Advice for Beginners....

[babadono]

22 hours ago, mark1101 said:

Take your equipment outside for an afternoon and hear what it really sounds like.

Where a horn loaded system will outshine others IMHO.

[Deang]

Zen, most newer HT receivers are grossly underpowered, unless you go to the higher dollar stuff. They'll claim something like 120 wpc with all channels driven, but when you do - the receiver shuts down. People with really large rooms and who want to play at THX levels on a consistent basis, will definitely want to invest in an external amplifier to power the front three channels. Heritage users can probably skirt this suggestion, Reference users can not. Remember, it's not just about wattage, but also about stability.

 

I think you missed the point of my post though. I was pointing out the inconsistency in the objectivist position.

[Khornukopia]

High quality sound systems tend to get turned up loud sometimes. A little extra power can be a good thing.

[ODS123]

32 minutes ago, Deang said:

Zen, most newer HT receivers are grossly underpowered, unless you go to the higher dollar stuff. They'll claim something like 120 wpc with all channels driven, but when you do - the receiver shuts down. People with really large rooms and who want to play at THX levels on a consistent basis, will definitely want to invest in an external amplifier to power the front three channels. Heritage users can probably skirt this suggestion, Reference users can not. Remember, it's not just about wattage, but also about stability.

 

I think you missed the point of my post though. I was pointing out the inconsistency in the objectivist position.

 

Can you point to a  present day affordable AVR or Stereo receiver that claims stability into 4 ohms that really isn't stable??  I think if an amp/receiver has a 4ohm rating it should be fine.

 

As an aside, In the some lofty Audiophile circles many will claim that an amp is ONLY stable if it doubles it's power into 4ohms.  This is ridiculous overkill and begs to be gamed.  ..To do this all a MFG has to do is understate it's 8ohm performance.   For example: If an amps puts out 120 watts into an 8 ohm load and 150 watts into a 4ohm load before exceeding audible levels of distortion, the manufacture just needs to give the amp a 75 watts rating into 8ohms, and voila!  An amp that doubles it's power into a 4ohm load.

 

To Beginners:

 

This obsession with amplifier stability is unnecessary.  See this from Andrew Jones, a highly respected speaker designer. 

 

https://www.cnet.com/news/how-to-stop-worrying-about-speaker-impedance/

[Khornukopia]

10 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

This obsession with amplifier stability is unnecessary.

 

I see that you have a McIntosh, so no worries for you.

 

 

Here is a quote from the above linked Andrew Jones article about speaker impedance;

 

"But even if you pushed the volume too high for a party the receiver/amp's protection circuits would likely shut down the receiver or amp before any damage was done."

 

Amp protection shut down can spoil the mood.

[Thaddeus Smith]

@ODS123, given the nature of your arguments, can I ask why you feel compelled to use a $6,500 (MSRP) McIntosh integrated amp in your system, especially when the Cornwalls are so efficient?

[Deang]

And this one:

 

"Four-ohm speakers are another story, they can place higher demands on 6 or 8-ohm rated receivers and amps' power reserves, but even those receivers/amps won't run into trouble with 4-ohm speakers, as long as you're not playing music or movies at a very loud volume."

 

Which is pretty much what I said.

 

A speaker can dip three or four times into the nether regions and still be rated as an "8 ohm loudspeaker", but trust me, most amplifiers will beg to differ.

[ODS123]

29 minutes ago, Thaddeus Smith said:

@ODS123, given the nature of your arguments, can I ask why you feel compelled to use a $6,500 (MSRP) McIntosh integrated amp in your system, especially when the Cornwalls are so efficient?

 

I bought the Mac b/c I love the look, the feel, and the feature set, including: wattage meters, mono, bass, treble, and level matching for all inputs.  Also, I've always liked the history and heritage of the brand (kinda like Klipsch) and the fact that their gear is (mostly) hand-built in small town in upstate NY.  I've lusted for a Mac amp for 20 years.   Now, It's my one extravagance.  ..I don't own a motorcycle, shore house, BMW, boat, etc..

