Audio(phile?) / Hi-Fi Questions...

[klankymen]

EDIT: New questions at the end of the thread.



Well I've posted a post on a similar topic to this in a Hi-Fi/Audiophile forum, but it seems that many audio forums suffer from the same problems that Mac forums do: snobbish unfriendly people
So I figured I'd ask here, because for the most part you can find someone here that knows as much as the so-called specialists, and is much more helpful.

I'm no audiophile, far from it, but I'm getting dissapointed by the sound of my current speakers, and want to invest in something better.

I'd like to buy a system mainly for music, but also for movies. Optimally it would be a 5.1 system, but for now I'm considering just getting a Receiver and the 2 front speakers, and reusing some old components for the surround sound speakers.

Since my main focus is going to be music (played via pc), in 2-channel mode, does it make sense to get a 7-channel receiver (I'm looking at the Yamaha RX-V559), or would a Stereo receiver offer better quality for the same price? If the difference is not significant, I'd rather have the surround than the stereo for the same money, obviously.

The next issue is: connection. I have always made sure to have digital sound output on my motherboard, in the case I should ever get a receiver, and indeed my DFI has a TOSLink port, which seems optimal to connect the computer and the receiver.
By utilizing the whole passthrough thing, I should have excellent sound on movies with AC-3 encoding. however, what about music files (ranging from mp3s to FLACs or CDs)? can I even play them over optical? and would they also sound better than with the AC97s analog audio? Or would they not gain from using the Optical output? If so, would I need a good analog sound card to feel a benefit?

Furthermore: Speakers. since I obviously want to have the best sound in the front, I'd like to invest my money in the 2 Front speakers. I'm thinking of spending between 500 and 1000 on Receiver + Speakers.
I've been looking at some speakers from Klipsch and Nubert (a German brand, not sure how known they are in the states), and the first thing I need to decide is: Floorstanding or Bookshelf speakers? Bookshelf are significantly cheaper, and also more practical to place, but I'm assuming you're getting some kind of benefit with floorstandings, otherwise they wouldn't be more expensive.
I'm assuming the bookshelfs lack bass compared to the floorstandings, but I am planning to pair them with a subwoofer, would that be able to compensate? and, would the subwoofer even be in use when I listen to music in 2-channel mode? if not, then obviously it wouldn't be much help for lacking bass in music. (not that I'm addicted to bass or anything, but I like to hear the whole frequency range if possible)

That's about all I can think of for now, please ask if you want me to clarify any of my diffuse thoughts, and thanks in advance.

[Trekmeister]

Ok, here are some of my opinions. You are probably going to get people saying the absolute opposite, but that's the hifi-world you know!

I used to have a system in the price range you are talking about, if the currency in question is euro. But that also included a CD player.
Cambridge A3i amp
Sony 176E Brooklands Edition speakers
Sony CDP-XE530 cd-player
(cost me about the equivalent of €1000 7-8 years ago, just for comparison)

I have always been a fan of 2 channel amplifiers, in my opinion they sound a lot better for the money than 5.1 and 7.1 stuff. After all you are paying for 2 amps instead of like 6 of them, nor do you pay for DSPs and stuff messing with the sound.

I used my gear almost exclusivley for music, and if you are going for music too I'd suggest deleting those mp3:s and get some better quality sources. Be that CDs or FLAC-compressed music depending on your legality. You are going to notice a big difference from mp3s to lossless.

Regarding the subwoofer, I'd rather put my money on a pair of better speakers. I've never been a fan of woofers for music. It is nice to have a powerful woofer when watching movies, but for music I'd rather go for a pair of floor standing speakers for the extra money you didn't spend on the woofer. Even if you have a pair of book shelf speakers, you don't want to put them in the book shelf or similar but on a pair of speaker stands. A book shelf will resonate and sound bad.

