I've already had the Ariels and they're excellent, but a bit of a dog to build, for me anyway, as woodworking is not my greatest skill. The V6's (the ones I built) sound a lot better than the earlier versions I've heard.Scottmoose said:
I'm a big fan of Lynn Olson's work, and have posted many times here about these speakers and some of his amp's that I've built.
I actually meant to suggest the Ariels in the first post I made. I have a set of NIB unused drivers here as I meant to build another pair when I moved and had to get a smaller place and disassemble my fullrange front horn system. Time, and a lack of workspace and tools meant I bought some KEF 104/2 instead which I feel are overall better speakers and go deep enough that I'd never bother with a sub even for movies in my current abode.
I like the Kan and I have owned them. I've also had a full Linn/Naim active Sara system and heard the Isobariks on many occaisions and would like a pair if ever I could find them cheap enough.
tamosius
check:
www.rawacoustics.ca
and
www.creativesound.ca
they are both local to you and carry nice product. You'll probably be able to audition various speaker kits. Buying speakers using reviews requires that you have a VERY GOOD understanding of speakers. Or that you quite lucky. Some people are.
Franz
check:
www.rawacoustics.ca
and
www.creativesound.ca
they are both local to you and carry nice product. You'll probably be able to audition various speaker kits. Buying speakers using reviews requires that you have a VERY GOOD understanding of speakers. Or that you quite lucky. Some people are.
Franz
Clone these. 
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
When I commented on the classic speakers response, I didn't mean to come off brash or rude. Nor do I disagree with any of your points really.
Some good old speakers can rock quite well, but I think people fall prey to the nostalgia of old, they put a golden halo around what they grew up with, and over estimate its abilities. I agree that all too many speakers today qualify as the BBC minimonitor clone, and really dont sound that great. On the other hand, many of the older highly sensitive speakers of the past really lacked accuracy. They suffered from typical horn honking, midrange colorations, and lacked tought deep bass, IME. I think that there are a great deal of modern designs which capture all that was great back then, and all that is great today, it just costs too much. Line arrays are one that I think have great accuracy in tone and imagine, along with great frequency extension and great dynamics. Not always, but done right, they are good. I think that many modern horns are much better than old ones, again, not always. I think that many modern large tower speakers can also sound quite excellent, though often lack good sensitivity.
My biggest misgiving with most old speakers as a recomendation is that they truely were so large given the performance you got. I think many modern designs capture enough of what was great in a smaller more useable package. Often the volume hasn't changed, but simply become taller and deeper, rather than so wide, which in most cases is a good thing for placing them, also good for imaging.
Please dont read this as saying that I dont like old speakers or think that a modern small speaker can be all that was great in old speakers. I do not, and I think that many full range speakers like Lowthers and Fostex do have a very special sound not heard by most modern designs. I also think that most Altec Lansings, old Klipsch, etc also do something that few modern speakers can truely capture, I just feel the trade offs are often too great for what I value in sound.
Some good old speakers can rock quite well, but I think people fall prey to the nostalgia of old, they put a golden halo around what they grew up with, and over estimate its abilities. I agree that all too many speakers today qualify as the BBC minimonitor clone, and really dont sound that great. On the other hand, many of the older highly sensitive speakers of the past really lacked accuracy. They suffered from typical horn honking, midrange colorations, and lacked tought deep bass, IME. I think that there are a great deal of modern designs which capture all that was great back then, and all that is great today, it just costs too much. Line arrays are one that I think have great accuracy in tone and imagine, along with great frequency extension and great dynamics. Not always, but done right, they are good. I think that many modern horns are much better than old ones, again, not always. I think that many modern large tower speakers can also sound quite excellent, though often lack good sensitivity.
My biggest misgiving with most old speakers as a recomendation is that they truely were so large given the performance you got. I think many modern designs capture enough of what was great in a smaller more useable package. Often the volume hasn't changed, but simply become taller and deeper, rather than so wide, which in most cases is a good thing for placing them, also good for imaging.