 

I view Mac gear the way same way I view expensive watches.  Brands like Jaeger-LeCoultre & Rolex watches are admired for their  heirloom-like build quality.  But any objectivist will note that they don't keep better time than a Seiko.  ..Same w/ Mac gear.  It definitely feels better to the touch, has better features but I don't believe for minute that it sounds better than the NAD that preceded it.  That is, except for things like balance control linearity, noise-floor, cross-talk b/w inputs.  The Mac is better than any amp I've had in these respects, but these are non-factors when music is playing.  

 

I connected my Cornwalls to my Onkyo TX-NR1030 AVR while my Mac was being serviced and they sounded every bit as marvelous.

 

 

[Khornukopia]

4 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

… except for things like balance control linearity, noise-floor, cross-talk b/w inputs.  The Mac is better than any amp I've had in these respects, but these are non-factors when music is playing.

 

All the little things add up. Nothing wrong with wanting to get the best things we can, including amplifier stability.🙂

[Shakeydeal]

Quote

Can you point to a  present day affordable AVR or Stereo receiver that claims stability into 4 ohms that really isn't stable??  I think if an amp/receiver has a 4ohm rating it should be fine.

 

Even beginners shouldn't be buying AVRs or stereo receivers. Just insist that they don't..........

 

Shakey

[ODS123]

12 minutes ago, Deang said:

 

"Four-ohm speakers are another story, they can place higher demands on 6 or 8-ohm rated receivers and amps' power reserves, but even those receivers/amps won't run into trouble with 4-ohm speakers, as long as you're not playing music or movies at a very loud volume."

 

 Hence, his recommendation to buy an amp/AVR rated for 4ohms if you have 4ohm speakers. .  ..There are many affordable ones.  ..My Onkyo TX-NR1030 is rated 4-16ohms and even shows a short-burst rating for 3ohms.   My point is that people cite amplifier power ratings as the reason for turning amplifier selection into something of a wine-tasting exercise and it shouldn't. 

[Deang]

No need to get into another discussion about power. I mean, you guys can, but I'm really bored with that one.

 

We were talking about SQ, and what people hear and what they can't, etc. People are just going to come down on opposite sides of this one. It's an old argument, and it's also become boring. :-)

[Dave A]

On 11/5/2018 at 1:38 PM, mark1101 said:

What I would say to a beginner is to go and listen to a few systems before buying anything.  Learn about equipment.  Hang with someone that you can learn from and that can explain differences in what you are hearing.

 

Take your equipment outside for an afternoon and hear what it really sounds like.

 Combine this with Chris A's advice and go hear what he recommends in person somewhere. Listen to other systems before buying although I never followed that advice it is wise to do so when you decide to find what you really want.  Go for the ones who are serious about the quality of sound and not looky what I have alphabet soup of overpriced name dropping stuff first and then sound.  Just my opinion of course. I fully intend to incorporate some of what Chris says to do when I get my Super MWM's built and seek for things to go on top of it like 402's. If you are willing to build and have the space you can have truly remarkable sound for less than $6,000 even if you have to buy the K-402's new.

  I heard some Jubilees at Cory's a while back. None of the La Scala, Khorn etc stuff even comes close and you have to get up to at least KP-456's to rival it.

[robert_kc]

My recommendation to beginner audiophiles coming to this forum for advice. 

 

Summary

• Be prepared to read (and hopefully consider with an open mind) significantly different opinions.  
• You must define the goals for your home hi-fi system.  (No one else can do this for you.)
• Understand the concept of garbage-in / garbage-out.
• Think about your priorities and constraints.  (No one else can define these for you.)
• Think about whether you wish to have hi-fi as a hobby.  (Some people don’t – they just want to enjoy music.)
• My Advice:  Listen with your own ears. 

 

Details

 

Be prepared to read significantly different opinions.

  

Here’s an example where opinions differ:   I disagree with the assertion that amplifiers don’t matter.  I own 24 tube amps (all restored and in good working condition), plus several solid-state amps, and they all sound different.  (And many more amps have come and gone from my systems over the last 45 years – and they all sounded different.) 

