Help me with a $2000 hifi
Cam
I'm looking for a hifi
Speakers - probably bookshelf, Tannoy, B&W, Kef, Castle ?
CD Player - single, Denon ?
Amp or Reciever Denon, Marantz ?
for $2000AUD
Can anyone please give me your recommendations
brands & models & prices would be good
Any opionions welcome
Cameron James
ca...@ozemail.com.au
Ward Knust
wouldn't be spending more than about $800-$1000 on receiver, and that means
Sony 835 or 930, Yamaha 595a, or the like. Checkout VAF speakers (have to
demo off someone who's got them), DC7s will give you change out of a grand,
and you can probalby almost afford a DVD with the change if you go the
cheaper receiver.
Ward Knust
kn...@uq.net.au
"Cam" <cam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7gxR4.16110$PL4.3...@ozemail.com.au...
Cam
So if I spend
800 reciever
and a DVD will cost at least 600
Does that mean that VAF speakers are about 600 ?
"Ward Knust" <s34...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:8f7l65$5o5$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
Anthony Green
Well, if I was just starting out and had $2000 I'd be looking seriously
at Tannoy speakers. The Mercury and Revolution ranges are remarkably
good - particularly the bottom of the line "bookshelf" speakers which
perform way beyond their size & price (about $400 and up). I have the
Mercury M1 (the baby of the old range) speakers in my study/office
system with a Pioneer A-201 integrated amp and my old Marantz CD-63 CD
player. They work very well together - total price new would have been
about $1,200 for the lot.
I once hooked the M1s up to my main system as an experiment, and with
*really* nice equipment to back them up they perform magnificently.
There is a new range of Mercurys out now (MX range, I think) which have
improved features, but you should also be able to pick up remainders of
the old range on discount. I'd go for the new Mercury MX2 model, myself
- probably about $600-700?
That leaves about $700 to spend on each of the other components. I'd
consider Marantz, NAD & Rotel as good lower cost equipment, and possibly
Arcam or Cambridge Audio, if the budget stretches that far. Don't fear
partnering the small Tannoys with electronics twice their price - they
deserve it. The Marantz CD-67II CD player (which you should be able to
find for $500-700 I think) is a classic, and the Rotel RA-971 amplifier
(about the same or a little more) is outrageous value. Arcam &
Cambridge audio electronics may just be within your budget. Don't
forget to leave a bit for some reasonable speaker cable & interconnects
(say $100-150 for both), and stands if you will need them.
If you have a Tannoy dealer in your area the best thing is probably to
go along, tell the sales person exactly how much you have to spend and
what you'd like to listen to, find the speakers you like, and listen to
whatever electronics they have in the store in your price range (take a
couple of favourite CDs). If you are buying a whole package in one hit
most good dealers will do a bit of a discount deal, or throw in the
speaker cables or something to make the sale.
Hope this is of some use
TG
PS - If you don't feel impressed by the Tannoy bookshelf speakers they
may be fresh out of the box, I can assure you that they improve beyond
belief after 24 hours burn-in.
Angry of Mayfair
Anthony Green <aag...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:39180B29...@bigpond.com...
> Hi Cameron,
>
> Well, if I was just starting out and had $2000 I'd be looking seriously
> at Tannoy speakers. The Mercury and Revolution ranges are remarkably
> good
> PS - If you don't feel impressed by the Tannoy bookshelf speakers they
> may be fresh out of the box, I can assure you that they improve beyond
> belief after 24 hours burn-in.
I agree completely.
I have a pair of the Mercury 2.5's - (I think they were around $450) and
they sound sweet.
They do need a week to run them in before they sound the best...
I never really believed that until I experienced it for myself...
Check the VAF's too - I have no personal experience of them but a lot of
folks really like them. I think you might be struggling to get them within
your budget though.
GB
Michael
"Cam" <cam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZNTR4.18898$PL4.4...@ozemail.com.au...
> mmm
> So if I spend
> 800 reciever
> and a DVD will cost at least 600
> Does that mean that VAF speakers are about 600 ?