Please dont read this as saying that I dont like old speakers or think that a modern small speaker can be all that was great in old speakers. I do not, and I think that many full range speakers like Lowthers and Fostex do have a very special sound not heard by most modern designs. I also think that most Altec Lansings, old Klipsch, etc also do something that few modern speakers can truely capture, I just feel the trade offs are often too great for what I value in sound.
Ok. Thanks for the input everyone - you made me nervous about building Thor TL, and I'll have to back off.
Back home we used to have so called S90, 3 way speakers, with a quite big, maybe 10 inch, lower end woofer. Comparing with today's speakers, they might not sound as clear as those new MTM's, but I still can't forget the way those old speakers would move air.. sounds was filling every corner...
My buddy has vintage Technics speakers that are 3 way speakers. a week or two ago, he found out that he wants something new, upgrade his old speakers.. then we went to a store and listend Paradigm speakers.. here is his response after that test: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13442
Later, he bought JAMO speakers: http://www.jamo.com/Default.asp?ID=1652
In store, originally price was ~2K, but they were on sale and he got them for 1K. So this time we were able to listen them (JAMO vs Technics) side by side. We turned off SUB on receiver, and used dirrect mode. Speakers "A" for Technics, Speakers B for JAMO.
You know what? I was a bit disappointed by JAMO. Yes, they sounded brighter, more clear than technics, but overall just 5% of all tunes we listened would sound better on JAMO than on Technics. Sounds wasn't alive. As well it wasn't filling a room, which was quite small.. I'm not talking about playing loud, I'm talking about the feeling when you would say that speakers breath...
So, he just returned JAMO to the store... So, I assume the same things I could expect from THOR TL, right?
And still... What about ETON 11.2? Could you say that they might sound good, would fill the room, wouldn't be muddy, and not too bright/clear (not kind of "digital"/"metal" sounding) but warm, would move air in room?
Sooooo confused... BTW. I liked the way http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=AlphaLS looks, (I'm not sure how would they sound though - I didn't have a chance to listen array), but it has quite low spause acceptance criteria As well, price bites.. 3K.. ouch!
Back home we used to have so called S90, 3 way speakers, with a quite big, maybe 10 inch, lower end woofer. Comparing with today's speakers, they might not sound as clear as those new MTM's, but I still can't forget the way those old speakers would move air.. sounds was filling every corner...
My buddy has vintage Technics speakers that are 3 way speakers. a week or two ago, he found out that he wants something new, upgrade his old speakers.. then we went to a store and listend Paradigm speakers.. here is his response after that test: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13442
Later, he bought JAMO speakers: http://www.jamo.com/Default.asp?ID=1652
In store, originally price was ~2K, but they were on sale and he got them for 1K. So this time we were able to listen them (JAMO vs Technics) side by side. We turned off SUB on receiver, and used dirrect mode. Speakers "A" for Technics, Speakers B for JAMO.
You know what? I was a bit disappointed by JAMO. Yes, they sounded brighter, more clear than technics, but overall just 5% of all tunes we listened would sound better on JAMO than on Technics. Sounds wasn't alive. As well it wasn't filling a room, which was quite small.. I'm not talking about playing loud, I'm talking about the feeling when you would say that speakers breath...
So, he just returned JAMO to the store... So, I assume the same things I could expect from THOR TL, right?
And still... What about ETON 11.2? Could you say that they might sound good, would fill the room, wouldn't be muddy, and not too bright/clear (not kind of "digital"/"metal" sounding) but warm, would move air in room?
Sooooo confused... BTW. I liked the way http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=AlphaLS looks, (I'm not sure how would they sound though - I didn't have a chance to listen array), but it has quite low spause acceptance criteria
As well, price bites.. 3K.. ouch!