 

Let me hasten to add that undoubtedly speakers make the biggest difference in the sound quality of a hi-fi system (assuming good quality recordings and electronics).  However, I disagree that speakers account for 99.9% of the sound quality of a home hi-fi system – I think this is an exaggeration.  (I’m amazed that some people who spend significant time and money in this hobby refuse to consider high-quality hi-res recordings.  More on this later in the section titled:  “Understand the concept of garbage-in / garbage-out”.)

 

IME “synergy” between amps and speakers is real – not “audiophoolery”.  (Even if technologists can’t explain why.)   It seems to me that this synergy is particularly important for Klipsch speakers, when it’s sometimes necessary to “tame” the high frequencies.  For me the concept of “module independence from other modules” sounds somewhat interesting, but I’m more interested in the final sound – and synergy between amps and speakers IME cannot be denied.

 

View the youtube videos about “audiophools” with a healthy dose of skepticism.   (The smirks on some of the panelists’ faces – and their glee at tricking people with contrived tests - reveal their lack of objectivity, and their lack of professionalism.  IMO.)   There have been many debates about these videos which I won’t rehash.   Suffice it to say that many people disagree with some of what is said in these videos. 

 

$64k question:  Do you think (and listen) for yourself, or do you tend to believe “experts” who claim to have all the answers? 

 

If testing methodologies (such as double-blind listening tests) interest you, then I suggest that you educate yourself.   (FYI, developing and administering “objective” audio listening tests is much more complicated than a newbie might imagine.  This endeavor is fraught with problems.)

 

Recognize that people have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound.  (Some people are sensitive to spatial presentation.  Some focus on reproducing the natural timbre of a violin, or other natural instrument.   I’ve heard people talk about the “rhythm” of a hi-fi system.   I’ve heard people whose main criteria was how a brush sounds on a cymbal.   Some want the full dynamics of a large-scale orchestra.  Some want the deepest pedal notes of a pipe organ.  Some want extremely loud rock music, with little regard for audio quality.)   And, people have different priorities.   (More regarding priorities below.)  Disagreement is common is this field, and disagreements sometimes involve fundamental (and IMO interesting) conflicts between subjectivity and objectivity.

 

Recognize fallacious arguments, such as “hasty-generalizations” and “straw-man arguments”.   If you decide that you can hear a difference in a component, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re an “audiophool”, or that you’ve been duped by a “snake oil salesman”, or that you’re guilty of expectation bias.

 

I suggest that one component (e.g., speakers) cannot deliver top-quality in-home reproduction of music, without all components being reasonably high-quality – including electronics – and particularly including the recording.  (This does not necessarily mean the most expensive.)

 

Bottom line regarding “differing opinions”:  You must decide what’s best for you.

 

Each person must define the goals for their home hi-fi system.

 

Would a new hi-fi system be used for listening to music, and/or watching movies? 

 

What is your relationship to music? 

• What types of music do you listen to? 
• Will you use the hi-fi system for background listening at a low level?
• Will you use the hi-fi system for serious listening (i.e., sitting down and intently listening) to music?
• How loud do you like to listen?  How large is your listening room?
• Is your goal to reproduce the natural timbre of orchestral instruments at reasonable sound levels in an average size room?   For a string quartet?  For Mahler’s Symphony No. 2?   Do you want to reproduce the lowest pedal notes of a pipe organ?  Or, is your goal to put a “heavy metal” band in your living room playing at levels that might cause hearing damage?  Achieve sound reproduction that is so natural sounding that you’re drawn into the music?  Or, recreate a buffalo stampede in your listening room?   “Rattle the windows” while showing off your system to your friends?

For classical music, there is a clear benchmark for audio quality.   I want what I’m hearing from my hi-fi system to sound like what I heard in the symphony hall or opera house - where no electronics are used – no sound reinforcement – the sound is 100% natural.   FWIW, I attend more than 20 live classical music concerts a year – ranging from chamber music to large-scale orchestra and opera – and this forms the basis for how I evaluate the sound of my hi-fi systems.   (In other words, this is how my ears are “calibrated”.)   And, I want any deviations from a live performance to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant.  I don’t care very much about what technical specifications or graphs say.  IMO a few technical specs don’t directly correlate to enjoyable reproduced music - at least for the classical music that I love.