So I've been writing about what I used to have, what do I listen to today? Well I still have the speakers and the CD player, but the Cambridge broke some time ago. Now I have a pioneer 5.1 receiver and a big woofer. Sounds like crap compared to my old amp. But it is more fun to watch movies with, which is some comfort at least.

[JoeWPgh]

I don't have any specific advice aside from a word of warning. mp3 and other compressed formats are great for convenience and portability. But, they are never going to be 'audiophile' quality. They are simply too compressed. When you reduce a file size by 90%, something's got to give.

The formats work because they are 'tuned' to sound good through headphones or small speakers. Once you step up to an 'audiophile' playback system, the deficiencies will be obvious.

I'm not saying this to blast the compressed formats. I love them for what they do well - portability. But to try and get anything approaching an 'audiophile' experience from them is going to be very expensive, and ultimately, very frustrating.

[klankymen]

Yeah, I realize that mp3 quality will not be sufficient at some point, and I will be replacing with FLAC whenever possible, and of course playing directly from CD or record occasionally.

However the file format is really something I'd like to address over the course of time. My question about how music sounds applies not really only to mp3, but also to all music in general, I shall edit my original post abit to make that clear.

and thanks for the advice so far.

if the currency in question is euro

Thats an information I deliberately left out, since the currency can be either dollar or euro... cause lets face it, something that costs 1000$ in the states will cost 1000€ in germany. But indeed, I would most likely be buying with euros.

[wildman15]

Audio is such a subjective topic, you'll get answers all over the map. I'm an audio layman, but I enjoy good sound. I'd say you need to narrow things down to what it is you really want. Think long term here, You may want stereo for music today, but maybe tomorrow you'll want 7.1 multichannel for movies. Avoid buying equipment that you'll need to upgrade next month.

You can get modern digital receivers that allow switching between stereo and multichannel speaker outputs. I have a Panasonic XR55S with this capability. There are many small speaker manufacturers on the internet, who offer matched sets of home theater speakers, that sound great. I have a set of Athena Technologies Audition 7.1, floorstanders front and back, bookshelf side surrounds, center channel, and a 12" sub. Sound is superb.

Generally, dedicated sound cards can offer better sound due to having more room on the board for the dsp's, opamps, DACs, and other stuff that produce quality sound output. From what I have seen, onboard audio has been getting better lately. I have a few Chaintech AV-710 audio cards, which are inexpensive. If you decide the stereo route, this card will output sound through its high quality DACs (using windows) and also supports AISO kernel streaming. It passes through AC3 and bitstream via an optical output. Great for htpc. In fact, most Envy based chipsets are really good for music and movies, so-so for gaming.

Long story short, if you get a good multichannel receiver that does 2.0, you can enjoy that now, and add speakers if your interest in multichannel takes off. Word of caution, stay away from big screens and silent running computers. Once you go there, your spending will skyrocket!

[mexell]

My advice:
Get a good 2-channel amp and floor-standing speakers. I've got a Harman/Kardon HK 670 and a pair of Canton LE 407s, and I absolutely love this combination. If it's not possible to get a good 2-channel amp with digital input in your price range, you've got two options: 1)buy an external DAC or 2) buy a decent soundcard for your PC. Brands of favor are M-Audio or Terratec. Even a hotrodded Creative X-Fi would be very decent. Don't buy something like Razer or other overpriced gamer stuff.

[jhhoffma]

Yamaha makes great receivers. I have a Yamaha RV-VX1400, which is pretty much the same tech as the 559 you are looking at. Their speakers aren't all that bad either. I have towers (NS-555), a center (NSC-444), two side surrounds (NS-333), and a sub (YST-SW315). I have some Sony wall mounts that I use for 7.1 in the rear, but they are not currently in use in my setup (moved to a new apartment and the layout isn't right).

I will say this, while the stereo modes are exceptional in a Yamaha receiver, I like using the 5-channel or 7-channel stereo modes. I don't normally sit on my couch and listen to music, usually I'm doing something in the room and moving around and that mode really floods the room with sound and you pretty much get a stereo effect anywhere in the room (save right in front of a speaker).