I don't think we're actually that far out of agreement and I agree with a lot of what you say. But, what I gather you haven't been exposed to is a modern designed hi eff speaker which is a whole 'nother animal.pjpoes said:
However, the point I made in my first post in this thread, was not that anyone should buy one of the classic speakers I mentioned, but that they should hear them to get a wider reference on what is available compared to the typical 'phile offerings.
Tamosius and his friend's experince, echo mine in lots of ways.
paulspencer said:
If you look at Lynn Olson's website, you will observe that the Ariel is actually 91 db 1w / 1m, which is exactly on the button with what I measured my own V4s at. Sorry! Quite true that an individual Vifa P13 is 88db for one watt -but you've forgotten that old rule: double the drivers, boost the sensitivity. There's two in the Ariel, which instantly provides you with an extra 3 db for the same power. And 91 db counts as high sensitivity in my book. In a 12' x 20' room, they hammer you with 10 watts -normal listening requires less than 3 in my experience.
As for the last comment -what makes me suggest it as a rock speaker, perhaps I didn't make myself clear -my apologies if I did not. Rock (some progressive rock aside) does not often go below 40Hz. Therefore, you want a speaker that can produce decent SPLs down to that level -anything lower is simply a bonus. More important is tonal colouring and outright speed. The Ariel provides all of these in bucketfuls. Being a TL, it is also both well damped in the bass regions, and can drive a room's resonant mode
While I like big 15" Tannoys for example (I actually own a pair of Golds, currently in monster TQWTs, and recently fired up again for the BBC Proms season) I do not find them, or most other very large drivers overly well-suited for rock. They just don't have the dynamic response needed to give the music much sense of attack, which is pretty vital when listening to Iron Maiden, although naturally they do the 'scale' thing well, which is good for live recordings! A few modern drivers with massive magnets are better in this respect, but cheap they are not. Certainly, a really good pair can go to large volumes without distorting better than 1 or 2 smaller drivers, but few can do it without encountering a host of other problems, because they are far harder to construct. I agree too with an earlier comment which noted they don't have to be worse than smaller drivers in small rooms given careful design -that's why I said you have to design carefully! But it's also that much harder bacause of the amount of energy you're putting into the room that needs attenuating. Smaller drivers suit smaller rooms better in my experience, or rather, give less of a tuning headache.
Oh, by the way, for those out there who think all rock music is badly recorded, try King Crimson's recent output, to name but one. Listen and learn.
Cheers for now
Scott.
I have seen the Ariel website many times, however you can only really achieve that efficiency from those drivers if they are placed against a wall. Sure, if you don't mind an F3 @ 500 Hz, then they can achieve 91db 1w 1m above that point!
I have TL speakers based on the Vifa P17, I would say not all that different to the Ariels, although much simpler to build and with deeper bass. My idea of "high efficiency" is more like 95db 1w 1m.
If a 2.83v efficiency were quoted, they would be 91db, however this is misleading as at 4 ohms they would be powered by 2 watts.
When I play mine loud in a medium room for rock, I'm squeezing as much juice as I can out of the 50w amp driving my mains with the subs running with a lot more juice going into them.
Must admit, I'd like to experience some more good HE speakers ...
I have TL speakers based on the Vifa P17, I would say not all that different to the Ariels, although much simpler to build and with deeper bass. My idea of "high efficiency" is more like 95db 1w 1m.
If a 2.83v efficiency were quoted, they would be 91db, however this is misleading as at 4 ohms they would be powered by 2 watts.
When I play mine loud in a medium room for rock, I'm squeezing as much juice as I can out of the 50w amp driving my mains with the subs running with a lot more juice going into them.
Must admit, I'd like to experience some more good HE speakers ...
We have different ideas about how to designate high efficiency then -fair enough, that's one of the nice things about audio as I've said many times -room for all!