 

I regard my hi-fi systems as being “dialed in” when I completely forget about the equipment, and lose track of time, and become completely engrossed in the music, and I can listen for hours without “listener fatigue”.    I regard my hi-fi systems as being “dialed in” when I feel like I’m in the symphony hall, or opera house (or other venue for chamber music, such as a church) - which involve 100% natural sound - no sound reinforcement system – no electronics – no sound board operator to “muck up” the music. 

 

OTOH, for at least some pop music there is no such benchmark.   For some pop music there never was a live performance (i.e., sound was produced by different musicians performing in different studios at different times and was electronically cobbled together).   Some pop music involves electronically generated sounds and/or electronically altered sounds.   Many pop recordings are severely compressed, so that they can be heard in noisy environments (like a car), and so that they stand out on the radio.  It seems to me that the concept of “high fidelity” reproduction has little meaning for such recordings. 

 

How do you “faithfully reproduce” sounds that were electronically cobbled together, unless you were at the mixing console or DAW (I’m not an expert) when the pop recording was electronically created, and you remember what the studio monitors sounded like?   What does “accuracy” mean for such pop music?   If you tune your speakers/room to “flat” frequency response, what relevance does this have to what the producers heard through their studio monitors when mastering a pop recording?  Were their studio monitors “flat”?  If you want to hear what the producers heard, wouldn’t you need an EQ profile for the specific recording studio that produced the pop recording?   (I suppose that if you own the same studio monitors that were used during mastering, and the same amp, and your room’s acoustics are very similar to the room where the recording was mastered, you could argue that you are hearing what the producers heard when they mixed and mastered the pop recording.)  In other words, for many genres of popular music it may be difficult to pin down what the music was “supposed to” sound like to begin with.   (Do you know what a particular electronic synthesizer is “supposed” to sound like?   Do you know what pop music is “supposed to” sound like if it’s been deliberately distorted and compressed?  What is the “real sound” of such music, and what is the meaning of “high fidelity” reproduction of such recordings in the home?)  

 

IMO, for some pop music, the concept of “accurate reproduction” is meaningless – and you might as well choose whatever recordings and home hi-fi configuration sounds good to you.  I want to be clear – I respect the fact that different people like different music.  With that said, if your goal is to blast vintage heavy-metal music or EDM (I had to google that one), then I’d imagine that the quality of the electronics probably won’t matter much.  How can you determine if the sound you’re hearing in your home is how it’s “supposed to sound”?   To each their own. 

 

OTOH, for someone who wants to build a hi-fi system to play recorded music that involves natural instruments that perform music live in a real space (e.g., classical, opera, some jazz, some big-band, some folk music, some blues, etc.), then that involves different challenges.   For example, the challenge of reproducing the timbre of natural instruments.   We know what a violin sounds like.  We know how a trumpet sounds.  We know how an oboe sounds.  We know how a double bass sounds.   Some of these natural instruments have complex sounds – and when many such instruments play together in an orchestra – the sound is extremely complex.   Moreover, someone who has never heard a large-scale orchestra perform classical music in a symphony hall might be amazed at the power and the dynamic range.   Bottom line:  We know what a string quartet sounds like - and we know what a symphony orchestra sounds like (recognizing some variance in hall acoustics).  For a classical music lover (and people who listen to other music that involves natural instruments), there is a clear benchmark for how recorded music should sound when reproduced in our home. 

 

Consider these questions:  What is meant by “accuracy” in sound reproduction?  What is meant by “true high-fidelity audio”?  (I have several late 1930’s TOTL tube radios that are “High Fidelity”.   It says so right on the front.)   What is meant by the suggestion that there is a difference between something that you “imagine” that you hear vs. something that is “real”?   Does science currently understand every aspect of human hearing as it relates to the enjoyment of music?   (I don’t think so.)   Do technologists have tests and specs that define every aspect of human enjoyment of music?    (I don’t think so.)   And most importantly:  What is your benchmark for the quality of sound you are hearing from your home hi-fi system?   (Someone else’s benchmark may not be relevant to the music you listen to, and may not be relevant based on your priorities.)  