>
>
>
>
> "Ward Knust" <s34...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:8f7l65$5o5$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> > Might be pushing it a bit there mate with your budget. For a 2k system,
I
> > wouldn't be spending more than about $800-$1000 on receiver, and that
> means
> > Sony 835 or 930, Yamaha 595a, or the like. Checkout VAF speakers (have
to
> > demo off someone who's got them), DC7s will give you change out of a
> grand,
> > and you can probalby almost afford a DVD with the change if you go the
> > cheaper receiver.
> >
> > Ward Knust
> > kn...@uq.net.au
> > "Cam" <cam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7gxR4.16110$PL4.3...@ozemail.com.au...
Cam
Any advise on the Amp versus Reciever versus AV Reciever question !
Some also say that any old CD player will do the job and spend the money on
speakers.
Its sooo confusing !
"Angry of Mayfair" <pla...@xspambigpond.com> wrote in message
news:8X0S4.7825$X4.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Cam
Any thoughts on Amp Reciever or on CD Players ?
"Michael" <quadh...@hotmail.comNOHAM> wrote in message
news:YJ4S4.16409$v85.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Anthony Green
> Any advise on the Amp versus Reciever versus AV Reciever question !
Go for a plain integrated amplifier. With a limited budget I'd prefer to spend
well on simpler components and buy quality, rather than diluting the system by
trying to pack in as many features/functions as possible. Modern receivers are
fine, but modern amps are better (IMHO). You can always add a reasonable second
hand tuner later on at not very much expense.
> Some also say that any old CD player will do the job and spend the money on
> speakers.
NO! NO! DON'T DO IT!
It is important for all the components to be of equivalent quality, otherwise
you WILL hear the deficiencies in any one part.
Spend the same amount on the amp & CD player, and make the savings by going for
good quality bookshelf speakers rather than blowing the budget on big hefty
looking floorstanders. Otherwise your beautiful speakers and nice amp will
simply let you hear (in glorious stereo) just how lousy your CD player is.
Truly - all CD players are most definitely NOT the same!
Don't dismiss good quality bookshelf speakers because you may be after lots of
bass response, either. Most bookshelf/stand mounted speakers will have flat
response down to 100-150Hz, and roll off sharply after that (which is exactly
the right thing for them to do). You will still get plenty of tight, punchy
bass - just don't expect the floor to shake.
> Its sooo confusing !
But so satisfying in the end :^)
Take your time & listen to lots of systems. Try to hear the difference & work
out what you like.
Cheers,
TG
Anthony Green
> ... They do need a week to run them in before they sound the best...
> I never really believed that until I experienced it for myself...
It is remarkable, isn't it. I've heard speakers "burn-in" before, but never
so dramatically as the Tannoys. On day one they were like nasty,
constipated cardboard boxes - after a week of playing them for a few
hours every day they were transformed into sweet, punchy, tight little
music makers.
You know, there has been an argument going on over in
rec.audio.high-end for about a week now about whether or not
speakers really burn in!
Amazing - some people seem to be so busy looking at their
oscilloscopes that they never bother to listen to their stereos.
Cheers
TG
Michael
because I have one :) (might be pretty close to the price of a 930 from
someone like Trevor Lees) and everyone in aus.dvd swears by the pioneer 525
dvd player (700 bucks). I was on a limited budget too and with progressive
scan and dvd audio players coming out I got a dvd rom and videologic decoder
for my pc instead. When I bought them it was $175 for pioneer 10x and $170
for the decoder. Of course if your pc isn't near your TV or you don't have
a spare, this doesn't help much.....
"Cam" <cam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r7aS4.20627$PL4.4...@ozemail.com.au...
Michael
digital outs to my receiver. If your cd player has a digital out your amp
uses its DAC and I think this is where the 'doesn't matter what cd player
you get' comes in to play.
"Anthony Green" <aag...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:391939C4...@bigpond.com...
> Hi,
Patrick Scully
> Hi Angry,
>
> > ... They do need a week to run them in before they sound the best...
> > I never really believed that until I experienced it for myself...
>
> It is remarkable, isn't it. I've heard speakers "burn-in" before, but
never
> so dramatically as the Tannoys. On day one they were like nasty,
> constipated cardboard boxes - after a week of playing them for a few
> hours every day they were transformed into sweet, punchy, tight little
> music makers.