Lynn's estimate of 93db sensitivity is wildly optimistic, but my V4s are good for a measured (I measured about this time last year in-room) 91 db average sensitivity. Average impedence is actually 6.1 ohms, not 4 -Vifa's specs are a little cautious -I take my had off to them on that score. Bass rolls off slowly below 50Hz in my room; with room gain I get a -6db point of 36Hz. My little EL84 valve power amp, based on the World Audio Design KEL84 integrated drives them with great glee, though I do use the 4ohm tap -as a rule I try to select a value lower than the nominal speaker value. I use a cheap 35wpc Rotel RA931 solid-state for testing, and have a few other amps lurking around for when I feel the need.
I'm actually more of a single driver person than a multi-way as it happens -you mentioned you want to try out a couple of other HE designs; I'd go with Martin King's ML TQWT as a good and cost-effective starting point. Martin used the Fostex FE164 6 1/2" Full-ranger, which is no longer available, but the FE167E is a straight swap, and sounds better too. I've built two pairs. The first are with an opera singer friend -she borrowed them, and refused to give them back (says it all really about how good Martin's design is), hense the second pair, which live with the Ariels, unless I wheel out the Tannoys from storage. Depending on how much BSC you use will drop the sensitivity, but you won't be going sub 91 db. A more conventional looking option would be either Martin's or Bob Brines' straight MLTL cabinets using either Fostex FE206E / FE207E, or Lowther DX3 8" full-range drivers. i've built horns inthe past, and I remain deeply unconviced -I don't like the colourations. I'm toying with full-rangers on open-baffles at present, with active eq and twin subwoofters per channel in an open-baffle push-push configuration. Needs a bit of work, but results are looking promising.
Regards
Scott.
Lynn's estimate of 93db sensitivity is wildly optimistic, but my V4s are good for a measured (I measured about this time last year in-room) 91 db average sensitivity. Average impedence is actually 6.1 ohms, not 4 -Vifa's specs are a little cautious -I take my had off to them on that score. Bass rolls off slowly below 50Hz in my room; with room gain I get a -6db point of 36Hz. My little EL84 valve power amp, based on the World Audio Design KEL84 integrated drives them with great glee, though I do use the 4ohm tap -as a rule I try to select a value lower than the nominal speaker value. I use a cheap 35wpc Rotel RA931 solid-state for testing, and have a few other amps lurking around for when I feel the need.
I'm actually more of a single driver person than a multi-way as it happens -you mentioned you want to try out a couple of other HE designs; I'd go with Martin King's ML TQWT as a good and cost-effective starting point. Martin used the Fostex FE164 6 1/2" Full-ranger, which is no longer available, but the FE167E is a straight swap, and sounds better too. I've built two pairs. The first are with an opera singer friend -she borrowed them, and refused to give them back (says it all really about how good Martin's design is), hense the second pair, which live with the Ariels, unless I wheel out the Tannoys from storage. Depending on how much BSC you use will drop the sensitivity, but you won't be going sub 91 db. A more conventional looking option would be either Martin's or Bob Brines' straight MLTL cabinets using either Fostex FE206E / FE207E, or Lowther DX3 8" full-range drivers. i've built horns inthe past, and I remain deeply unconviced -I don't like the colourations. I'm toying with full-rangers on open-baffles at present, with active eq and twin subwoofters per channel in an open-baffle push-push configuration. Needs a bit of work, but results are looking promising.
Regards
Scott.
Recently I was getting tempted to go with some 12" HE speakers, was looking at an Eminence Magnum 12" with a waveguide loaded tweeter of some kind, and subs. I'm part HT enthusiast as well. I tend to go with movies / jazz / rock the most. At the moment I'm going with what I have, upgrading. Considering trying out open baffle with a pair of 10" Peerless CSX per side, crossing to subs around 50 Hz. Not sure if the CSX will really do it though ...
My TL's get down to about 23 Hz in room once I've removed some of the peak in the room mode at 35 Hz. Kind of a cheat way to get down low, as I don't have much room gain to speak of ...