 

Ask yourself:  For the recorded music you will listen to via your home hi-fi system, are you concerned with achieving sound quality that is “musical”, or are you concerned with a theoretical definition of “accurate”?  Does someone else’s definition of “accurate” make sense to you?  

 

Once you’ve defined your goal, how do you achieve your goal?   Do you rely on your ears or do you rely on PC software and graphs?  (Various approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.)

 

Understand the concept of garbage-in / garbage-out

 

The availability of true hi-res (e.g., 24bit/192kHz PCM, or DSD) recordings varies by genre.    By “true hi-res” I mean recordings with hi-res provenance, i.e., originally recorded and mastered in hi-res  - NOT Redbook CD (16bit/44.1kHz) converted to a FLAC file.

 

Because I like classical music, opera, and occasionally ballet, then SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, plus downloaded hi-res (24bit/192kHz) FLAC, and DSD are all relevant.   New performances of these genres are routinely captured and offered in hi-res formats, usually featuring multi-channel (5.0 or 5.1), and sometimes featuring audio/video.  

 

Your hi-fi system will never sound good if you use low quality recordings (e.g., highly compressed digital downloads, and/or poorly made recordings).   CDs can sound good.  Whether hi-res is worthwhile for you is something only you can decide.  I suggest that a newbie consider this question:    Why spend a large amount of money on hi-fi gear if you’ll be playing poor quality recordings?  

 

Think about your priorities and constraints.

 

Money:  Some people can’t afford to spend any money, and are looking for discarded equipment, or donations from family or friends.  For some people, it’s all about the “thrill of the hunt” (e.g., when they “score” used equipment at a yard sale or the local thrift store).  OTOH, some people spend more than $100,000 on their hi-fi system.  Like many consumer products, there are dramatically diminishing returns beyond the price point associated with a high-value good-quality product.  You must decide how much money you are willing to spend.

 

Time:   How much time are you willing to invest in the process of defining your needs, learning, researching products and services, shopping (possibly including driving to brick-and-mortar stores and auditioning systems), installing, fine-tuning, maintaining, etc.

 

Architecture / home decorating / aesthetics 

• Do you want all equipment built-in or hidden (e.g., speakers, amps)?
• Can you conveniently run wires?
• Are you willing to have large floor-standing speakers?  How large?  (I wish I had room for Jubilee or Klischorn, but I don’t.  Tower speakers fit my living spaces.  I own Palladium, RF-7II, and other tower speakers.)  
• Are you willing to install acoustical panels on walls and/or ceilings and/or corners?  (Rugs might benefit a room that has “live” acoustics because of hard floors.)   It depends on your priorities.   Some people put foam panels on the walls of their listening room.   Other people put paintings or family photos on their walls. 
• Equipment aesthetics are a personal choice.  Some guys put flat-black painted speakers in their “man cave”.  Some people want traditional style speakers with only the finest furniture-grade veneers.  Some people want contemporary style. 
• Have you seen equipment (e.g., turntable, amp, or speakers) that you think looks cool?  (E.g., the glow of vacuum tubes in a darkened listening room.   Or ,“blue eyes” meters on a McIntosh amp.   Or the look of a vintage “silver faced” receiver with numerous knobs and buttons.)

 

Think about whether you wish to have hi-fi as a hobby.

 

To me, there are potentially 2 fundamental facets to hi-fi:  enjoying music, and tinkering around with hi-fi.   Of course, these are not mutually exclusive.

