| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Older seperates vs new system
With around £200 budget I've been thinking of buying a new hi-fi
system like a Sony or Panasonic or going to richer sounds and trying to pick up some bargain seperates from their Trade Counter section. I keep hearing that seperates invariably offer better quality and it's tempting to build up a system as and when I could afford to improve it. However, I've read online somewhere that CD technology has improved in the last couple of years for example, and perhaps other aspects have too (amps and so on) and am now wondering whether a new hi-fi system would sound just as good as seperates that may be several years old in design. I'd appreciate peoples thoughts and opinions on the old seperates v new system choice. |
Older seperates vs new system
I wouldn't buy anything other than a second (ie. kitchen/bedroom) system new
for £200. If you do some research online and find out which stuff to buy, you can (just about) put together a reasonable sounding setup for that sort of money. As you mentioned, the used separates route also gives you the option to expand/upgrade later as you can afford to do so. I've created a very nice sounding setup myself, buying nearly everything secondhand off Ebay (although admittedly spending more than £200). Btw, I wouldn't pay too much attention as far as recent 'improvements' are concerned - most of what you've heard almost certainly originates from hifi media hype! "MG Lewis" wrote in message om... With around £200 budget I've been thinking of buying a new hi-fi system like a Sony or Panasonic or going to richer sounds and trying to pick up some bargain seperates from their Trade Counter section. I keep hearing that seperates invariably offer better quality and it's tempting to build up a system as and when I could afford to improve it. However, I've read online somewhere that CD technology has improved in the last couple of years for example, and perhaps other aspects have too (amps and so on) and am now wondering whether a new hi-fi system would sound just as good as seperates that may be several years old in design. I'd appreciate peoples thoughts and opinions on the old seperates v new system choice. |
Older seperates vs new system
MG Lewis wrote:
With around £200 budget I've been thinking of buying a new hi-fi system like a Sony or Panasonic or going to richer sounds and trying to pick up some bargain seperates from their Trade Counter section. I keep hearing that seperates invariably offer better quality and it's tempting to build up a system as and when I could afford to improve it. However, I've read online somewhere that CD technology has improved in the last couple of years for example, and perhaps other aspects have too (amps and so on) and am now wondering whether a new hi-fi system would sound just as good as seperates that may be several years old in design. I'd appreciate peoples thoughts and opinions on the old seperates v new system choice. You can't even get a decent new pair of speakers for £200. I have a very nice pair of Rogers speakers from "Cash Converters" and have seen some decent CD players and amps there. eBay can also have some bargains. Within your budget, all CD players and amps will sound the same and the speakers will make the difference. If you are in the Midlands, I have a pair of Mordaunt-Short MS3.40's with stands you can have for 50 quid. (Never been thrashed, full service history.) -- Eiron. |
Older seperates vs new system
I took my dog out for a walk.