Another false 'prophet' spreading total rubbish again. There is no such
thing as 'speaker' burn in, or wire burn in, or 'anything else' burnin in
the context of electronics. This term originated from the integrated
circuit/component encapsulation industry, where components were indeed
'burnt in'.
But the purpose of this was to accelerate the initial aging of the
components, that period represented by the 'bathtub' curve when the vast
majority of components fail. The acceleration was enhanced by heating the
components to their design limits, hence "burnin". so please stop with this
rubbish here.
>
> You know, there has been an argument going on over in
> rec.audio.high-end for about a week now about whether or not
> speakers really burn in!
This has been going on for years, and continues because as P.T.Barnum is
alleged to have said "there's one born every minute", sucker, that is. So
the scientists, engineers and technicians who really DO know what they are
talking about do us all a favour by continuing to deal with the phony
science purveyed by unscrupulous people!
> Amazing - some people seem to be so busy looking at their
> oscilloscopes that they never bother to listen to their stereos.
Yes it is true, a good many of the scientists, engineers and techies are
frequently too busy looking at their instruments to bother listening to
their stereos. But when they finish with looking at the instruments they DO
bother to listen to their MUSIC, some thing which I recommend ALL people
like you who "listen to their stereos" do instead.
Really, you don't know what you are missing!
--
regards
Patric Scully
The Sound Man
Mal P
tell is all ;-)
Mal, who's never broken anything.
--
Cheerio,
Mal
"Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
news:3919...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
Dale
looking at nad or rotel for amplification, even good second would be good.
there are probably other good oz or british amps out there you could source
with a limited budget.
cheers
dale
Remarkabel
If you are willing to shop second hand and are willing to take some time you
could probably pick up a Rotel or NAD pre/power combo for about $800 (maybe
less - I've seen them for less) which would be money very well spent. About
$400 on a NAD, Rotel or Marantz CD player leaves you $800 approx for speakers
cables and stands (if you go the stand mount option). If you don't want to
spend as much on amplification go for a good two channel integrated amp. Second
hand $500 should get you something pretty darn good from Rotel, Marantz or NAD.
My advice, do not think of buying a receiver or AV receiver if you main
motivation is quality sound. You will be paying for a lot of features that you
don't need and which add nothing to sound quality. If, however you feel you
want and the features that these receivers provide by all means go that route.
As an aside I only run two channels and run my HT through them. Many people are
amazed that the sound is only coming from two speakers. Two channels, well set
up and thoughtfully put together can give a very good impression of surround
sound. I would argue that at any budget money well spent on two channels will
sound better than a multi channel system (IMVHO of course) - obviously you will
not have acces to the discreet channels on DVD for instance - only the two
channel mixed down version but two channels can still sound soooo good. I,
personally would rather hear two very good channels rather than 3, 4, 5 or more
lesser channels.
All my own opinions of course, good luck and as Patric says elsewhere in this
thread, listen to the music NOT the system. If it's the other way around your
system is not right.
Cheers,
Mark
Cam wrote:
> Thanks
>
> Any advise on the Amp versus Reciever versus AV Reciever question !
> Some also say that any old CD player will do the job and spend the money on
> speakers.
>
> Its sooo confusing !
>
> "Angry of Mayfair" <pla...@xspambigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:8X0S4.7825$X4.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
> > Anthony Green <aag...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:39180B29...@bigpond.com...
> > > Hi Cameron,
> > >
> > > Well, if I was just starting out and had $2000 I'd be looking seriously
> > > at Tannoy speakers. The Mercury and Revolution ranges are remarkably
> > > good
> >
> >
> > > PS - If you don't feel impressed by the Tannoy bookshelf speakers they
> > > may be fresh out of the box, I can assure you that they improve beyond
> > > belief after 24 hours burn-in.
> >
> > I agree completely.
> > I have a pair of the Mercury 2.5's - (I think they were around $450) and
> > they sound sweet.
> > They do need a week to run them in before they sound the best...
> > I never really believed that until I experienced it for myself...