I will say this, if you're going multichannel anyway, don't skimp on the center channel, or at least match it to your FL and FR. If you watch TV or movies, that's where the majority of the dialog will be coming from, and you don't want that to sound weird when compared to the rest of the front stage.

[aef110]

Hi,

I'm a professional classical musician and lifelong audiophile and work extensively in professional audio. Perhaps my input may be valuable, but be sure to use your own judgment and your taste will develop over time.

If you have a limited budget, it's always wise to invest in more "modest" audio components, since the quality per watt or per cubic inch will be considerably better. It is, in my opinion, unwise to pursue floor-standing speakers under 1500 or so euros, since that money will be spread on larger cabinets and drivers whose quality cannot match small speakers at that price level. For your money you'll end up with poorer quality drivers, cabinet and finish, compared to a similarly-priced bookshelf speaker. If you want genuine bass rather than an undefined, tubby, boomy sound, you need to pay serious money for it. (It is also generally bad to buy smaller speakers now and add a subwoofer later, since in most cases the result will sound disconnected and artificial. Good subwoofers start at a couple thousand euros / dollars, anyway.)

Around your budget, the most musical bookshelf speakers I've encountered are the Vienna Acoustics model Haydn. They're roughly 1000 euros per pair. They don't have deep bass, but what they do have is stunning musicality. Voices are reproduced with beautiful clarity and they lack the fatiguing "tizziness" that cripples lesser speakers, yet they have brilliance where needed. Marry them to an entry-level but high-quality two-channel amp such as the NAD C320BEE and I dare say you'll have a hard time getting more musical satisfaction for such little money. Just be sure to place the speakers on quality stands, with spikes, to damp any vibrations, and don't place them too close to a wall.

In any case, it's worth auditioning components (bring CDs whose sound you know well) at your local hi-fi shops, just to get a feel for what's out there. Enjoy exploring, and good luck!

[mexell]

I have to second aef110's advice. Go somewhere where you can listen at various combinations and where you aren't suspected if you turn up the volume a bit.
Btw., where in Bavaria are you? Maybe I can suggest you a good dealer in your area.

[Pierce]

I'll just answer this question since I'm a friend.
He lives near Rosenheim (50km to Munich)

[The Gangrel]

The word audiophile brings to mind middle age, middle class eccentrics with far too much money on their hands and not the time/inclination/etc to investigate the science behind their hobby.

TBH, I'd go for the cheapest components that sound good to you, because they're all much of a muchness. Those £300 speakers might cost £60 to produce, whilst the £800 pair might cost £110. Whether it's amp/speakers/whatever you are paying for a brand and packaging, not the quality of the component parts.

MP3's get a bad rap, there are plenty of poorly ripped ones out there. But given the LAME converter at 256kbps or so, you'd be very hard pushed to tell the difference from the original source, which is pretty good at 1/6th wav size.

[klankymen]

Hi,

I'm a professional classical musician and lifelong audiophile and work extensively in professional audio. Perhaps my input may be valuable, but be sure to use your own judgment and your taste will develop over time.

If you have a limited budget, it's always wise to invest in more "modest" audio components, since the quality per watt or per cubic inch will be considerably better. It is, in my opinion, unwise to pursue floor-standing speakers under 1500 or so euros, since that money will be spread on larger cabinets and drivers whose quality cannot match small speakers at that price level. For your money you'll end up with poorer quality drivers, cabinet and finish, compared to a similarly-priced bookshelf speaker. If you want genuine bass rather than an undefined, tubby, boomy sound, you need to pay serious money for it. (It is also generally bad to buy smaller speakers now and add a subwoofer later, since in most cases the result will sound disconnected and artificial. Good subwoofers start at a couple thousand euros / dollars, anyway.)