While it was ****ing on MG Lewis's leg, he seemed distracted by: With around £200 budget I've been thinking of buying a new hi-fi system like a Sony or Panasonic or going to richer sounds and trying to pick up some bargain seperates from their Trade Counter section. I keep hearing that seperates invariably offer better quality and it's tempting to build up a system as and when I could afford to improve it. However, I've read online somewhere that CD technology has improved in the last couple of years for example, and perhaps other aspects have too (amps and so on) and am now wondering whether a new hi-fi system would sound just as good as seperates that may be several years old in design. I'd appreciate peoples thoughts and opinions on the old seperates v new system choice. Buy new, get some cheap secondhand speakers off eBay. In your price range, the 'features' are what costs the money. Try to find something without a graphic equaliser and you're on the right track. Music is about enjoyment, and they *don't* all sound the same, even at the bottom end. -- Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes. |
Older seperates vs new system
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:25:04 +0000 (UTC), "Triffid"
wrote: Buy new, get some cheap secondhand speakers off eBay. In your price range, the 'features' are what costs the money. Try to find something without a graphic equaliser and you're on the right track. Music is about enjoyment, and they *don't* all sound the same, even at the bottom end. I think I would change the sense of that last bit - the word "even" gives me a problem. It is especially at the bottom end that things don't all sound the same. Once you are clear of the bottom end, things do sound the same - they all tend to sound right. That situation holds good all the way to the top end, where things tend to fall apart again and stupid "boutique" designs rear their incompetent heads. That goes for the electronic stuff anyway. When it comes to speakers, they carry on getting better right up into the many thousands of pounds, so to get the best within a budget, it is a good idea to go secondhand, with the proviso that they be carefully auditioned before buying. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Older seperates vs new system
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:45:29 +0100, Eiron wrote:
MG Lewis wrote: With around £200 budget I've been thinking of buying a new hi-fi system like a Sony or Panasonic or going to richer sounds and trying to pick up some bargain seperates from their Trade Counter section. I keep hearing that seperates invariably offer better quality and it's tempting to build up a system as and when I could afford to improve it. However, I've read online somewhere that CD technology has improved in the last couple of years for example, Nope, the last *significant* improvement in CD quality happened around 1990, when 'bitstream' converters came in. A cheap modern Technics CD player is very close to sounding as good as anything you can buy at any price. and perhaps other aspects have too (amps and so on) Nope, they've been sonically transparent for twenty years or more at the mid-price and up end of the market. A modern Yamaha AX-582/592 will sound pretty close to state of the art, despite what the so-called 'high enders' would have you believe. and am now wondering whether a new hi-fi system would sound just as good as seperates that may be several years old in design. Nope, get some discontinued separates from Richer Sounds (their Cambridge range contains some real gems) and you'll be well on the way to top-class sound on a budget. The *important* thing is the speakers, and good ones do cost serious money. I'd appreciate peoples thoughts and opinions on the old seperates v new system choice. You can't even get a decent new pair of speakers for £200. You can, but stick to top brands like B&W, KEF or Mordaunt-Short for best results. Recently dicontinued ranges will give the best value, and Richer Sounds is a good source of such. I have a very nice pair of Rogers speakers from "Cash Converters" and have seen some decent CD players and amps there. eBay can also have some bargains. Indeed so. In fact, there's a pair of Spendor BC 11s on for £95 right now, which will give you great sound - and serious 'audiophile cred'! Also B&W 602 Series 2 at £56, and many other excellent speakers including Mission 780SE and even ATC SCM7s at very reasonable prices. Within your budget, all CD players and amps will sound the same and the speakers will make the difference. Correct - and he'll get little improvement from the electronics until he has spent at least a couple of grand on serious speakers. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Older seperates vs new system
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:45:29 +0100, Eiron wrote: Nope, the last *significant* improvement in CD quality happened around 1990, when 'bitstream' converters came in. A cheap modern Technics CD player is very close to sounding as good as anything you can buy at any price. Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I have a cheap modern Technics CD player (2002) which is vastly improved by the addition of a Meridian 203 DAC. In fact I have two such setups which I consider superior to my Marantz 6000 CD player. An additional bonus is that the Technics will play any CD-R's without quibble whereas the Marantz is very picky. No wonder you can't hear the difference between cables, Stew :-) Alan |
Older seperates vs new system
"Eiron" wrote in message
... If you are in the Midlands, I have a pair of Mordaunt-Short MS3.40's with stands you can have for 50 quid. (Never been thrashed, full service history.) -- Eiron. Add a cheap new CD player (£50) with a Meridian 203 DAC (£100 Ebay) and a Pioneer A400 (£75 Ebay) or similar (Nad 3020 £40 Ebay) amplifier and you have better than decent sound for less than £300. Alan |
Older seperates vs new system
I took my dog out for a walk.