> >
Anthony Green
I'll make one reply post & then drop the matter as I don't see the value of
discussing this, you make several incorrect assumptions about my previous post
which need to be addressed. I would not have bothered at all but for the
arrogant tone of your response.
Patrick Scully wrote:
> Another false 'prophet' spreading total rubbish again. There is no such
> thing as 'speaker' burn in, or wire burn in, or 'anything else' burnin in
> the context of electronics. This term originated from the integrated
> circuit/component encapsulation industry, where components were indeed
> 'burnt in'.
I do not consider myself a prophet and made no mention of any qualifications
or professional experience to support my opinion - I was expressing a personal
viewpoint.
I also made no mention of electrical components, cabling or whatever else
burning in. My comments were concerned solely with loudspeakers.
> But the purpose of this was to accelerate the initial aging of the
> components, that period represented by the 'bathtub' curve when the vast
> majority of components fail. The acceleration was enhanced by heating the
> components to their design limits, hence "burnin". so please stop with this
> rubbish here.
I am perfectly aware of the industry use of the term "burn-in", thank you, and
of its meaning. I was not using that jargon term out of context.
> This has been going on for years, and continues because as P.T.Barnum is
> alleged to have said "there's one born every minute", sucker, that is. So
> the scientists, engineers and technicians who really DO know what they are
> talking about do us all a favour by continuing to deal with the phony
> science purveyed by unscrupulous people!
I do not believe I made any "phony science" statement in my post. Merely the
assertion that a specific pair of speakers sounded different after a week's
worth of use, and that I have noticed this phenomenon previously.
> > Amazing - some people seem to be so busy looking at their
> > oscilloscopes that they never bother to listen to their stereos.
>
> Yes it is true, a good many of the scientists, engineers and techies are
> frequently too busy looking at their instruments to bother listening to
> their stereos. But when they finish with looking at the instruments they DO
> bother to listen to their MUSIC, some thing which I recommend ALL people
> like you who "listen to their stereos" do instead.
Thank you for proving my point. Let me make the situation perfectly clear.
There are some aspects of audio about which opinions arise which are either
unsubstantiated, counter to received electro-magnetic theory, or formed on no
empirical basis whatsoever. I'm sure you would agree. There have been many
examples of snake-oil salesmen purveying products of dubious merit on the
grounds that they will make a magical change to an audio installation. Magic
is the key word here - change being wrought without causal connection, usually
in the mind of the consumer. Unfortunately many of these products are
expensive and have widely accepted brand names.
There are also opinions based upon certainty but which cannot be
substantiated by evidence, whether it is in the form of experimental data or
the evidence of observation taken under objective conditions. Frequently
these opinions employ the terminology of electro-magnetic or
electro-mechanical theory to support their veracity, however the so called
"evidence" is usually not replicable, making the claims worthless.
(You see, we actually agree).
However, leaving aside the loony frontiers of hi-fi dementia, there are some
observations which have been made repeatedly by different observers, at
different times and in different conditions but with the same equipment. The
phenomenom of a new pair of loudspeakers "breaking-in", "burning-in",
"wearing-in", "warming-up" or whatever else you want to call it is one of
these.
Obviously, many such claims are based on false interpretations of the
phenomenon. In some cases a pair of speakers simply sounds different to a
previous pair, and the listener takes a few days to adjust to the new
equipment. Also, the listener may actually not like the new speakers but
having spent so much on them tries to accommodate the new sound by
rationalising it as "better" - this process also takes a few days. Again,
there may be no difference at all, but the listener (wishing to justify their
purchase and taste) convinces themselves that something is improving (a
variety of placebo effect). In all these situations the perceived change in
sound is subtle and elusive - with good reason, it just isn't there.
BUT - there are also situations in which a completely new pair of speakers
(and I mean really new - fresh out of the box and never used) will exhibit an
obviously different sound after a short period of use. The reason is very
simple. With speakers we are not dealing with only electrical components -
speaker drivers move, and any piece of equipment which uses moving parts will
exhibit change over time due to mechanical effects upon those parts. Cone
fibres and rubber or plastic surrounds will soften (VERY slightly) due to
flexing, the voice coil and spider assembly will "relax" (VERY slightly) due
to extremely small but definite stresses, etc.