Around your budget, the most musical bookshelf speakers I've encountered are the Vienna Acoustics model Haydn. They're roughly 1000 euros per pair. They don't have deep bass, but what they do have is stunning musicality. Voices are reproduced with beautiful clarity and they lack the fatiguing "tizziness" that cripples lesser speakers, yet they have brilliance where needed. Marry them to an entry-level but high-quality two-channel amp such as the NAD C320BEE and I dare say you'll have a hard time getting more musical satisfaction for such little money. Just be sure to place the speakers on quality stands, with spikes, to damp any vibrations, and don't place them too close to a wall.

In any case, it's worth auditioning components (bring CDs whose sound you know well) at your local hi-fi shops, just to get a feel for what's out there. Enjoy exploring, and good luck!

Although I do like the acorn finish of the Viennas, the price combined with an amplifier is 1350€, which is one third out of my budget range (500-1000) and that doesn't even entail a surround receiver.

So I think it's realistic to say that my goals are probably one or two rungs lower than your recommendations.

mexell, what Pierce wrote is correct by the way, I'd be happy if you had any recomendations, so I can investigate some speakers and receivers in person.

The word audiophile brings to mind middle age, middle class eccentrics with far too much money on their hands and not the time/inclination/etc to investigate the science behind their hobby.

perhaps true, and this is a picture that certainly can't be applied to me, not at the least because of the "too much money" part. which is why I put the "phile" in parantheses, maybe HiFi would be a better description of the advice I need.

[colin2]

aef110's advice is good. Keep in mind that you can usually get used equipment for half the price of new. Almost all my gear was bought used. Munich should have one or more dealers of used gear set up so you can listen and choose.

You can definitely do better than Klipsch! Jean-Marie Reynaud is a brand with some good models that might be in your price range; you might look also for Mission, Epos, and Rega. Triangle is a brand some people like but I haven't heard them. Try to listen with your amplifier, because the amplifier-speaker matchup is important (that is, the same speaker will sound different with different amplifiers). And take your time. It's a significant amount of money and speakers are really a matter of personal taste.

Very few bookshelf speakers are really meant to go on a bookshelf. You'll want to buy or build a stand. A couple of cement blocks will work if you aren't fussy about aesthetics. Basically, as aef110 says, with a bookshelf speaker you're not getting much below 100 hz, and that's because getting really good low bass is really expensive. If you're geeky enough to be posting here, go over to the www.stereophile.com site and read the "measurements" sections for some of their speaker reviews. That will give you a sense of the technical constraints of making a speaker.

For music quality, go 2-channel. You can always add cheap speakers for the other channels if you really want movie sound effects.

AMplification: very good inexpensive digital amplification is available, as in the Panasonic xr series, and they will take a digital input. That will also give you the ability to add more speakers if you want them.

The "pc audio" board of www.audioasylum.com is worth searching for material on software, codecs, and gear.

[mr. poopyhead]

as far as i know, there aren't many multi-channel music sources out (that are accessible to regular people)... so i think it would be a waste to get a multi-channel reciever... unless you'll be using it for movies or something...

a nice entry level amp would be an NAD... my friend's dad has one hooked up to some B&W speakers and i think it sounds phenomenal... i would love to get one for myself if i could... anything above an entry level amp (and i don't mean stuff from best buy) suffers from severely diminishing returns...

the cheapest entry level audiophile solution would be some nice headphones and a small headphone amp... my grado SR-125s sound great to me. better than anything i could affor otherwise.

in the end, trust your own ears... no sense in spending an extra $X for brand A, if brand B sounds the same TO YOU.

[Matija]

I'll chime-in...

An old NAD 310/312/316 should be perfectly fine (80-120€, I think), and then you can pair it with used speakers. Those are a greater risk, however, so it might be a better idea to buy new ones.

A pair of entry-level bookshelf B&Ws, Infinities, KEFs, JM Labs, Missions or Mordaunt-Shorts shouldn't set you back a lot, 300-400€ at most.

So, that's 500€. What do you do with the other 500€? You buy a cheap Chinese 5.1 home cinema system and set it up around your TV, *and* you have enough money left for some nice headphones to complement your music system, *and* some more

Music and a surround system don't match. Two different things.