While it was ****ing on Don Pearce's leg, he seemed distracted by: On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:25:04 +0000 (UTC), "Triffid" wrote: Buy new, get some cheap secondhand speakers off eBay. In your price range, the 'features' are what costs the money. Try to find something without a graphic equaliser and you're on the right track. Music is about enjoyment, and they *don't* all sound the same, even at the bottom end. I think I would change the sense of that last bit - the word "even" gives me a problem. It is especially at the bottom end that things don't all sound the same. Once you are clear of the bottom end, things do sound the same - they all tend to sound right. That situation holds good all the way to the top end, where things tend to fall apart again and stupid "boutique" designs rear their incompetent heads. That goes for the electronic stuff anyway. When it comes to speakers, they carry on getting better right up into the many thousands of pounds, so to get the best within a budget, it is a good idea to go secondhand, with the proviso that they be carefully auditioned before buying. erm.. I was thinking more in the sense that even cheap crap can be distinguished. You just need to lower your terms of reference. -- Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes. |
Older seperates vs new system
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:30:24 +0000 (UTC), "Triffid"
wrote: erm.. I was thinking more in the sense that even cheap crap can be distinguished. You just need to lower your terms of reference. It is that word "even" that is the problem. It seems to imply that you would expect more expensive stuff to be distinguishable, but it is somehow surprising that cheap crap can be - that is the reverse of the true situation, which is that cheap crap is the stuff that is most easily distinguished, but once you are clear of that area, everything is indistinguishable. Or were you using the word "distinguished" in the "going slightly grey at the temples" sense? d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Older seperates vs new system
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:27:59 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:45:29 +0100, Eiron wrote: Nope, the last *significant* improvement in CD quality happened around 1990, when 'bitstream' converters came in. A cheap modern Technics CD player is very close to sounding as good as anything you can buy at any price. I have a cheap modern Technics CD player (2002) which is vastly improved by the addition of a Meridian 203 DAC. ********. Don't forget I used to *own* a 203 DAC, and it didn't make a whit of difference to the sound of either my Marantz CD-94 or my Sony CDP 715E. It's all in your imagination - which is fine, but don't confuse that with anything in the physical soundfield. In fact I have two such setups which I consider superior to my Marantz 6000 CD player. An additional bonus is that the Technics will play any CD-R's without quibble whereas the Marantz is very picky. That's certainly a solid practical difference. No wonder you can't hear the difference between cables, Stew :-) As with so many, you have a vivid imagination. As you surely already know, I'll gladly give you £1,000 if *you* can hear any difference between cables. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Older seperates vs new system
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:08:39 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote: "Eiron" wrote in message ... If you are in the Midlands, I have a pair of Mordaunt-Short MS3.40's with stands you can have for 50 quid. (Never been thrashed, full service history.) -- Eiron. Add a cheap new CD player (£50) with a Meridian 203 DAC (£100 Ebay) and a Pioneer A400 (£75 Ebay) or similar (Nad 3020 £40 Ebay) amplifier and you have better than decent sound for less than £300. Better still, buy a £150 CD player............ Better again, go to Richer Sounds and buy: Cambridge Audio CD5 - £99.95 Cambridge Audio A300 - £139.95 Mordaunt-Short MS906 - 349.95 (black or maple) I'm sure if you buy the whole system, they'll throw in all the cables you need. Total outlay of less than 600 squids, all new gear, and top-class sound by any reasonable standard. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Older seperates vs new system
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:02:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: Better again, go to Richer Sounds and buy: Cambridge Audio CD5 - £99.95 Cambridge Audio A300 - £139.95 Mordaunt-Short MS906 - 349.95 (black or maple) I'm sure if you buy the whole system, they'll throw in all the cables you need. Total outlay of less than 600 squids, all new gear, and top-class sound by any reasonable standard. A tad more than the OP's budget of £200, though ;-) I don't think that's enough to start buying separates, to be honest. Each component will likely be so cheap that the first upgrade will show up the rest of the system. Something like a Denon DM-31 would be a much better use of the money. Okay it's not upgradeable but it should give good sound for a long time and will always find a good home somewhere in a house. -- I want to be a modirater when I grow up. Mail john rather than nospam... |
Older seperates vs new system