My TL's get down to about 23 Hz in room once I've removed some of the peak in the room mode at 35 Hz. Kind of a cheat way to get down low, as I don't have much room gain to speak of ...
23 Hz in room with a little compensation? Impressive. I wouldn't call it cheating either -so long as it works, the method doesn't matter! Room gain can be useful, but if you can get the low end wanted without activating any room modes at all, so much the better. That's one reason open-baffles work so well according to Linkwitz (and who am I to argue with that luminary?) -they don't activate room modes like conventional desings. I'd love to build his Orions, but there's no way I can afford to. Yet. I'm running out of excuses not to though! My current OB project was influenced by his Phoneix layout, but using Fostex full-range units on small panels suspended on wire from the ceiling, combined with a modified version of the matching subs in push-push config.
I don't know the CSX personally, but I've just looked at the specs on the Partsexpress website, and they look quite good to me, though I'd prefer it if they had a little more at the top end -it'd make crossing over easier, though if you do it actively, things should work out well enough. Peerless usually give good value, and the driver quality tends to be high. Sounds like an interesting project!
Best
Scott
Room gain can be useful, but if you can get the low end wanted without activating any room modes at all, so much the better. That's one reason open-baffles work so well according to Linkwitz (and who am I to argue with that luminary?) -they don't activate room modes like conventional desings. I'd love to build his Orions, but there's no way I can afford to. Yet. I'm running out of excuses not to though! My current OB project was influenced by his Phoneix layout, but using Fostex full-range units on small panels suspended on wire from the ceiling, combined with a modified version of the matching subs in push-push config. I don't know the CSX personally, but I've just looked at the specs on the Partsexpress website, and they look quite good to me, though I'd prefer it if they had a little more at the top end -it'd make crossing over easier, though if you do it actively, things should work out well enough. Peerless usually give good value, and the driver quality tends to be high. Sounds like an interesting project!
Best
Scott
Scott, the "compensation" is actually not boost but cut! The room mode at 35 Hz is a bit like the wave you ride into shore after escaping the rip! The roll off of the TLs is gentle enough below 40 Hz for me to get 23 Hz extension AFTER I have cut back the 35 Hz boom of that room mode. Below that point, the response falls of precipitously. I believe this is because I have no real room gain, just a mode. I calibrate with Behringer Ultracurve and the autocalibrated settings show that to get it flat, cut is required around 25 - 50 Hz then the bottom two bands suddenly jump up with a lot of eq to get down to 20 Hz.
I like the CSX as it is an affordable driver with a distortion optimised motor (shorting rings) and decent xmax. I also like that it is a woofer, not a subwoofer. Hence it can allow my Vifa P17s to operate as true mids crossed at say 300 Hz. They have a fairly decent xmax of 9mm, which is not far off the XLS which Linkwitz uses, theoretically trading 3db of output, which is not much, also considering they are half the price and have a more extended top end. I'd use a U frame and hope to get it down to 60 Hz with little or no eq, with subs taking over from there. One thing I'm fussy about is getting natural sounding mid and upper bass. This has been the most difficult thing to get right so far. I judge this area by how natural acoustic double bass sounds.
I plan to use Behringer Ultradrive, together with ultracurve, I think it will make it much easier to get any speaker project to work, especially open baffle. I can choose a whole lot of different xo points, slopes, settings, and AB compare them. This alone is a compelling reason to get into active digital! Together, you can get them to automatically calibrate phase and frequency response!
I like the CSX as it is an affordable driver with a distortion optimised motor (shorting rings) and decent xmax. I also like that it is a woofer, not a subwoofer. Hence it can allow my Vifa P17s to operate as true mids crossed at say 300 Hz. They have a fairly decent xmax of 9mm, which is not far off the XLS which Linkwitz uses, theoretically trading 3db of output, which is not much, also considering they are half the price and have a more extended top end. I'd use a U frame and hope to get it down to 60 Hz with little or no eq, with subs taking over from there. One thing I'm fussy about is getting natural sounding mid and upper bass. This has been the most difficult thing to get right so far. I judge this area by how natural acoustic double bass sounds.