 

For people who enjoy tinkering around with hi-fi, there are many ways to enjoy the hobby (many sub-facets), including, but not limited to:

• Some spend many hours focusing on LPs, or reel-to-reel tapes. 
• Some enjoy cataloging and editing metadata for huge collections of digitized music, and seeking the most beautiful GUI interface, and building playlists, etc.
• Some are into digital networking, accessing all their music throughout their home by using their smartphone, and accessing their music from anywhere in the world.
• Some people are interested in vacuum tube technology, and enjoy tube rolling.  
• Some people enjoy using calibrated microphones to measure and plot the sound in their room, and use DSP based gizmos to adjust frequency and delay, and use separate amps for each driver.
• Some people are interested in DIY (e.g., building your own speakers based on on-line plans, or building an amplifier from a kit, or restoring old gear).
• Etc.

Some people aren’t only looking for the most efficient or effective means to increase their sound quality.  They’re also looking to have fun in the process. 

 

My Advice:  Listen with your own ears. 

 

My opinion:  Don’t rely on “experts” to tell you what is best for you.  Rely on your ears and your brain.

 

Either you’re moved by the music being reproduced by your hi-fi system, or not.   IME, technical specifications (or plotted graphs) can’t completely predict or explain your visceral response to what you hear.  (FWIW, I have a science and technology background – for more than 45 years – so I’m NOT anti-science.)   Science is, of course, essential in the development and testing of electronic equipment.  However, IMO, acceptable technical specs represent a necessary though not sufficient condition for good sound quality from a hi-fi system.  IME, part of achieving excellent sound quality from a hi-fi system involves some “seat of the pants” judgements and decisions vs. relying strictly on instrumentation.

 

One of the most challenging aspects of the hobby of hi-fi these days is the limited number of retail showrooms where you can listen to equipment.  If you are respectful and professional in your postings on a forum such as this, another forum member with similar interests might invite you into their home to hear their equipment.  (I’ve done this once.  I was glad to have a husband and wife – both classical musicians – come to my home and listen to a variety of speakers and amps and recordings (including hi-res and CDs) – and I think it was useful to them.)

 

Final Thoughts

 

I suggest that you ask for recommendations for speakers and amps from people with similar tastes in music, who have similar room size, similar listening preferences, and similar budget.   However, you must listen for yourself.   Only one opinion matters regarding sound quality:  yours.  The debate about what different people hear in reproduced music will never be settled.   Pick the system that sounds best to you, and when you must make compromises, then choose the trade-offs that suit you best. 

 

My experience:   Klipsch speakers and tube amps go together like peanut butter and jelly.   (Except that IMO sometimes a solid-state amp does a better job of delivering the sharp attack of a grand piano.)   Each audiophile must decide if a tube amp or solid-state is best for them.   On one hand, a tube amp with point-to-point wiring is repairable, OTOH occasionally tubes may need to be replaced.  

 

Each audiophile must decide if hi-res recordings, and/or CDs, and/or LPs suit them.

 

Here’s some specific examples:  When I listen in my TV room to my Klipsch Palladium P-37F and P-312W via my NAD C375BEE solid-state amp, my reaction is generally “that sounds good”.   OTOH, when I listen to these same Klipsch speakers via my McIntosh MC225 tube amp (directly connected to my Oppo UDP-205 playing hi-res classical recordings – i.e., no pre-amp or pre-processor), I am more likely to be “drawn into the music”, and I’m more likely to “get lost in the music”.   This configuration (Oppo UDP-205 direct to tube power amp) is a nice “minimalist system” – i.e., with the minimal amount of DSP “mucking around” with the music I love.   Do I agree that “DSP is the devil”?  I’ll say this:   DTS Neo:6 Mode in my UDP-205 is switched OFF.   My attitude generally is “keep your stinkin’ DSPs and PC software away from the classical music that I love”.   Is this naïve?  Were DSPs used during the mastering of some classical recordings?  I don’t know.   I do know that for some classical recordings, the producers claim that no DPSs were involved.   I believe in keeping things as simple as possible.   For hi-res digital recordings, IMO my Oppo UDP-205 directly connected to a tube power amp is as simple as possible.  

 

As I type this I’m listening to a hi-res recording (24bit/192kHz FLAC download) in my office of Beethoven Late String Quartets.  I began my listening via my NAD D 3020 Class D solid-state amp, and then switched to my Fisher 500C tube receiver, and then my Scott 299B tube amp.   I prefer the sound of the tube amps.  (On this particular recording, I preferred the Scott 299B and its 7189 output tubes.   However, on different music my choice in amps might be different.)  