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:08:39 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Eiron" wrote in message ... If you are in the Midlands, I have a pair of Mordaunt-Short MS3.40's with stands you can have for 50 quid. (Never been thrashed, full service history.) -- Eiron. Add a cheap new CD player (£50) with a Meridian 203 DAC (£100 Ebay) and a Pioneer A400 (£75 Ebay) or similar (Nad 3020 £40 Ebay) amplifier and you have better than decent sound for less than £300. Better still, buy a £150 CD player............ Better again, go to Richer Sounds and buy: Cambridge Audio CD5 - £99.95 Cambridge Audio A300 - £139.95 Mordaunt-Short MS906 - 349.95 (black or maple) I'm sure if you buy the whole system, they'll throw in all the cables you need. Total outlay of less than 600 squids, all new gear, and top-class sound by any reasonable standard. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering 600 squids? His budget is £200. Do three of your squids equal one of his pounds? From your comments you clearly have ears of cloth. I'm beginning to sympathise with Trotsky :-) Alan. |
Older seperates vs new system
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:27:59 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:45:29 +0100, Eiron wrote: Nope, the last *significant* improvement in CD quality happened around 1990, when 'bitstream' converters came in. A cheap modern Technics CD player is very close to sounding as good as anything you can buy at any price. I have a cheap modern Technics CD player (2002) which is vastly improved by the addition of a Meridian 203 DAC. ********. Don't forget I used to *own* a 203 DAC, and it didn't make a whit of difference to the sound of either my Marantz CD-94 or my Sony CDP 715E. It's all in your imagination - which is fine, but don't confuse that with anything in the physical soundfield. In fact I have two such setups which I consider superior to my Marantz 6000 CD player. An additional bonus is that the Technics will play any CD-R's without quibble whereas the Marantz is very picky. That's certainly a solid practical difference. No wonder you can't hear the difference between cables, Stew :-) As with so many, you have a vivid imagination. As you surely already know, I'll gladly give you £1,000 if *you* can hear any difference between cables. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Forget the cables. You'll no doubt be farting around balancing the output level to +/- 0.1 decibel to make the test impractical. I'll bet you an even £1000 that on my system, playing my music, I can tell the difference between a Technics CD player SL-PG490 alone, and the same player with a Meridian DAC 203 optically connected, in more than 67% instances. Alan. |
Older seperates vs new system
John Laird wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:02:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Better again, go to Richer Sounds and buy: Cambridge Audio CD5 - £99.95 Cambridge Audio A300 - £139.95 Mordaunt-Short MS906 - 349.95 (black or maple) I'm sure if you buy the whole system, they'll throw in all the cables you need. Total outlay of less than 600 squids, all new gear, and top-class sound by any reasonable standard. A tad more than the OP's budget of £200, though ;-) I don't think that's enough to start buying separates, to be honest. Each component will likely be so cheap that the first upgrade will show up the rest of the system. Something like a Denon DM-31 would be a much better use of the money. Okay it's not upgradeable but it should give good sound for a long time and will always find a good home somewhere in a house. I reckon for £200, the OP would be able to put together a system that is better than a similarly priced mini system (and let's face it, budget hi-fi prices in UK are a bargain compared to Oz) £100 for the CD player and amp (look around Ebay or 2nd hand) and the speakers for £100 (or more, if the OP can stretch the budget). The first system I actually paid for consisted of a 2nd hand amp and CD player, and a discounted speaker model for £250. Admittedly, I paid too much for the amp and CD player (I was going through a nostalgic trip through early 90s What Hi-Fi mags and decided to get the components I couldn't afford back then) I actually wanted to get a Denon DM-31 at first, but the version they exported to Oz didn't come with the Mission speakers (they had some really poor Denon speakers), so I said, "stuff it, let's see what separates system I can put together for the same amount of cash!" I never looked back. My next upgrade would be improving the conditions of my listening room. |
Older seperates vs new system
Alan Murphy wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... As with so many, you have a vivid imagination. As you surely already know, I'll gladly give you £1,000 if *you* can hear any difference between cables. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Forget the cables. You'll no doubt be farting around balancing the output level to +/- 0.1 decibel to make the test impractical. Alan, matching the output levels is essential to making any valid comparison between components. After all, hi-fi tends to sound better at louder levels than lower ones (up to a certain limit, of course) |
Older seperates vs new system