This is undeniable, if you try to deny it you are saying that a material can
be acted upon by a mechanical force perpetually without change, and that is
impossible.
Speakers "break-in". The "break-in" time may take hours, days, weeks - maybe
only minutes or even seconds - but it happens because it is a simple result of
use. The extent of the "wearing-in" is also variable - some speakers may
change greatly, others may change so slightly that it cannot be perceived.
Some may be fully "burnt-in" by the time they leave the factory, and never
exhibit such behaviour in a purchaser's home. There is nothing mystical about
this - it is a simple thing which occurs with all mechanical devices.
Or are you trying to tell us that loudspeakers are in some way magically
different from all other physical mechanisms?
My original comments referred to a specific pair of Tannoy M1 loudspeakers,
fresh out of the box and with no prior use, which when connected to electrical
components of known performance, in a known acoustic environment, initially
sounded terrible. So terrible in fact that I considered returning them to the
shop and exchanging them for something else. My wife (a concert oboeist) also
commented on the poor sound of the speakers - she has no interest in hi-fi,
but compared them unfavourably to the little Sony bookshelf speakers she has
in her studio.
I didn't get around to taking the speakers back, and continued to use them for
a few days - about a week later I noticed that the sound was somehow "better"
than at first. This was not inspired by intent listening, or looking for
change to support my purchase. Neither was it a vague "gee, I *think* that
sounds better", but a definite "Wow, I can't believe this!". My wife, who had
been away on business for that week, commented on the sound when she returned,
saying something like what had I done to make the study system sound so much
better - had I taken the speakers back after all?
This wasn't wishful thinking, or a placebo effect. It was a simple, audible,
obvious improvement to the sound - the most obvious such change I have ever
heard.
And that is exactly (and all) that I said in my post - a post which was made
in response to someone else's identical comments about the same component.
I have heard many, many pairs of speakers over the last 40 years and can
remember about half a dozen at most which displayed clear and undeniable
"burn-in" (or whatever you want to call it). The Tannoy M1s of which I wrote
have been the most recent and dramatic example of this.
I have spent a good deal of my long association with both professional and
domestic audio equipment (as a technician and recording engineer) using test
equipment, and have designed and constructed solid state amplification and
studio loudspeakers. But I also know when to stop and listen to the music,
both that made by equipment as well as live performances, and to accept the
irrefutable evidence presented to my ears when it is obvious that a change of
belief is necessary in the face of new facts.
> Really, you don't know what you are missing!
No, I can't imagine anything that I am missing.
TG
Philip Vafiadis
equipment, some speaker parameters DEFINITELY change with running in. Please
see data below.
Over 10% shift in resonant frequency and Qts is easily measurable and not
the result of some 'suckers' imagination.
Results of detailed running in.
Driver: Excel W21EX001
Manufacturer: SEAS Fabrikker AS Norway
Serial #: 2/00-50 and 2/00-48
Manufactured: February 2000
Overview.
Tests were conducted to qualify the existence of, and/or quantify the
magnitude of, changes in electroacoustic parameters of a loudspeaker driver
over time.
The aim of the test described herein was to measure the parameters of a new
driver, by impedance measurement and analysis, and compare them with the
same parameters measured after specified periods of 'running in' with a
suitable test signal. The results were then examined for evidence of time
related changes.
No attempt was made in this test to examine the parametric behaviour over
long time scales. This will be done in another series of tests to accurately
establish the existence or otherwise of such long term changes.
No attempt was made to examine the relative effects of different 'running
in' waveforms.
Test Conditions.
Tests were conducted in VAF Research anechoic chamber, solely for the
purpose of noise isolation. No acoustic measurements were taken. The Drivers
were suspended asymmetrically in free air at least 600mm from the nearest
(heavily absorptive) surface.
Temperature was controlled at 21degrees C +/- 2degrees as dictated by the
thermostat hysteresis of the airconditioning system.
Test signals.
The 'running in' signal was generated using proprietary VAF signal
generating software. The signal comprised a swept sine wave from 10Hz-100Hz
with a sweep time of 1 second. This was applied to the drivers at a level of
4 Volts p-p (2 Volts peak, 1.414 Volts RMS, approx 0.25 Watts). This level
was selected arbitrarily because it results in significant excursion of the
driver cone (approx +/- 2mm) at the lowest frequencies but does not approach
the maximum linear excursion of the driver (specified by SEAS as +/- 6mm).