 

When listening to classical music I sometimes find that solid-state amps sound “dry” compared to tube amps, and more importantly compared with what I remember hearing in the symphony hall.    And, IMO the “dry” sound of some solid-state amps is a form of distortion that is less appealing – and less musical – compared with the distortions introduced by my tube amps.  IMO all hi-fi equipment is like all creations of mankind – i.e., imperfect.  My advice:  Choose the imperfections that suit you.   I’m unconcerned with whether technologists can explain why a solid-state amp sounds “dry”.   I’m concerned with what sounds best to my ears, when listening to music that I like.

 

Regarding surround-sound audio/video, in my basement system I use an Oppo UDP-205 for surround-sound Blu-ray (some audio-only, some audio/video), and for SACD recordings of classical music and opera.  (There are many audio/video Blu-rays available for opera, ballet, and classical concerts that feature surround-sound.  There are some Pure Audio Blu-ray (i.e., audio only) discs that feature surround-sound.  And there are many multi-channel SACDs for classical music.)  I use tube amps to drive RF-7IIs for a 4.2 configuration (i.e., 2 powered subwoofers) in my basement system.  This system can deliver the full power – and natural sound – of what I remember hearing in the symphony hall.  

 

IMO, one thing is certain:  Your approach to hi-fi will likely vary based on the music you like, based on your goals, and based on your priorities and constraints.

[Zen Traveler]

2 hours ago, Deang said:

Zen, most newer HT receivers are grossly underpowered, unless you go to the higher dollar stuff. They'll claim something like 120 wpc with all channels driven, but when you do - the receiver shuts down. People with really large rooms and who want to play at THX levels on a consistent basis, will definitely want to invest in an external amplifier to power the front three channels. Heritage users can probably skirt this suggestion, Reference users can not. Remember, it's not just about wattage, but also about stability.

 

 

 

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 11:41 AM, Zen Traveler said:

 

Because $200 AVRs don't usually come close to delivering what they claim in the specs into a multispeaker configuration. The other thing is some Klipsch Speakers I have heard are closer to 4 to 6 Ohms instead of 8, which adds into the equation. Iow, some lower end units can't provide enough current to drive the speakers very loud before they start to distort. And lastly, the processors in upper end AVRs are better than in the lower ones. More Bells and whistles, which are a pretty good bang-for-your buck nowadays.  That's my take.

I also am not interested in getting into another one of these debates but outside of "definitely want to invest in an external map," is where we disagree. I will also add that not all AVRs are alike. In particular look at the Instruction manual and see what they say about running 4 Ohm speakers'--My Denon AVR-4311ci,  along with the THX Ultra II units I've owned were. Otoh, looking at  lower end AVRs I found they actually recommend NOT running 4 Ohms speakers all of the way around (and some not at all) in their setup instruction.  {Edit: Btw, I listen to multichannel music loud and often and have for almost 2 decades now without my AVR ever shutting down so I think I'm good. ;)} 

[JohnA]

On 11/3/2018 at 10:47 AM, Deang said:

Did you really just put amplifiers and CD players in the same sentence with wire?

 

The comparison was between a $200 Pioneer receiver and a pair of $14K Mark Levenson Mononlocks. The only thing revealed in that test was the inherent flaw in using DBT for audio.  

 

The only inherent bias in double-blind testing is the refusal to accept the results. 

 

The OP excessively reduced the impact of electronics on  the sound of an audio system, but compared to the effect of the devices that change the form of energy (electrical to mechanical, optical to electrical, digital to analog), most electrical components have a very small effect on sound.  Even then only the electrical to mechanical change far outweighs the other forms of energy transformation, i.e. speakers and phono cartridges. 

 

Dropping below a quality floor, that is exceedingly difficult to define, the difference in sound becomes obvious, sorta like that $200 Pioneer (any Pioneer, really) or any Blose device.  Excuses and finger pointing notwithstanding, the same applies above a level of quality.  It is difficult to imagine audible differences between a $4000 McIntosh power amp and $30,000 worth of Mark Levinson amps. 