I plan to use Behringer Ultradrive, together with ultracurve, I think it will make it much easier to get any speaker project to work, especially open baffle. I can choose a whole lot of different xo points, slopes, settings, and AB compare them. This alone is a compelling reason to get into active digital! Together, you can get them to automatically calibrate phase and frequency response!
speaker 'quality'
hi guys. I'm a beginner, so bare with me. I am trying to tie down here, how important the speaker 'quality' (read: make,model) is, aginst the amp and components of the speaker system, behind it, are. Ok, I understand the acoustics of the room and the type of music, are important considerartions. But that isn't going to change soon, so I don't want to get too hung up on that.
If I buy 'cheap', descent speakers: Speaker 8" Driver, Rubber Edge, Woven Cone 8 Ohm, 150 w-drivers; Mid Range, Dome, 8 Ohm, 50 Watt Each; boxed Tweeter 4" 8 Ohm.
I intend to put the drivers, in a seperate box to the midrange and tweeters. But I am open to change on that one.
So back to my original question, if I have a good amp, 'sound' componentry in the speaker boxes, will the 'quality', of the speakers, matter, all that much?
cheers
hi guys. I'm a beginner, so bare with me. I am trying to tie down here, how important the speaker 'quality' (read: make,model) is, aginst the amp and components of the speaker system, behind it, are. Ok, I understand the acoustics of the room and the type of music, are important considerartions. But that isn't going to change soon, so I don't want to get too hung up on that.
If I buy 'cheap', descent speakers: Speaker 8" Driver, Rubber Edge, Woven Cone 8 Ohm, 150 w-drivers; Mid Range, Dome, 8 Ohm, 50 Watt Each; boxed Tweeter 4" 8 Ohm.
I intend to put the drivers, in a seperate box to the midrange and tweeters. But I am open to change on that one.
So back to my original question, if I have a good amp, 'sound' componentry in the speaker boxes, will the 'quality', of the speakers, matter, all that much?
cheers
Tolak,
Nothing is more important to your system than your speakers, period.
Always purchase the best you can and then work your way through it so that all facets are covered sufficiently.
ie: the box doesn't have to be pretty as long as it is structurally sound.
use good XO components and spend the time necessary to get it right. If you don't know, find someone who does.
Don't get hung up on things like internal wiring, it's not that important. Use 14ga copper.
Cal
Nothing is more important to your system than your speakers, period.
Always purchase the best you can and then work your way through it so that all facets are covered sufficiently.
ie: the box doesn't have to be pretty as long as it is structurally sound.
use good XO components and spend the time necessary to get it right. If you don't know, find someone who does.
Don't get hung up on things like internal wiring, it's not that important. Use 14ga copper.
Cal
Someone who is actually from England, or any part of Europe in may want to chime in, but I will say that I have been told that the view that speakers is most important is something unique to America, with England, as I was told, finding that the source and amp are more important. The analogy that this Englishmen gave me was the "Garbage in, Garbage out" one.