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:36:53 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:08:39 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Eiron" wrote in message ... If you are in the Midlands, I have a pair of Mordaunt-Short MS3.40's with stands you can have for 50 quid. (Never been thrashed, full service history.) -- Eiron. Add a cheap new CD player (£50) with a Meridian 203 DAC (£100 Ebay) and a Pioneer A400 (£75 Ebay) or similar (Nad 3020 £40 Ebay) amplifier and you have better than decent sound for less than £300. Better still, buy a £150 CD player............ Better again, go to Richer Sounds and buy: Cambridge Audio CD5 - £99.95 Cambridge Audio A300 - £139.95 Mordaunt-Short MS906 - 349.95 (black or maple) I'm sure if you buy the whole system, they'll throw in all the cables you need. Total outlay of less than 600 squids, all new gear, and top-class sound by any reasonable standard. -- 600 squids? His budget is £200. Do three of your squids equal one of his pounds? Name one person who ever went into a hi-fi store and didn't blow his budget! :-) He could start with the electronics and Eirons MS3.40s, and get better speakers as funds allow. From your comments you clearly have ears of cloth. I'm beginning to sympathise with Trotsky :-) From your comments you clearly have guts of jelly - or are you backing off your comments about 'cable sound'? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Older seperates vs new system
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:37:29 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:27:59 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:45:29 +0100, Eiron wrote: Nope, the last *significant* improvement in CD quality happened around 1990, when 'bitstream' converters came in. A cheap modern Technics CD player is very close to sounding as good as anything you can buy at any price. I have a cheap modern Technics CD player (2002) which is vastly improved by the addition of a Meridian 203 DAC. ********. Don't forget I used to *own* a 203 DAC, and it didn't make a whit of difference to the sound of either my Marantz CD-94 or my Sony CDP 715E. It's all in your imagination - which is fine, but don't confuse that with anything in the physical soundfield. In fact I have two such setups which I consider superior to my Marantz 6000 CD player. An additional bonus is that the Technics will play any CD-R's without quibble whereas the Marantz is very picky. That's certainly a solid practical difference. No wonder you can't hear the difference between cables, Stew :-) As with so many, you have a vivid imagination. As you surely already know, I'll gladly give you £1,000 if *you* can hear any difference between cables. Forget the cables. You'll no doubt be farting around balancing the output level to +/- 0.1 decibel to make the test impractical. Almost all cables don't need any 'farting about' to achieve that requirement, and level difference has *nothing* to do with the claims made for 'high end' cables. Noted that you back off rapidly when challenged on your snide comments. I'll bet you an even £1000 that on my system, playing my music, I can tell the difference between a Technics CD player SL-PG490 alone, and the same player with a Meridian DAC 203 optically connected, in more than 67% instances. Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three won't do! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Older seperates vs new system
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three won't do! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Hiding behind equalisation again, Stew. |
Older seperates vs new system
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... From your comments you clearly have guts of jelly - or are you backing off your comments about 'cable sound'? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Touch of Alzheimers there, Stew. Let me remind you that the subject is "dac sound" :-) |
Older seperates vs new system
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:01:07 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three won't do! Hiding behind equalisation again, Stew. It is and always has been an essential pre-requisite of any comparison - all good salesman know that.................. Alternatively, you are saying that you can achieve the sound of a $16,000 Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC just by advancing your volume control a tad. You can't have it both ways. Naturally, I knew you'd chicken out when actually called on your bull****. I can of course tell 20 out of 20 with the *same* DAC in circuit, but the volume boosted by 0.5dB in one case. It doesn't sound *louder*, it just sounds 'better', more dynamic, more detailed etc etc. This ain't rocket science, and it ain't new. The whole point of the notorious MF X-10D 'buffer' was that it boosted the signal by 10%, just enough to make sure that it sounded 'better', but not enough to make the trickery obvious. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Older seperates vs new system
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:03:23 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . From your comments you clearly have guts of jelly - or are you backing off your comments about 'cable sound'? Touch of Alzheimers there, Stew. Let me remind you that the subject is "dac sound" :-) You rather than me, or a touch of bull**** there, Alan, since you were the one who made the comment about me and cable sound in the first place. You have of course proved yourself to be the gutless blowhard we all know and loathe, when called on your £1,000 DAC sound bet. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Older seperates vs new system
I can tell the difference between a couple of mate's budget CD players to my
Tag DAC20, and a Rotel CD player or Rega Planet. You must be deaf stew. If you think CD players all sound the same, fine. But don't bother try to persuade other people they do. |
Older seperates vs new system
Tat Chan wrote in message ...