[ODS123]

35 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

 

• My Advice:  Listen with your own ears. 

 

Yikes, that is one long and thoughtful contribution that I will admit I don't have time right now to read in it's entirety.   ..But I wholeheartedly agree the above that people should listen with their own ears.  However, I would add " ..But take measures to eliminate expectation bias."  ..which is real.  We have to remember the vast majority of people wanting a hifi system are not particularly interested in making their hifi purchase a years long work in progress.  They want to buy it, then spend years listening to it.

 

Let me relate a personal experience with Expectation Bias, one that led to a personal epiphany that much of what we hear is in our heads.  

 

Years ago I bought a Monster power conditioner to protect my expensive Bryston amp. Eagerly, I pulled the plug of the Bryston amp from the wall, and plugged it into the Monster.

 

Though I had long been very skeptical about the benefits of power conditioning I couldn’t help but wonder if I would hear a change.  To put it mildly, I was amazed by what I heard.  My amp sounded better in ways I couldn't quite articulate. The sound was smoother, cleaner and just more "right".  ..Just to make sure I wasn't imagining things, I switched back and fourth a couple times.  Yep, there was no mistaking it.  I decided to go back one last time, so I unplugged the amp.  ..And before plugging it back into the wall I was pulled away to do help my wife with something.  Returning to it, I decided to first switch on the TV to see how my man Federer was doing during the Wimbledon finals. I hit the TV power button and..... nothing.  Huh?? ..I tried again....  nothing.

 

Turns out, during the whole exercise..I wasn't switching the Bryston's power cord back and forth b/w the wall outlet and the Monster strip, I was switching the TV's.

 

Case in point: Expectation Bias is very powerful.  .It explains why Asthma patients who are given an inhaler w/ placebo medication in clinical trials experience a 30% reduction in symptoms.

 

[willland]

I am and have been for over 10 years with the camp that quality amplification is very cheap on the used market and the performance potential is well worth the $$$ spent.

 

For example.

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lis97916-b-k-st-1430-multi-channel-amps

 

 

 

Bill

[TubeHiFiNut]

3 hours ago, ODS123 said:

I connected my Cornwalls to my Onkyo TX-NR1030 AVR while my Mac was being serviced and they sounded every bit as marvelous

 

Confirming my understanding of your comment.

 

Are you saying that your Mac and your Onkyo sound the same? 😳

[ODS123]

1 hour ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

 

Confirming my understanding of your comment.

 

Are you saying that your Mac and your Onkyo sound the same? 😳

 

No, they don't sound the same in the following ways...  

• I can hear more channel crosstalk on the Onkyo.  When I play a dvd and switch to an unused input and turn the volume to max, I can hear the dvd bleeding ever so faintly into the unused input.  Dead silent on mac when doing same.
• When I lower the volume slowly, the right channel will go silent just before the left.  On the Mac,  both channels are perfectly balanced all the way to full attenuation..
• When I turn the Onkyo to a comparable volume and pause the source, I can hear a bit more hiss coming through the speakers than I do on the mac
• switching to Mono is a pain on the Onkyo (but doable which is more than I can say for many exotic pre-amps); it's a piece of cake on the mac.

There you have it.  3 ways in which the Mac sounds better.   ...But none of these are audible when listening to music at usual levels.  ..Not to me, or anyone in my family.  And my hearing is excellent for my age and my sense of musical nuance is honed from years of playing then decades of listening to live music - much of it acoustic, unamplified.  So, please, it's not my hearing

 

Look, I'm NOT GOING TO CONVINCE those who are already believe in the audibility and significance of differences w/ modern day amps.  But MAYBE I'll convince the beginners who come to this forum to regard those who hear differences w/ a bit of skepticism and will therefore ask that any two amps the compare be precisely volume matched and that they are blinded from which amp is being played.  ..And this same skepticism should be applied to interconnects, speaker cables, DACs, cd players, etc...