The $3K all in exercize.

[realhifi]

 

And though I don't disagree at all with the importance of speakers, there are surprising values there as well. Decades ago the Vandersteen 2 series was a screaming deal at a little over $1000. They're a little more expensive now, though you could pick up a used pair and use them as part of a $3K system. But after hearing the ELACs for $550 a pair fronting thousands of dollars worth of electronics, I think they would do an excellent job.

 

The Elacs are great sounding boxes but I think they'd be a better anchor in a $1500 system personally. Not crazy about their finish either but I love real wood so I'm biased as regards how a speaker looks in a room.

 

Here's a pair of Kef R500's in walnut just installed in a living room. They sound even better than they look too!

 

[Rexp]

The Elacs are great sounding boxes but I think they'd be a better anchor in a $1500 system personally. Not crazy about their finish either but I love real wood so I'm biased as regards how a speaker looks in a room.

 

Here's a pair of Kef R500's in walnut just installed in a living room. They sound even better than they look too!

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23557[/ATTACH]

Whats the rest of the system components and their cost?

Personally I agree with Andrew Jones who has won 'best bang for your buck' at many recent hifi shows with his speakers that represent only 10% of the full system cost (Ex server). For example at CES 2016 he demonstrated an Audio Alchemy DAC/Power Supply ($2500) with Audio Alchemy amplifier ($2000) and his Elac Speakers ($500). Won best of show in this price range according to most of the press that attended.

[realhifi]

Whats the rest of the system components and their cost?

 

The customer already had an older Harmon Kardon integrated amplifier and a 400 disc CD player and I added a Sonos Connect (analog out). They are older (in their late seventies) music lovers (not audiophiles) and are over the moon with Apple Music and Pandora and all of the classical music stations they now can listen to. They were like kids at Christmas in their enthusiasm over their new system.

[bluesman]

The better the source the better the sound on the other hand better speakers just reveal the limitations of a poor source.

 

 

But to a speaker, the source is the source, of course, of course. So everything ahead of the speaker (and the internal crossover, if by "speaker" you mean the speaker system) contributes to the electrical signal that the speaker transduces into audible sound. In that light, I'm more comfortable suggesting that the "source" might well consume about half of the total system budget because the "source" is the aggregate that drives the speaker. And optimum speakers for a given system often do come in at about half the total system cost.

 

There are some great signal generators (e.g. player + NAS + DAC, turntable + arm + cartridge, etc) for very little money. In fact, you can get a decent entry level TT / arm / cartridge for $300, a very capable audio computer for $150 (e.g. Asus Chromebox), and a good little DAC like a Dragonfly or Audioengine for another $150 - this is source heaven for a total of $600. And as already described in this and many other threads, there are some great speakers for very little money.

 

It's both hard and potentially misleading to generalize about this. Even with an unlimited budget, assembling a great, well balanced system requires one of two things:

 

• a lot of time in which to audition components individually, pick your favorites among them, then put together the various combinations and permutations they enable and compare them all to choose the system you prefer at the price you want to pay
  

 

- OR -

 

 

• uncommonly good luck
  

[Ajax]

I wouldn't spend money on any equipment I hadn't heard but I'd always advocate spending at least half the budget on the source. The better the source the better the sound on the other hand better speakers just reveal the limitations of a poor source.

 

I agree with your position and follow the philosophy of Ivor Tiefenbrun (founder of Linn) who was one of the first advocates of the importance of getting the source right and developed the legendary Sondek LP12 turntable in the late 1970s.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"His approach was to try getting more information off the long-play gramophone record (otherwise known as the LP), and making the turntable immune to audio feedback – he successfully discovered a marketing story very different from the prevalent view in the hi-fi industry at that time. In the early years, Tiefenbrun hawked the turntable around shops in a crusade against the received wisdom that all turntables sounded the same. Tiefenbrun also battled the thinking, since Edgar Villchur, that the loudspeakers were the most important, instead asserting primacy of "the front end", saying that the quality of sound of the source was key. Once information was lost, distorted or corrupted, was gone forever and could never be corrected; that garbage in equalled garbage out.[6] Those few dealers who wanted to listen to it did, and heard a difference. By the end of the 1970s, his views had gained significant ground, large numbers of dealers and audiophiles had by then accepted this as the norm in the United Kingdom and around the world."