The impedance measurement waveform was generated by a proprietary MLS
Measurement System and constituted a low frequency MLS signal sampled at
1.9kHz. This was applied at a level of 4 Volts p-p. Impedance measurement
bandwidth was 10Hz - 200Hz. No smoothing or windowing was applied.
The resonant frequency Fs was taken to be the frequency at which the
impedance phase angle passed through 0 degrees.
This method has been verified to our satisfaction in comparison with manual
swept sine wave tests and commercial MLS impedance measurements.
It has the advantage of exposing the driver to very low average power and
hence minimises thermal effects.
Method.
The impedance of the driver was tested by application and analysis of the
MLS impulse. The driver was then subjected to the running in signal for a
fixed period as shown in the results below. The parameters were again
measured immediately to allow for quantification of driver thermal effects.
The driver was then allowed to cool by natural convection for ten minutes.
The parameters were then measured again and the cycle repeated.
Additionally, a control driver was measured once at the commencement of the
test and again at its completion. No 'running in' was applied to this
control driver. results are included below for comparison.
Results.
Sample 2/00-50
Conditions Total RunIn Fs Qts
---------------------------------------------
Initial Test 0 min 35.47 0.49
Run in for 1 minute
Cool down 10 minutes 1 min 34.7 0.42
Run in for 1 minute
Cool down 10 minutes 2 min 34.64 0.43
Run in for 1 minute
Cool down 10 minutes 3 min 34.63 0.44
Run in for 1 minute 4 min 34.34 0.43
Cool down 10 minutes 4 min 34.54 0.44
Run in for 1 minute 5 min 34.41 0.41
Cool down 10 minutes 5 min 34.65 0.43
Run in for 5 minute 10 min 34.33 0.43
Cool down 30 minutes 10 min 34.68 0.43
Run in for 10 minute 20 min 33.35 0.42
Cool down 30 minutes 20 min 33.65 0.43
Run in for 20 minute 30 min 32.14 0.42
Cool down 30 minutes 30 min 32.80 0.42
Run in for 30 minute 60 min 32.03 0.41
Cool down 60 minutes 60 min 32.06 0.42
Run in for 60 minute 120 min 31.23 0.41
Cool down 60 minutes 120 min 31.62 0.41
SEAS Specification Fs: 31 Qts: 0.41
Sample 2/00-50 Initial Fs: 35.38 Qts: 0.48
Final Fs: 35.37 Qts: 0.48
Conclusion.
It has been demonstrated that the Fs and Qts of a high quality bass driver
change from their initial values with use. The rate of change appears to
decrease as the final value (in this case very close to the values specified
by the manufacturer) is approached. This would support the theory that this
driver will settle down to parameters somewhat different from those tested
when the driver was new. The difference in Fs in particular is approximately
11% which, with the changes in Qts also noted, could significantly alter the
final alignment of a system using this driver. Note that changes in Vas were
not monitored and so an accurate estimation of the alignment error is not
possible.
Best regards
Philip Vafiadis
VAF Research Pty Ltd
www.vaf.com.au
Angry of Mayfair
You sound as sceptical as I was until I experienced it for myself.
There is so much b/s around the hi-fi world (bi-wiring/green pens etc) that
it's easy to dismiss everything similar as total rubbish.
If you want to prove it for yourself buy a pair of new small Tannoys and
play them for a week or so and then come back and argue the point if you
still feel the same way - BTW, I bet you won't return the Tannoys even
though most good retailers would let you...
GB
> > Hi Angry,
> >
> > > ... They do need a week to run them in before they sound the best...
> > > I never really believed that until I experienced it for myself...
> >
> > It is remarkable, isn't it. I've heard speakers "burn-in" before, but
> never
> > so dramatically as the Tannoys. On day one they were like nasty,
> > constipated cardboard boxes - after a week of playing them for a few
> > hours every day they were transformed into sweet, punchy, tight little
> > music makers.
>