I reckon for £200, the OP would be able to put together a system that is better than a similarly priced mini system (and let's face it, budget hi-fi prices in UK are a bargain compared to Oz) £100 for the CD player and amp (look around Ebay or 2nd hand) and the speakers for £100 (or more, if the OP can stretch the budget). The first system I actually paid for consisted of a 2nd hand amp and CD player, and a discounted speaker model for £250. Admittedly, I paid too much for the amp and CD player (I was going through a nostalgic trip through early 90s What Hi-Fi mags and decided to get the components I couldn't afford back then) I actually wanted to get a Denon DM-31 at first, but the version they exported to Oz didn't come with the Mission speakers (they had some really poor Denon speakers), so I said, "stuff it, let's see what separates system I can put together for the same amount of cash!" I never looked back. My next upgrade would be improving the conditions of my listening room. The Denon DM31 at £185 does appeal to me with a cheap set of speakers until an upgrade for those can be found. I forgot to mention that a lot of my time will be spent listening via headphones, so you'll understand if speakers aren't that important to me :-) |
Older seperates vs new system
MG Lewis wrote:
The Denon DM31 at £185 does appeal to me with a cheap set of speakers until an upgrade for those can be found. I forgot to mention that a lot of my time will be spent listening via headphones, so you'll understand if speakers aren't that important to me :-) like everyone else has mentioned, you should be able to pick up a good pair of discontinued speakers from Richer Sounds for not much cash. And the DM-31 has a subwoofer output as well, in case you feel the need to add a sub later on. |
Older seperates vs new system
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:16:06 +0100, "Nath" wrote:
I can tell the difference between a couple of mate's budget CD players to my Tag DAC20, and a Rotel CD player or Rega Planet. You must be deaf stew. If you think CD players all sound the same, fine. But don't bother try to persuade other people they do. It's OK Nath, we already know that you're deaf from all that subwoofing. If you stop posturing for a moment, did you notice that Alan shut his trap as soon as I actually accepted his bet? You think *you* can *really* tell the difference, once output levels are matched? :-) There are of course some really *bad* CD players around (and the original Rega Planet is certainly one of them!), but most CD players are indeed sonically indistinguishable. Anyone else got a grand they'd like to lose? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Older seperates vs new system
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:01:07 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three won't do! Hiding behind equalisation again, Stew. It is and always has been an essential pre-requisite of any comparison - all good salesman know that.................. Alternatively, you are saying that you can achieve the sound of a $16,000 Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC just by advancing your volume control a tad. You can't have it both ways. Naturally, I knew you'd chicken out when actually called on your bull****. I can of course tell 20 out of 20 with the *same* DAC in circuit, but the volume boosted by 0.5dB in one case. It doesn't sound *louder*, it just sounds 'better', more dynamic, more detailed etc etc. This ain't rocket science, and it ain't new. The whole point of the notorious MF X-10D 'buffer' was that it boosted the signal by 10%, just enough to make sure that it sounded 'better', but not enough to make the trickery obvious. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Were you born boring, or did you have to work really hard at it? I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation. You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not? |
Older seperates vs new system
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:03:23 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . From your comments you clearly have guts of jelly - or are you backing off your comments about 'cable sound'? Touch of Alzheimers there, Stew. Let me remind you that the subject is "dac sound" :-) You rather than me, or a touch of bull**** there, Alan, since you were the one who made the comment about me and cable sound in the first place. You have of course proved yourself to be the gutless blowhard we all know and loathe, when called on your £1,000 DAC sound bet. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation. You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not? |
Older seperates vs new system
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:16:06 +0100, "Nath" wrote: I can tell the difference between a couple of mate's budget CD players to my Tag DAC20, and a Rotel CD player or Rega Planet. You must be deaf stew. If you think CD players all sound the same, fine. But don't bother try to persuade other people they do. It's OK Nath, we already know that you're deaf from all that subwoofing. If you stop posturing for a moment, did you notice that Alan shut his trap as soon as I actually accepted his bet? You think *you* can *really* tell the difference, once output levels are matched? :-) There are of course some really *bad* CD players around (and the original Rega Planet is certainly one of them!), but most CD players are indeed sonically indistinguishable. Anyone else got a grand they'd like to lose? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation. You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not? |