[klankymen]

So, that's 500€. What do you do with the other 500€? You buy a cheap Chinese 5.1 home cinema system and set it up around your TV, *and* you have enough money left for some nice headphones to complement your music system, *and* some more

That was in fact something I was considering, but I assumed it would be cheaper to combine it (ie multichannel receiver with good/expensive fronts). BTW I have my sennheisers allready, so thats 100 bucks I can spend elsewhere

as far as i know, there aren't many multi-channel music sources out (that are accessible to regular people)... so i think it would be a waste to get a multi-channel reciever... unless you'll be using it for movies or something...

Yeah, maybe I didn't make it clear in my original post. My main usage would be music (obviously 2-channel, I'm no fan of surround music), but I'd like to watch the occasional movie also.

FWIW I'd estimate usage to be 15% movies, 85% music.

AMplification: very good inexpensive digital amplification is available, as in the Panasonic xr series, and they will take a digital input. That will also give you the ability to add more speakers if you want them.

When you say digital amplification....
(understand this is really new ground for me here, so expect some stupid questions)
Does this mean if I attach my computer to the Receiver using a digital optical cable, a music file will sound better than using a cheap sound-card's analog out, because the sound-card doesn't process the signal, but rather the Amp does?
Are the Yamaha RX-V series also capable of digital amplification? (I know this is a stupid criterium, but I think they look better than the Panasonics)

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

And while I'm asking questions here.... what would be a good sound card to use to record Records to a digital format (WAV, FLAC, 320kB/s MP3)? Both budget and priority are low on this question. But would a Chaintec AV-710 offer significant improvement over my onboard AC97, or would it make more sense to invest in a more expensive card with gold plated connectors and all that crap?

[colin2]

The questions are great. There are 3 ways to get the signal out to amplification: (1) digital out to an amplifier that takes a digital signal or to a DAC and then an analog amp (2) analog out from a sound card (3) usb to a USB DAC or external soundcard.

The advantage of (1) is simplicity: amp that takes a digital signal, coax or toslink cable, computer. Sometimes people buy a soundcard anyway because they think it gets them a better quality digital output; I don't know. Other things being equal it should get you much better sound than a cheap sound card.

On the other hand if you are going to get a good soundcard to digitize analog sources (I would think of the E-MU 0404 as the minimum here) then it should have decent analog outputs and you could try using those. This would also give you the option of a nice used 2-channel integrated amp for music (2 speakers are really more than enough for movies).

All I know about Panasonics is that the XR series has been widely praised for audio quality (though you have to turn certain features off; search on the amplifiers board at audioasylum for more) and one innovative high-end speaker manufacturer has sold them with speakers. http://www.newformresearch.com/digital- ... erview.htm
I don't know about the other Panasonics.

Speakers, if cared for well, can last 50 years. The only really risky used purchases are moving-parts gear like CD players or phonographs.

I own a NAD amp and have it in a 2nd system and it's fine for background listening. But with your budget, you can do a lot getter -- Rega and Creek are worth listening to. But before I say any more, what kind of music do you listen to, and how large is the room in which you plan to set this up?

[klankymen]

So, regarding option (1).... what exactly is meant with "digital signal"? I understand when watching movies the AC3 info is sent bit-perfect to the receiver, but with music? I'm assuming that means the CPU is decoding the mp3 in to a digital sound-stream of some sort, which is however not touched by the soundcard, but rather also passed through, correct?

The music I listen to.... Let's start by saying I'm certainly not the typical audiophile clientele, as I have neither classical nor jazz records/cds. which is not to say I don't enjoy the music, I just don't listen to it regularly. What I listen to more is pretty much any kind of modern music. so... Rock, ranging from AFI to the Who, some Hip-Hop and rap, and of course electronic music, house and trance.