Now, being from North America, I happen to fall into the, so I was told, uniquely American idea that Speakers are most important. At the same time, I can see, when starting from scratch, how getting atleast very good amp and cd player, or record player would be important. I get What Hi-Fi magazine, sorry if its considered crud in England, its one of the few european audio magazines I can easily get, and have noticed that though they often follow that, they still are using mighty fine speakers. Probably a pie graph would best show the difference, as it seems that americans feel that atleast half of the budget should be on speakers, if not more, and the rest on a decent but not great amp. While in magazines like What Hi-Fi, or even in the few of my brittish friend, only maybe 40% should be spent on speakers, with the remaining 60% or more being spent on the amp and source. Taking him for example, he has a set of quad bookshelf speakers, which went for about 1000 dollars. He then put with it the Quad cd player, at also 1000 dollars, and a Naim preamp and amp that was closer to 4000 dollars. My setup is much more "American." I have JmLabs Electra 905's with Focal TD120 tweets retrofitted and redesigned crossovers, maybe about 2500-3000 total. I have a Perreuxe SM6C preamp, which though listed for like 2000, I only payed about 1000, and my amp is currently a modified Acurus A200, about 1000, with about 200 in better parts. My sources are a Pioneer Elite dvd Universal player, which I hate, and a Thorens TD160. Clearly my budget was more inline with that typical 60% speakers rather than 40% speakers, though all said and done, I think mine was about 50/50.
I will point out that in all these scenerio's the speakers still, on there own, made up a major portion if not the majority of the budget. I have seen some americans go so far as to pair 5000 dollar speakers with 300 dollar integrated amps, to prove that speakers are most important. I even recall something with Wilson Audio pairing a very expensive set of speakers with a far less expensive parasound amp, I think.
Now, being from North America, I happen to fall into the, so I was told, uniquely American idea that Speakers are most important. At the same time, I can see, when starting from scratch, how getting atleast very good amp and cd player, or record player would be important. I get What Hi-Fi magazine, sorry if its considered crud in England, its one of the few european audio magazines I can easily get, and have noticed that though they often follow that, they still are using mighty fine speakers. Probably a pie graph would best show the difference, as it seems that americans feel that atleast half of the budget should be on speakers, if not more, and the rest on a decent but not great amp. While in magazines like What Hi-Fi, or even in the few of my brittish friend, only maybe 40% should be spent on speakers, with the remaining 60% or more being spent on the amp and source. Taking him for example, he has a set of quad bookshelf speakers, which went for about 1000 dollars. He then put with it the Quad cd player, at also 1000 dollars, and a Naim preamp and amp that was closer to 4000 dollars. My setup is much more "American." I have JmLabs Electra 905's with Focal TD120 tweets retrofitted and redesigned crossovers, maybe about 2500-3000 total. I have a Perreuxe SM6C preamp, which though listed for like 2000, I only payed about 1000, and my amp is currently a modified Acurus A200, about 1000, with about 200 in better parts. My sources are a Pioneer Elite dvd Universal player, which I hate, and a Thorens TD160. Clearly my budget was more inline with that typical 60% speakers rather than 40% speakers, though all said and done, I think mine was about 50/50.
I will point out that in all these scenerio's the speakers still, on there own, made up a major portion if not the majority of the budget. I have seen some americans go so far as to pair 5000 dollar speakers with 300 dollar integrated amps, to prove that speakers are most important. I even recall something with Wilson Audio pairing a very expensive set of speakers with a far less expensive parasound amp, I think.
This is one thing in audio we should all agree on and not need to debate, as I think it's fairly obvious!
The reason for this is also fairly obvious: changes that occur to the signal in source components are very small, even in cheap components that aren't "audiophile approved." By contrast, changes that occur to the signal in even the best cost-no-object speakers are bigger than all the souce components combined! Changes that occur within the source components are all electrical, but the speakers are the point at which the electrical signal is then converted to acoustic output. It's a no brainer!
I'd like to see those who think source components are more important do a blind AB test. Most likely the difference between speakers at the same price range would be more than those between high end and mass market source components. Perhaps things were different when source components included valve amps and and vinyl ...
I don't consider %'s helpful when buying audio ie "spend 60% on speakers." This tends to suggest spending more on source components than will actually improve accuracy. Instead, I would start with buying amps and source components that you like in terms of quality, brand, appearance, features and amp power. Then spend as much as you can on speakers.
I think a lot of us are here because we believe speakers are the most important, and are the area where you can add the most value by diy. It's also the area where you can save money the most readily.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.