Older seperates vs new system
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:22:25 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:03:23 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . From your comments you clearly have guts of jelly - or are you backing off your comments about 'cable sound'? Touch of Alzheimers there, Stew. Let me remind you that the subject is "dac sound" :-) You rather than me, or a touch of bull**** there, Alan, since you were the one who made the comment about me and cable sound in the first place. You have of course proved yourself to be the gutless blowhard we all know and loathe, when called on your £1,000 DAC sound bet. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation. You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not? Can you explain why you specifically do NOT want the levels equalised? Do you really not want the test to maximise your chances of actually hearing the difference? If you don't match levels, you are doing two things that are unhelpful - first you are making the test virtually impossible to perform, and second you are going to get a result which you can't trust. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Older seperates vs new system
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
... On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:22:25 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:03:23 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . From your comments you clearly have guts of jelly - or are you backing off your comments about 'cable sound'? Touch of Alzheimers there, Stew. Let me remind you that the subject is "dac sound" :-) You rather than me, or a touch of bull**** there, Alan, since you were the one who made the comment about me and cable sound in the first place. You have of course proved yourself to be the gutless blowhard we all know and loathe, when called on your £1,000 DAC sound bet. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation. You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not? Can you explain why you specifically do NOT want the levels equalised? Do you really not want the test to maximise your chances of actually hearing the difference? If you don't match levels, you are doing two things that are unhelpful - first you are making the test virtually impossible to perform, and second you are going to get a result which you can't trust. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Because the DAC is much quieter and I can identify it every time :-) Alan |
Older seperates vs new system
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:48:58 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote: Because the DAC is much quieter and I can identify it every time :-) Alan What do you mean by quieter - less background noise or less volume? If the volume is less, then in use you would compensate by turning the wick up a bit and end up with the same volume again. So to compare quality you would still need to equalise the sound levels. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Older seperates vs new system
If you have hands, the ability to use them and a spare moment you could
build a kit loudspeaker from the likes of Wilmslow or Falcon, IPL etc and have much better bang for the buck. |
Older seperates vs new system
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:22:24 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:01:07 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three won't do! Hiding behind equalisation again, Stew. It is and always has been an essential pre-requisite of any comparison - all good salesman know that.................. Alternatively, you are saying that you can achieve the sound of a $16,000 Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC just by advancing your volume control a tad. You can't have it both ways. Naturally, I knew you'd chicken out when actually called on your bull****. I can of course tell 20 out of 20 with the *same* DAC in circuit, but the volume boosted by 0.5dB in one case. It doesn't sound *louder*, it just sounds 'better', more dynamic, more detailed etc etc. This ain't rocket science, and it ain't new. The whole point of the notorious MF X-10D 'buffer' was that it boosted the signal by 10%, just enough to make sure that it sounded 'better', but not enough to make the trickery obvious. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Were you born boring, or did you have to work really hard at it? I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation. You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not? Stop lying, you simply said that you could tell the difference between the player and the DAC. I'm not talking about equalisation, I'm talking about the *volume* levels being the same. Any idiot (that would be you in this case) can tell the difference between two items which have different output levels. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Older seperates vs new system
I took my dog out for a walk.
