OK. Good for you.
That would be very true given that you've chosen to reject the changes that have the greatest potential to accomplish this. Yeah, I know, you "don't believe"...whatever.
128kbps mp3 contains unmistakable codec artifacts that exist apart from . But if you're not hearing them I'm not going to be the one to take away your joy. Once you've heard them you can never not. And not that it matters, but the mp3 codec chops off all energy above 15kHz with a nice steep filter, no matter what bit rate. But again, if it doesn't bother you, just enjoy.
Modern mp3s are on average not so bad in the areas being discussed. Sure, you can hear differences in comparisons which you'd prefer to be improved, but it isn't a deal breaker.
One thing you can't forget is a speaker that can let these mp3s be as good as they are.
The problem is obvious then.
This is the DIYAudio site.
Go get a DIY Pass design amp and a DIY B1 Korg preamp. People sell them, or will build them for you if you ask nice.
Later, get a nice DAC.
Problem solved.
Until you get rid of that AVR, nothing can be done... your current speakers are not playing to the fullest potential.
What makes you think that you can get this kind of sound in your very small room?
The sound in any room is just between the speakers as that is where the music sums up.
In a largish room you can bring the speakers way out into the room and get an illusion of sound to the rear and wide of the speakers. But in your small room and your speakers a couple feet or so from the wall behind, it's just not going to happen.
What you have now is about as good as you are going to get.
Sure you can get better quality sound, as you are pretty much at the extreme minimal level of quality and investment. But you didn't start this thread with a quest seeking better sound quality for classical music.
Perhaps it is possible for low to medium level but the illusion will break down on loud level due to room size and reflections.
No such thing. Or maybe just a little one without anywhere near full bandwidth.
I can't believe someone is defending a 128kbps mp3 in 2022. It was fine when nobody had any bandwidth to spare, and radio station stream still HAVE to use low bitrates because they pay for bandwidth, and more listeners at a lower rate vs fewer at a highe rate works. But don't defend a codec that everyone else has move well past. Especially here, and when we're trying to discuss somebody's need for better sound.
@classicalfan trust me, you're better off not being able to hear what mp3 does. I could train to hear the codec in just a few minutes, but I wouldn't be doing you any favors. Joint stereo does mess with soundstage, BTW, again, because it's a bandwidth economy issue.
I don't see any of that solving his problem at all.
I'm only reporting my personal experience. I've had to make the decision on bit-rate a number of times, going back to the 1990s when broadcast playout systems were storage-challenged, and before the Internet had capability for adequate bandwidth to transmit RTP streams uncompressed. Several of us auditioned various levels of mp3 bit-rate reduction, and determined that none of them was adequate for music playout on-air. We opted to pay BIG money for "large" SCSI HDDs, when the cost per mB was $.65 (today its $0.0000175). So if we could store as compressed mp3, it could cust the cost of sorage in 1/10. Just couldn't do it. Unfortunately, back then, advertising distribution was 64kbps, so those got played on-air next to uncompressed music, and stood out badly. Today we store uncompressed for everything and IP audio links, even to other sites, are also uncompressed. The only codec worth running at lower rates is HE-AAC, but that doesn't show up in radio streams to listeners. So yeah, I'm ruined for hearing this stuff. I can reliably pick out 256kbps vs non-compressed in an ABX. It kinda sucks to be able to.
I don't hear anything above 15kHz and, in fact, not even close to that level itself. So it may be that with my hearing very little of what has been discussed here is really applicable to me.
Yes, and this the Loudspeaker Multi-Way section of it. That is the extend of my interest in DIY. Loudspeakers only. So, you can drop the suggestions about DIY amps and everything else for me. Those are not going to go anywhere.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm beginning to believe that you're right and the current sound stage is really about as good as I can get in this room. Still haven't tried any room treatments although they have been suggested here many times. Might try some just to see. But unless they make a huge difference, I probably won't keep them if they annoy me visually.
Nothing above 10kHz contributes to either imaging or soundstage, so you're good, and everything still applies to you.
That would be very true given that you've chosen to reject the changes that have the greatest potential to accomplish this. Yeah, I know, you "don't believe"...whatever.
Alright. I get it. It's all about the room. We'll see. Maybe I'll try some things.
Also, might bring out the miniDSP microphone and REW software to do some measurements. Haven't done those in this room, yet.
You don't hear the difference between a low end AVR and a nice class A FET amp with a KORG based preamp?
What next, a discussion on how Julian Hirsch was correct in that all amps sound alike?
Well "all amps sound alike" is not specifically true, but many, do. When you move between classes, and different active devices (that dictate changes in feedback and amp output Z) you can get subtle audible changes. The big offender here is amplifier output Z vs frequency, which forms a frequency dependant voltage divider with the speaker load. And of course, any addition of significant distortion products. The extreme examples, the amp-related audible effects are down the list quite a ways compared to speakers and rooms.
Output impedance drives the damping factor directly... but then it opens up the can of worms of speaker cables... and typically affects only a small group of speakers that have cruel, uneven impedance loads ( dips. peaks ). Most speakers with reasonable, mostly resistive, loads do not "frequency interact" with an amplifier's impedance. Specially with solid state amps.
IMHO, there are lots more things.... example. current capacity, which I think is more important than output impedance.
Remember that a "power rating" is just a pigment of someone's marketing needs and engineering values.
The ability to drive loads that require power and current make for very different sounding amplifiers even when the amps are identically rated.
Then you got other stuff... like distortion characteristics, clipping behavior... why do Class A amps sound so much better? Why do tubes sound better? Why do VFET amplifiers sound so sweet? Why do ICE amps have tremendous bass but soft treble?