 

Ivor would implemented his marketing strategy by walking into a dealer's showroom and offer to play his LP12 turntable into their cheapest speakers and in doing so demonstrated a significant improvement in their sound compared with other sources.

 

I often wonder at the logic of those here at CA who emphasis the importance of speakers over the rest of the system. Surely a speaker can only reproduce what it is fed? As Eloise said "garbage in - garbage out".

 

Despite the continual argument over codecs, formats, hi res vs redbook, cables and the like, most here agree that in digital playback the recording process (quality, number and location of microphones) together with the mastering process will have the most bearing on the final sound quality. Following this logic surely you therefore need a front end that will extract this information to the highest possible resolution. To do this properly you need a correctly configured computer (PC or MAC) with specialist audio software (HQ, Aurdirvana, Roon and the like) or a stand alone player from companies like Naim, Auralic etc.

 

Even more importantly is the fact that 90% of all our music is Redbook and you will therefore require software (or a DAC) that will over sample and correctly filter the signal to minimise ringing etc as rebook's sampling rate of 44.1 is only just sufficient to meet the bare requirements of Nyqvist's theorem (if we except 20khz as the limit of human hearing). I think that when the 44.1 standard was chosen a very basic engineering principal was forgotten called "a factor of safety". When I studied civil engineering 40 years ago we were taught to apply a fact of 2 to any dead load (and 1.5 to any live load) so if we apply a similar principal to audio then a standard sample rate of about 80 should have been chosen (c.f 88.2 or 96k). Similarly 16 bits is barely sufficient for recording purposes and we know that most engineers prefer the extra headroom that 24 bits affords. This signal will then need to be fed into a high quality DAC, which can now be had for under US$2000. Obviously some DACs (such as sigma delta) can do their own over sampling.

 

I believe both Miska and Peter St's design approach emphasise getting the best out of redbook, as they appreciate that "theoretically" Redbook is sufficient for audio playback, but only IF properly implemented.

 

Once the source is set up correctly we can then jump to selecting our speakers, as where the amplifier was once the centre of the universe in analogue systems it's role has been greatly dumbed down in the digital domain and it is now there merely to support the speakers ... the signal can stay in the digital domain (whether sourced from the internet, local drive or NAS) and we simply do not need all the inputs we once required in the old analogue world.... the speaker's characteristics (sensitivity and current requirements) will determine the amount of amplification required.

 

Personally I prefer the simplicity of a PRE/DAC combination (like Benchmark produce) fed into a stand alone power amp or straight into active speakers.

 

At the end of the day IMO it all matters, however, I do not prescribe to half the money going to the speakers. I get great sound from my Benchmark HDR PRE/DAC ($US1,500) into Adam A7 active speakers (US$1,200), which also include 2 x 2 power amps one each for the tweeter and the woofer in each speaker. Similarly I get great sound from my recently purchased second hand Marantz PM 6005 Integrated with built in DAC (US $700 new) playing into a pair of Wharfdale 220 speakers (US$350), fed from my new Airies Mini (US$550) into the Marantz's optical input.

 

Glad I finally got that off my chest - one thing about writing stuff in forums no one can yell at you!

 

All the best.

 

 

Ajax

[徐中銳]

I get great sound from my recently purchased second hand Marantz PM 6005 Integrated with built in DAC (US $700 new)

 

Their next model up, PM7005 has more extensive DAC features with USB-B (which I made a point of recommending in November 2014) But, today (within Marantz product offerings) it honestly depends on one's needs and budget.

 

Personally, I'm leaning towards their new HD-AMP1 :

 

It's best to remember the here-and-now' date=' how [u']all[/u] Posts are dated...

 

Although, over the years, I've collected 6 distinct Marantz amplification systems, I want another for 2016, their MSRP $1,099 HD-AMP1 because it'd be, in short, a special kind of an onesie solution to my present needs (which are both obvious and antiquated).

 

Some images from 11.2 MHz DSD＆384 kHz 32 bit PCM (¥140,000) HD-AMP1 before more words when I've leisure time to explain :

​

 

However, if a PM7005 « second hand » comes along, I...

[Norton]

I agree with your position and follow the philosophy of Ivor Tiefenbrun (founder of Linn) who was one of the first advocates of the importance of getting the source right and developed the legendary Sondek LP12 turntable in the late 1970s.

 

That's certainly been the prevailing philosophy at dealers here in the UK at least and it has a certain obvious logic, until you apply the constraints of making compromises within a tight budget. Put simply it could be argued that there are much bigger SQ improvements to be had going from £500 to £2000 speakers than the same price comparison with a source, especially with current digital equipment. GIGO makes a lazy assumption that a cheaper source is garbage, rather than just being at a slightly different place on the same scale as a more expensive component.

 

Thus on a limited budget, 30% better speakers give a better net result than a 10% better source.

[bluesman]

Thus on a limited budget what gives the better net result: a 10% better source or 30% better speakers?

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of the word "better" is (or maybe the word "net").....

 

I'm not clear on such gradations of quality, as a "10% better source" probably means something different to each of us. I'm often amused and sometimes amazed at the glorious descriptions applied to changes that seem objectively less dramatic than the chosen words suggest. Few incremental improvements gained from this level of "upgrade" achieve incredible or unbelievable status for me, yet that's how they're often described on CA and elsewhere.

 

I'm absolutely certain that if I perceived an incredible, unbelievable improvement in SQ for an added 30%, I'd spring for it. But, for example, my Thorens TD125 (similar design to the Linn Sondek LP12) simply doesn't sound dramatically worse than an LP12 to me or anyone else in side by side comparison with the same source material, arm (SME3009 MkII) & cartiridge through the same system.

[mayhem13]

Some are predicting the importance of source components based on a speaker system that is a perfect device......which couldn't be farther from the reality in that today's speaker technology is still comparatively Stone Age.

 

Take IM and harmonic distortion as an example where source and file driven users are looking to produce as pure a signal as possible.............and then feed it to a speaker system that produces 1-5% distortion depending on frequency. If you're going to be subjective in your listening, be subjective in your buying as well......if it sounds good, ignore the price tag and pedigree and just buy it. It's when those attempt to add a false pedigree of objectivity to the mix that things get a bit messy. Liken all this to buying 99% optically clear and true glass windows and then installing dirty screens in front of them.

 

The ELAC speakers are using a very significant principle to make them so appealing in that they're producing directivity in the higher frequency range, allowing freq above 2khz to arrive at the listener and not reflecting off the sides of the space, smearing the original signal with early secondary content. Horn and waveguide loaded speakers have been doing this for decades. There's no magic here......still loaded with IM and HD as well as enclosure resonance and ringing. There's no way to accomplish otherwise at their price point.

 

Sorry fellas, but your rationale is gravely faulted.

[Norton]

I'm not clear on such gradations of quality, as a "10% better source" probably means something different to each of us.

 

Does that matter providing the customer perceives it as such? If I'm paying the bill and think something is 10% vs. 30% better should I care whether anyone else does?

[crenca]

 

Personally' date=' I'm leaning towards their [i']new[/i] HD-AMP1 :

 

I don't recall seeing a class D amp that doubles into 4 ohms (from 8) any where near this price range. Perhaps the 8 ohm rating is conservative.

[Ajax]

That's certainly been the prevailing philosophy at dealers here in the UK at least and it has a certain obvious logic, until you apply the constraints of making compromises within a tight budget. Put simply it could be argued that there are much bigger SQ improvements to be had going from £500 to £2000 speakers than the same price comparison with a source, especially with current digital equipment. GIGO makes a lazy assumption that a cheaper source is garbage, rather than just being at a slightly different place on the same scale as a more expensive component.

 

Thus on a limited budget, 30% better speakers give a better net result than a 10% better source.

 

Hi Norton and Mayhem,

 

I guess the point I'm really trying to make is that with digital audio it is even more important to get the source right. When the first CD players came out they sounded very bad to my ears compared to my Linn Sondek turntable while feeding the same amp and speakers. All my mates thought they were excellent,"perfect sound forever", but I just didn't get it. I hadn't realised that they were not experiencing the same level of sound quality I was through my Linn Sondek. In hindsight CDs most probably did sound better to them considering their playback gear.

 

With the advent of computer audio, and developments in DAC technology, that horrible "digital" sound is now hopefully behind us, however, as 90% of our music is still limited to redbook I feel it is imperative that extra money is spent "upfront" to ensure that we get the required oversampling and filtering that Miska and Peter St provide for redbook with their software / DAC combinations.

 

I have a Devialet ensemble as my main system ($10k) and I'm writing this at my beach house while listening to my new mid fi system comprising the Auralic Mini ($550) / Marantz PM6005 ($700) / Wharfdale speakers ($350) using the optical input on the Marantz and I've got to say I have no complaints.... very natural and non fatiguing sound etc etc. Anyway for me any system is only as good as it's weakest link and the front end is as equally important as the back end.

 

With regard to the OP the combination of a BENCHMARK DAC2 HGC ($1,900) played into ADAM A7X active speakers ($1,400) would be hard to beat assuming a smallish room of no larger than say 20' x 10', otherwise a sub is needed. I know it is over budget but the A7Xs have been around a while and are available on eBay for around $1,100 in "mint condition".

 

All the best,

 

 

Ajax

[bluesman]

Does that matter providing the customer perceives it as such? If I'm paying the bill and think something is 10% vs. 30% better should I care whether anyone else does?

Not at all. I'm addressing the issue of offering such formulae as advice to the novice. Those who are comfortable with such personal evaluations should enjoy their systems in peace and good health. But those who don't yet trust their ears, or are looking for guidance in purchasing their first systems, may not benefit from being told to spend X% of their budget on any specific item or category.

[master]

Interesting discussion, but I have heard both the absolute best as well as subjectively the best at various price points.

 

The ELAC speakers are an excellent example for something budget range equalling or even bettering more expensive components. Likewise I have heard budget amps across many price points that perform better than their more expensive counterparts. A Topping amplifier comes to mind, it pretty much killed every amplifier up to a certain volume level. I have heard several NAS and SBC/SOC setups that will leave behind more expensive music streamers/servers.

 

Another point to consider is that while source is extremely important, not all speakers play well with every source and amplification. Magnepan speakers are an example in this regard, extremely hard to place and match. On the polar extreme, we have also heard speakers that play nice with pretty much everything and right out of the box. Harbeth is an excellent example here, they sound their optimum best right out of the box and with most equipment. In fact very little can be done to improve them (comparatively speaking with other speakers that undergo a sea change in terms of performance with change in amplifier or source).

 

So the question that needs to be asked is do we go with a Linn source or a Harbeth speaker? From my personal experience I would go with something like the Harbeth speakers simply because they're so easy to place and match. And of course, all of the Linn's I have heard while sounding excellent are way beyond my present budget.

[Rexp]

Hi Norton and Mayhem,

 

I guess the point I'm really trying to make is that with digital audio it is even more important to get the source right. When the first CD players came out they sounded very bad to my ears compared to my Linn Sondek turntable while feeding the same amp and speakers. All my mates thought they were excellent,"perfect sound forever", but I just didn't get it. I hadn't realised that they were not experiencing the same level of sound quality I was through my Linn Sondek. In hindsight CDs most probably did sound better to them considering their playback gear.

 

With the advent of computer audio, and developments in DAC technology, that horrible "digital" sound is now hopefully behind us, however, as 90% of our music is still limited to redbook I feel it is imperative that extra money is spent "upfront" to ensure that we get the required oversampling and filtering that Miska and Peter St provide for redbook with their software / DAC combinations.

 

I have a Devialet ensemble as my main system ($10k) and I'm writing this at my beach house while listening to my new mid fi system comprising the Auralic Mini ($550) / Marantz PM6005 ($700) / Wharfdale speakers ($350) using the optical input on the Marantz and I've got to say I have no complaints.... very natural and non fatiguing sound etc etc. Anyway for me any system is only as good as it's weakest link and the front end is as equally important as the back end.

 

With regard to the OP the combination of a BENCHMARK DAC2 HGC ($1,900) played into ADAM A7X active speakers ($1,400) would be hard to beat assuming a smallish room of no larger than say 20' x 10', otherwise a sub is needed. I know it is over budget but the A7Xs have been around a while and are available on eBay for around $1,100 in "mint condition".

 

All the best,

 

 

Ajax

+100

 

May the source be with you!

[Jud]

I don't recall seeing a class D amp that doubles into 4 ohms (from 8) any where near this price range. Perhaps the 8 ohm rating is conservative.

 

Actually, at not a lot more ($1499), there's a Class D amp that starts out at 8 ohms with considerably more power (200W), doubles into 4 ohms, then 600W into 2 ohms, and will work with speaker impedance of 1 ohm, so it can drive difficult loads. That's the James Romeyn Hypex NCore NC400 stereo amp build I chose for my amp for purposes of this exercise. That's part of what choosing the ELACs for speakers allows you to do with a $3K budget.

 

mayhem's absolutely right, no magic behind the ELACs, just good solid engineering at a price point where that type of engineering and parts quality isn't usually seen.

[Melvin]

I don't recall seeing a class D amp that doubles into 4 ohms (from 8) any where near this price range. Perhaps the 8 ohm rating is conservative.

 

This company has been around for quite some time. I think wgscott built one awhile ago but they also sell preassembled at superb prices.

 

SDS-250C Class D Audio Amplifier

[crenca]

Actually, at not a lot more ($1499), there's a Class D amp that starts out at 8 ohms with considerably more power (200W), doubles into 4 ohms, then 600W into 2 ohms, and will work with speaker impedance of 1 ohm, so it can drive difficult loads. That's the James Romeyn Hypex NCore NC400 stereo amp build I chose for my amp for purposes of this exercise. That's part of what choosing the ELACs for speakers allows you to do with a $3K budget.

 

mayhem's absolutely right, no magic behind the ELACs, just good solid engineering at a price point where that type of engineering and parts quality isn't usually seen.

 

Very good to know. Chris Walker published some specs on that new Uni-Fi range over at AVS forums. They are 85db efficient at a nominal rating of 4 ohms. I wonder how much they dip below 4 ohms? I remember watching a video on you tube and Andrew J said that the B6's I own don't dip much below 4 ohms (they have a nominal rating of 6 ohm). So with the new line, it occurs to me that an owner will have to pay attention to the quality of the amp he powers them with because as I understand it, many (most?) cheap amplification (such as your typical Best Buy AV receiver, etc.) does not play well with speakers that go below 4 ohms.

 

I have an Emotiva a-100 (50w into 8) powering my B6's, and they play very loud without falling apart, so the Emotiva line might be a touch underrated or simply able to handle less than 8 ohm speakers well. I have a entry level Marantz AV unit that is 50w (surely class D but I actually have not looked it up) that can not drive the B6's as well as the Emotiva amp...

[徐中銳]

Being short of time, quoting :

Am reminded (by concurrent Threads) of the following Q&A [with Ken Ishiwata] from HFC interview pdf (same source as Post #1) :

How important is test and measurement to Marantz ? And how do you balance measured performance with your subjective listening ?

There I think we have to be very careful not to mislead people with specifications. That's what I find is the biggest problem today because people believe a 100-watt amplifier is much louder than a 70-watt' date=' but the difference is small. So all these technical things on the specs and the reality is such a big difference - getting the consumer to understand is hard work. Measurement is important, but it's not the final goal. For me it's just a confirmation. So, 0.003 against 0.001 - so what ?

[/b']

 

 

It's still only 10 days into 2016, ideally, we should all be enjoying a good dose of relaxation—perhaps with our choices in AV and...

 

And :

Recalling these Marantz graphs' date=' from one generation to the next, of [/font']« momentary current » capability :

And of Ken's Japan-based colleague, Ryuichi Sawada speaking on « momentary current » when 3min12sec into his Hong Kong presentation

 

[video=youtube;C9st-sqxgz4]

[master]

Being short of time' date=' quoting[/quote']

 

How is this even relevant to this thread?

 

Share something on building a complete system for $3K as that's what this thread is about.

 

PS: Great you are sold on Marantz. Just don't think you need to keep posting it on unrelated threads...

[MikeJazz]

Wilhelm,

 

I hope you don't feel offend with me asking this, but you seem only concern in posting about marantz and quoting their material...are you really just a marantz fanboy or do you have any other relationship with the brand?

 

you must have other interests in audio...dare to share with us?

 

Now, I also like the brand, but the repeated focus on it might, at a certain point, be perceived as a kind of "marketing effort" to keep the brand at our top of mind...

 

Cheers...

[crenca]

Wilhelm,

 

I hope you don't feel offend with me asking this, but you seem only concern in posting about marantz and quoting their material...are you really just a marantz fanboy or do you have any other relationship with the brand?

 

How is this even relevant to this thread?

 

 

 

He is trying to speak to my question about that particular Marantz unit doubling into a 4 ohm load I believe. I appreciate the effort, but you guys are right in that it is a tangent of sorts though the Elac's Uni-Fi's were mentioned and at 4 ohm's nominal the amp selection would be a bit more complicated than your much more common 8 ohm nominal speaker...

[徐中銳]

Yeah, I was primarily answering crenca—my promise to reply ASAP

 

And it's known I play Hi-Fi through Ken's work—since 1999 when I became friends with Michael Wildash, the previous Marantz importer for New Zealand, befriending KI during his 2001 visit...

 

With my various interest, not least reading and the outdoors, I simply support Ken's work by studying what to buy from Marantz to keep up (especially) with any current-media I want to play.

 

Why would I scavenge various brands to form a system, systems ?

 

Incidentally, the brands that Mike now distributes :

wildashaudio.co.nz (if I want too to study and support)

 

Quoting 5 days ago :

To satisfy those like myself who question your objectivity' date=' I ask that you give an example of a DAC you prefer to Marantz, and briefly explain why. It will help others accept your long Marantz-worshipping posts.[/quote']

SL, I'm not compelled to « satisfy » you nor your ilk.

KI's my friend, I study his work...

 

What you « accept » is your business.

 

Not quite WHFT' date=' but some of what I'd like to review for, at least, the first 3 weeks of 2016 :

[/font']

 

Monstro quod ipse tibi possis dare, best wishes

 

 

To an entity calling itself master, your antipathy is clouding your logic, see #2

 

Plus, readers can choose (or be recommended to) other products making up a system, minus the « MSRP $1,099 HD-AMP1 » which is both an Integrated Amp and Source...

[master]

To an entity calling itself master' date=' your antipathy is clouding your logic, see [/size']#2

 

I still don't understand you and I'm tired. I'll be hitting that ignore button to save me from more madness.

[徐中銳]

Incidentally, my girlfriend often quotes Lagerfeld quoting Voltaire :

« Everything that needs an explanation or description is not worth it. »

 

I still don't understand you...