperial system in Canada.
However, 1/2" plywood is referred to as 50mm (millimeter)

In reply to:

---

Nobody wants to change? Wow what a broad statement!

---

yes, it is.. but, in case you forgot.. i am the one who lives in america, and who hangs out with and talks with americans on a daily basis. i am telling you, NO ONE WANTS TO CHANGE!! i aint trying to be difficult here, just being honest.. and i aint saying that you havent made some good points, YOU HAVE. but, you cant force something upon us that the majority of people are against. and this is not that big of a deal, where the american govt is suddenly gonna wake up one day and say, "OK, from here on out, its metric all the way". there are other pressing issues to deal with other than establishing a standard of weights and measures. not too mention, and i could be speculating here, but i think the american public wouldnt go for it. there would be anarchy in the streets. people in random vigilante groups, burning down ruler factories, and picketing companies that produce 1, 2, and 3 liter bottles.

i think thats a battle our govt is not ready to fight.

bigjohn

"As Rick(BrotherBob)has rather gently pointed out, this discussion hasn't exactly been focused on the concerns that he raised. As to whether a stereo receiver or separates would be more advisable, it would seem the simplicity and economy of the receiver would be the choice except in the highly unlikely case that the power available in the receivers was inadequate.

Rick also asked about other items which would contribute to "good quality sound", but instead several suggestions relating to obsolescent audio technologies were made. Regardless of whether someone personally prefers these, they certainly don't represent "good quality" in an era when digital samples precisely reproduce the sine waves that comprise all of music. "

"Good quality" ----> is opinion. It's quite arrogant to assume that one's definition of quality is across the board for everyone so that it can be spoken of as fact. One should not have been the first one to define certain technologies as "better" (again, opinion and the exact word that was used if I can remember) than other technologies if one did not want this to happen. Again, brotherbob asked for good quality sound, not which was better. It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that there does not exist all kind of options for good quality sound be it analog or digital.

No sorry, I was not questioning the American angle, but that "change" is not accepted - and for the most part as I mentioned, people fear change - any change.

I think that you are correct in your view of priorities. The Canadian gov't did mandate the change, and with a few exceptions, it has been adopted.

Anway, we have gone off topic.

I would look at many of the models that were mentioned. I would also look at other models - Vecteur, YBA, Sim Audio, if you wanted to look upscale. Yes, you will get conflicting opinions, and that is to be expected.

>>Dimensional lumber is still referred to with the Imperial system in Canada.
However, 1/2" plywood is referred to as 50mm (millimeter)

OK I couldn't resist ... what kind of math makes 50 mm = 1/2 inch?? ... anyone into cycling (US) is pretty much forced to learn metrics

That said, I'm interested in the discussion of needing a sub with M80s -- I often thought that one could get away without a sub for HT with M80 fronts considering their frequency & power-handling specs and even moreso for stereo. Or would you be looking for the sub amp to push the base that much more?