Let me give a an example of what I've been playing with this week... Two fully rebuilt receivers from the 70s. A Marantz 2325 and a Sansui G-7500. For the later we had to source NOS (used actually) power transistors because those things don't seem to last. The Marantz is 125 wpc, the Sansui about 90 wpc. For reference I have a pair of DIY A5 monos, about 90 wpc into 4 ohms. Speakers are ADS L810s (4 ohms) and Maggie 1.7s (4 ohms). Source is the same, the preamp output of a CJ PV9 fully upgraded with teflon caps. Driving Tidal HiFi -mostly Masters- from the variable line souce of a NuForce HDP-4. I also played LPs from my Grado/Ittok/LP12/Lingo front end. Speaker cables to the L810 are Kimber 4TC (old blue), for the Maggies are Kimber 8TC.
Let me reiterate that the rebuilding of both receivers was expensive, extensive and complete. The fellow who did this is an expert and the goal was to revive both units to factory spec. I got bags of old components that got replaced. Power supplies, calibration, etc... it was way more than "new caps".. it was a full rebuild and calibration. And then they got measured on his bench. I forget the specs on the Marantz off the top of my head, but I recall the Sansui measured 110 wpc at 8 ohms with extremely low distortion and an amazing bandwidth. We were both happily surprised.
The Sansui was exceptional... that was the heyday of "fast" DC couple circuits. At the time, the audio engineers were off the deep end with slew rates and DC coupling... those circuits have bandwidths in excess of 50Khz.
Over to the L810s.
First the Marantz... it sounded closed. It will paint a L/R panorama but it has no depth and the instruments lack body. It is dark. It reminds me of playing Dark Side of the Moon on a rainy afternoon... Hmm.. maybe because I had a Marantz 2220B when I first played that LP and it was rainy outside?
The Sansui... sounds much more open. It paints a very good panorama with a shallow soundstage and the instrument and vocals have body. I played a bunch of stuff, ie: Clapton's Unplugged, Tears From Heaven. And Into The Mystic by Van Morrison. It sounded really very good. I mean, you could hear the presentation. If I didn't have Maggies, I could be very happy with this sound. Looking at its power meters, I usually never exceeded 10 watts. Most of the time is just sat at 1 watt max for more than adequate sound levels.
Over to the Maggies
I haven't had the opportunity to play the 2325 over them yet. This afternoon, hopefully. WIth 125 wpc and a truly massive power supply (for a receiver) it ought to drive them, huh? I mean, it feels like it weights twice the Sansui.
The Sansui... I was shocked. It had no bass, no drive. Immediately, I noticed how light the bass was. I had to engage the loudness switch to "warm" them up. The receiver was clearly strained, the meters were at 10 wpc all the time... and it still was playing at the same levels as with the 810s before. The Maggies did throw their soundstage thing (*). I played some Into The Mystic by Van Morrison again. The saxophone and Van Morrison's voice were fleshed out in more depth but your could tell.. there was some stress. I could hear a bit of harshness in the voice. Clapton's guitar was lacking some "plucking".
Cue the DIY Aleph 5 monos.
So, then I brought in the A5s. Rated a bit less than the Sansui even... but their power supplies are bigger (each) than the Marantz's. We're talking serious current here. Sure enough, I had my baby back. Van Morrison was there... Clapton and his guitar in great detail, panorama, depth, detail, no harshness what so ever. (**)
So there you have it... all I changed here was amplifiers. The Marantz SR2325 is a classic high power AB SS design. People are paying through the nose for them. From an sound perspective I found it.. interesting but not engaging. The Sansui G-7500 is an example of engineers having conquered THD and IM and focused on DC coupling, high speed circuits and bandwidth. It sounds much better than the Marantz. MUCH.
Then the DIY A5 monos. Again, rated less than the Sansuis. As usual, I must thank Nelson Pass for his designs and for making them available to the DIY community. The bass was back, the soundstage came in with full depth. Van Morrison was singing. The stereo disappeared and the music came back.
Heck, with the L810s, I also drive a DIY F5... which makes them sound much better than either the Marantz or Sansui too. They manage to throw a much deeper soundstage.. still limited by their design, but... I know those speakers can throw a rather deep soundstage... the F5 showed me so.
(My default set up is the A5 monos on the Maggies, a stereo F5 on the L810s).
I have a pair of ARC D70 Mk IIs on the next shelf, but I didn't turn them on for this comparison. They just don't do the Maggies very well. Plus other stuff, but I have a life... but they sure make the Acoustic Energy AE1s ( the original Reference, not the newer Actives ) sound very pretty. REAL pretty. You want a soundstage? Mini monitors are the Kings of Soundstaging.
So there... tried four amps this week on two pairs of speakers, front end the same. Amplifiers sound different.
(*) Maggies are some of the most amp impervious to amplifier style speakers I've heard with respect to soundstage. They will throw their own soundstage... love or hate it... They are definitely not monitors.
(**) I can't wait to get my A2... and perhaps a pair of Harbeth M30.1 and an F5 Turbo V3... If might be a glorious year for my audio system.
Last edited:
I really do like my amp. Surprisingly good for the little it cost. Piano solos sound just like they are in the room with me. Crystal clear with wonderful tone.
Maybe my hearing is limited enough to not be aware of some amp/speaker deficiencies. But I just don't see how some things can get much better. Maybe a little bit, but not a huge amount. Bass certainly can use a boost, but mids and highs are excellent already.