While it was ****ing on Smeghead's leg, he seemed distracted by: If you have hands, the ability to use them and a spare moment you could build a kit loudspeaker from the likes of Wilmslow or Falcon, IPL etc and have much better bang for the buck. Once upon a time, that was true. -- Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes. |
Older seperates vs new system
I took my dog out for a walk.
While it was ****ing on Tat Chan's leg, he seemed distracted by: John Laird wrote: My next upgrade would be improving the conditions of my listening room. Contraception. It's too late now! -- Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes. |
Older seperates vs new system
Triffid wrote:
I took my dog out for a walk. While it was ****ing on Tat Chan's leg, he seemed distracted by: My next upgrade would be improving the conditions of my listening room. Contraception. It's too late now! ??????????????????????????? |
Older seperates vs new system
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:22:24 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:01:07 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three won't do! Hiding behind equalisation again, Stew. It is and always has been an essential pre-requisite of any comparison - all good salesman know that.................. Alternatively, you are saying that you can achieve the sound of a $16,000 Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC just by advancing your volume control a tad. You can't have it both ways. Naturally, I knew you'd chicken out when actually called on your bull****. I can of course tell 20 out of 20 with the *same* DAC in circuit, but the volume boosted by 0.5dB in one case. It doesn't sound *louder*, it just sounds 'better', more dynamic, more detailed etc etc. This ain't rocket science, and it ain't new. The whole point of the notorious MF X-10D 'buffer' was that it boosted the signal by 10%, just enough to make sure that it sounded 'better', but not enough to make the trickery obvious. Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Were you born boring, or did you have to work really hard at it? I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation. You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not? Stop lying, you simply said that you could tell the difference between the player and the DAC. I'm not talking about equalisation, I'm talking about the *volume* levels being the same. Any idiot (that would be you in this case) can tell the difference between two items which have different output levels. Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering You're not very bright, are you, Pinkie? I've placed my original question, earlier in this thread, below in quotes. Read this carefully and try not to mouth the words as you are reading them as this can inhibit understanding. ~~~~~~~~~~~ "Forget the cables. You'll no doubt be farting around balancing the output level to +/- 0.1 decibel to make the test impractical. I'll bet you an even £1000 that on my system, playing my music, I can tell the difference between a Technics CD player SL-PG490 alone, and the same player with a Meridian DAC 203 optically connected, in more than 67% instances." ~~~~~~~~~~~ That's simple enough isn't it? What is it that you don't understand? What is confusing you? Your crude and patronising approach to subtle audio differences, offering a paltry sum of money to take part in an A/B test that masks all but gross differences, is doing the industry a disservice and is as distasteful as snake oil, IMHO. Oh, and next time you accuse me of lying have the guts to say it to my face and not cowering behind a keyboard. Alan |
Older seperates vs new system
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
... On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:48:58 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy" wrote: Because the DAC is much quieter and I can identify it every time :-) Alan What do you mean by quieter - less background noise or less volume? If the volume is less, then in use you would compensate by turning the wick up a bit and end up with the same volume again. So to compare quality you would still need to equalise the sound levels. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Both, but I was just trying to make a point really, Don, about the difficulty of establishing proper procedures when testing sensory descrimination. In the visual field, with which I am familiar, very slight alterations in test procedure, such as seperating contiguous samples by a few mm or so can decrease discrimination of colour difference by an order of magnitude. Presenting the samples, in series, in A/B fashion, further greatly decreases discrimination depending on the time interval between viewings. The differences are still there of course but are masked by the method of testing. Resort to instrumentation is not helpful in judging differences below about 5 - 10 jnd's, depending on position in colour space, due to the acuity of the visual system. I suspect the same holds true for auditory differences. Alan |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:22 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk