The Best for the Least

[semente]

10 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

We will optimise two parameters that exhibit a somewhat inverse relationship by creating an indifference curve, not by arguing about a single point.

 

One point on the indiff. curve:

$6k Maggie 3.7i speakers

$2.4k Schiit Yggy DAC

$0.7k Schiit Vidar amp

- 0 -  your existing computer onto which you rip your existing CDs

$0.1k cables

--------------

call it $10k for a really fine system; toss in some DIY QRD and absorbers, bass traps if you want

 

...no it is not quite full range

 

 

10k is a lot of money.

What would you suggest for a 1 or 2k system?

[semente]

5 hours ago, GUTB said:

I am told over and over and over and over and OVER again how price doesn’t equal quality. Fine, that’s a truism. Now let’s see if the reality is going along with that. These JBL near-field monitors don’t compete with Riahdos, Magicos, TADs, etc, and literally everyone knows it. So where are the $300 Wilsons? Price doesn’t equal quality after all.

 

Apparently nobody knows it but you...

[semente]

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

What's the best performance for the least amount of money?

 

I guess it depends on the budget.

Start by choosing the speakers (spend around 50% at least half of your budget), then move onwards from that.

 

With speakers more money provides more bass extension and higher SPL cability; one should give up on sub-bass and go for a near-field setup.

At less than 500 I would go for a 2-way speaker (more drivers for the same price means cheaper drivers and larger cabinet - you get more low frequency extension but less quality); add a sub if absolutely necessary or later as funds permit.

Avoid midwoofers smaller than 6" (and single-driver speakers because their performance is too limited/compromised at any price point).

 

A 2-way speaker in a near-field setup doesn't require a lot of power.

 

Good DACs are available for little money.

[semente]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’d never recommend spending a specific percentage on a single part of a system. It just doesn’t make sense to me. 

 

I agree that I should have written at least half instead of 50%.

 

In my opinion and experience, if you are building a system with passive speakers on a low budget then a considerable amount of your money should go on the speakers.

[semente]

10 minutes ago, plissken said:

Source: Intel NUC with the J3455. No fan noise that I've ever heard out of these. $130

4GB RAM: $32

1TB SSD: $249

FLAC: Free

Linux: Free

Jriver: $49

JRemote (run it headless)

 

DAC: Presonus 2 | 6 $199

 

Speakers: JBL LSR 308's (active/powered) $500

 

Sub: Two SVS NSD-12's $800

 

For under $2000 I don't see it being easily bested. 

 

Interesting that you are paying more for transducing sub-bass than the rest of the range.

I wonder if there aren't any equally good but cheaper subs around?

Or better wider range speakers for $1300?

[semente]

5 minutes ago, bigbob said:

Schiit makes the Stereo you have sound better.

 

That surely depends on whether we're talking about good Schiit or bad Schiit.

[semente]

18 hours ago, plissken said:

 

It means it took an objectivist to do what the manufacturer failed to do. This is the same objectivist that showed the original Regen added noise to otherwise competent DAC outputs.

 

It's the same objectivist that showed the LPS-1 supercap PSU added noise to otherwise competent DAC's. 

 

There's a pattern here and and no, you don't get to cherry pick. 

 

This is what has led me to believe that these devices make a difference by 'getting dirty' and that audiophiles like that added distortions. 

 

Noise is nice. Look at all those people listening to vinyl...

[semente]

9 hours ago, Spacehound said:

If they have stopped completely (and I will take your word for it) they must be smaller than I assumed.  

There's a lot more money in high end audio. Soon they'll be selling wooden cable supports...

[semente]

18 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

imho anything that does not have DSD capability can't be included in a category "best for least" or "best anything"....jmo

Have you been taking lessons from GUTB? 

[semente]

18 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

Back to topic...let's not limit this just to DACS either. 

I would love to hear what others think are the best speakers less than $3K (new or used).

 

I like PSB Imagine T2 (used $1800)

B&W 705 (used $900)

FOCAL BE (anything)

ATC (anything)

 

anyone proud of their speakers that think they meet the "best for least"?

 

 

I replaced the T2s with a pair of Stirling LS3/6s, and I'd look at Kefs in same price range.

[semente]

5 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

I picked up a pair of LS3/5a for $25 at a garage sale....they sounded amazing for their size....unfortunately i sold them on ebay for $1100 within 24hrs of buying them...(that was several years back ago before I even got back into music)...I wish i held on to them longer...i bet those LS3/6s are superb.  Do you not run them with a sub?

 

They'd sound better with a sub, yes, but the lounge is quite small and I have to share it with the rest of the family...

When we finally settle in a couple of years time I will probably buy a Swarm.

[semente]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Technology in itself is not the answer. I heard the most expensive iteration of the dCS range about a dozen years ago, and the sound was dreadful - it had everything wrong about it, classic "digital sound", what people have been scathing about since the early years. It was a system problem, as nearly all these situations are - but it didn't help that the particular rig when playing vinyl was superbly good, as a contrast.

 

If the vinyl was "superbly good" then it couldn't have been a system problem, could it?

Perhaps there was a problem with the DAC?

[semente]

11 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

can the allo boss be used with other software besides volumeiio?

e.g. can it be used as a dlna enet appliance via jriver like sonore or sotm? 

HQPlayer NAA

[semente]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

Sure. I was being very minimalist and cheap. Some people think $1000 is a lot to spend on audio.

I do.

[semente]

11 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

As published by the manufacturers of SACD:

How does High-Res Audio Compare to CDs and MP3s?

When comparing bitrate, or the amount of data transferred per second, High-Resolution Audio’s bitrate (9,216 kbps) is nearly seven times higher than that of CDs (1,411 kbps) and almost 29 times higher than that of MP3s (320 kbps). And the higher the bitrate, the more accurately the signal is measured.

 

Bitrate has a direct impact on sound quality. When an original recording is compressed into an MP3 file, a lot of information is lost. A lower bitrate could translate to a softer bass response or weak-sounding drum cymbals, or it could blur the attack and decay of a plucked guitar string. Imagine the horror of listening to a dulled-down “DARE” by Gorillaz! A lot of the details that artists and mixing engineers work hard to put into a recording are diminished or disappear entirely in an MP3 file.

 

High-Resolution Audio has the opposite effect. You could listen to one of your favorite recordings in high-resolution that you might have heard hundreds of times and still discover details that you’ve never heard before. That’s because High-Resolution audio formats are compressed in such a way that no audio data is lost

-----------

For me personally, i have a lot of high resoluton 2x and 4x DSD 11.2mhz files, and the bass and details send shivers to me that low resoluton files do not have same impact.

 

"Suggestion" is a very powerful marketing tool.

[semente]

10 hours ago, STC said:

 

He did not ignore other measurements. He is well aware of a better measurements in those hires. But he also is normal human being that a mere 40 to 50 dB channels separation is more than enough. The same applies to SN ratio and all others. Better measurement doesn’t mean you can identify them in normal listening session. ABX excluded. 

 

All the measurements in CD is far superior than what’s on vinyl and yet the stereophiles reviewers over and over again perceived good soundstage in vinyl because vinyl specification is almost within the limits of humans hearing threshold. Anything more is just redundant for listening purpose. However, hires is very important at the recording stage. 

 

 

 

Most of the distortion produced by vinyl record playback is signal correlated and sometimes time delayed, creating a "3D effect" or "spaciousness " somewhat like reverb. It also adds perceived "warmth". Some people love it and find it more "lively" and "real". Same with valves and tape.

[semente]

9 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

Precisely, now you know all the extra measurements are just redundant for musical enjoyment. And yes! Discerning audiophiles under limited circumstances could easily identify difference in everything. That’s including same speakers make.  

 

There is also another reason why vinyl sounds easier and pleasant to listen to. 

 

One would think that the highest channel separation would produce the most realistic imaging and enjoyment as a result of.

But I have realised that this is very much recording and even genre dependant.

[semente]

9 hours ago, One and a half said:

I wish I could find the link on the web where the discussion centred around why vinyl's separation compared to digital was actually preferred. IIRC, the argument was vast dbs of separation were not required, and the modest bleed of L&R with vinyl created the image. Vinyl is inherently a noisy medium, so maybe this effect masked surface noise and we all wouldn't notice.

 

I think that spaciousness in vinyl comes from distortion and if you add channel bleeding you're perceptually improve dry or clinical studio recordings. It also helps with recordings where the singer is on the left and the band is on the right type of recordings (i.e. The Beatles)

[semente]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Not in my experience. High quality vinyl playback delivers the same subjective experience as high quality digital, and if there happens to be copies of the LP and CD of a particular recording available I perceive the presentation as being close enough to being identical - the obvious reason why, of course, is because the underlying captured event is identical, and  therefore if the systems "get out of the way" what you hear has to match ...

 

3D, spaciousness, warmth are the intrinsic qualities of what was recorded - digital often has a harder time reproducing these aspects correctly, as compared to vinyl - hence why people talk of "analogue" qualities in good digital.

 

Digital is not "better" because easily derived numbers look more impressive - it is capable of superb quality, but this does not automatically fall into place, just by plugging the pieces together like Lego.

 

Digital has a much higher performance potential than vinyl but as with anything else the final result is down to the quality of the implementation.

[semente]

8 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

You just keep repeating what i already agreed to disagree with....we just have different understandings.  If I am a minority, that is fine too.  Any method of time sampling is inferior to the whole, no matter what frequency.

 

It appears that for you there's no understanding, only phantasy...

[semente]

10 hours ago, GUTB said:

Vinyl in my limited experience seems to be greatly dependant on mastering and cutting. My small collection has examples of crackly, compressed, flat junk and wonderful recordings that are so quiet you could mistake them for digital at some times (Sheffield Labs, MoFi, Analouge Productions).

 

In digital quality is more deterministic and what matters is talent of the recording engineer and not having that quality crushed in mastering.

 

What vinyl does have across the board is the complete and utter lack of digititus.

 

Does it have vinylitus?

[semente]

9 hours ago, GUTB said:

Some reading for the interested — and for cultists thinking about re-joining normal society.

 

Here is a study from 1971 which shows humans being able to distinguish audible clicks at 10 microseconds — which would translate into 100 kHz in the frequency domain:

 

http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1912374

 

Most acoustic instruments don't produce sound above 20kHz at significant/audible levels.

Most adults don't hear sound above 20kHz.

Most mics roll-off the top close to 20kHz.

Many speakers produce nasty resonances just above 20kHz.

Mosquitoes are annoying because of the sound they make.

 

http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_mosquito.php

[semente]

7 hours ago, bigbob said:

Don't forget the magic magnets...

 

 Disagree; he's very knowledgeable about power accessories...

[semente]

Just now, mansr said:

Bit of an oxymoron, don't you think?

 

QED

[semente]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Incorrect.

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

 

 

 

More recent well designed speakers don't, and often have a usable frequency response to 35KHZ.

 

 

 

At least one member of each instrument family...and how low in level...and how often is music composed with ultrasound in mind?