The room is approximately 16sqm, 5m long by 3m15. and if it's relevant, the ceiling is approximately 4m high at the highest point, which may be negative for accoustics.....

And more on the topic of Digital Amplification:
(which I read on wikipedia to be referred to as Class D and sometimes Class E amplification)
You say the Panasonic XR Series have it, does anyone know what other receivers do? I'm assuming just because a Receiver posseses Dolby Digital capabilities doesn't mean it has an actual digital amp.... or does it? If so than any AV-Receiver should do well with the digital signal... If not I'll need to find one with Class D.

For example, the Yamaha RX-V559 I'm looking at lists in the manufacturers specs:

Digital ToP-ART and High Current Amplification

which sounds to me like Digital [...] Amplification, but I'm assuming that's not right.
I found this picture on the yamaha website explaining ToP-ART, which I would interpret by my limited understanding of the subject to mean that the signal is converted to analog by the DACs, and then amplified. But I spose that should effectively have the same benifit, as the DAC operation is done in the amp, assuming at least the DACs they use are quality.

And Stereo Amps? I assume they don't have it, so if I chose the Stereo route I'd have to invest in a $100 soundcard, to be able to utilize the quality gains.

[colin2]

Just quickly: MP3 I don't know about. Digital amplification means the amplification happens in the digital not analog domain which is what the Panasonic XR series does. If a system uses a DAC then it's converting digital-to-analog and then amplifying the analog signal. The quality gains with the Panasonic XRs are in using the digital inputs. If by "stereo amp" you mean a standard integrated 2-channel amp, most do analog amplification, though there are some high-end two-channel digital amps.

Different kinds of music benefit in different ways from spending on gear; generally people who build highly detailed systems listen to a lot of jazz, classical, and acoustic music. So we'll put aside the amps I was gong to suggest and the earlier speakers. If I had your budget and tastes, I'd get the Panasonic amp and then try out new and used speakers until I found something that made me happy. As an example of what's out there, the PSB Stratus Silver is available used on Audiogon for $600; it's a great speaker for the kind of music you like. You want bass, and while this budget won't get you super-detailed bass, I'd go with a floorstander that that puts out some energy in those lower octaves, not a bookshelf speaker. And as someone else said, if you want musical bass it's usually a better use of money to get floorstanders than to muck around with subwoofers.

[autoboy]

I'm a practical audio newbie, but I believe that my experience in this is enough to recommend products that the average newbie audio guy will love. All of the advice here is good, but it is geared towards audio nirvana and not practical casual music listening. Let me address your questions:

I'm getting dissapointed by the sound of my current speaker

What are your current speakers?

I'd like to buy a system mainly for music, but also for movies. Optimally it would be a 5.1 system, but for now I'm considering just getting a Receiver and the 2 front speakers, and reusing some old components for the surround sound speakers.

What % do you value movies to music? If there are movies in your future, skip the 2 channel amps.

but for now I'm considering just getting a Receiver and the 2 front speakers, and reusing some old components for the surround sound speakers.

This is a good plan and one that many people take. The most important thing to remember is that speakers need to be tonally matched for the best surround experience. This usually means that you stick to one brand and one line in that brand. Some have success with different brands but leave that up to the professionals. Having mismatched surrounds will be fine to start. But to get the full experience you need tonally matched speakers.

Since my main focus is going to be music (played via pc), in 2-channel mode, does it make sense to get a 7-channel receiver (I'm looking at the Yamaha RX-V559), or would a Stereo receiver offer better quality for the same price? If the difference is not significant, I'd rather have the surround than the stereo for the same money, obviously.

Will there be a difference? Not enough to warrent a 2 channel amp unless you are an audiophile and you wouldn't be on this forum asking that question if you are. Yamaha makes great receivers. Pick one that has the features you want for the lowest cost. Even the entry level is pretty good.

The next issue is: connection.

Toslink is a good way to bypass your crappy AC97 audio which sucks. HD audio codecs do a better job, and a PCI card will be best. Pick one to suit your budget if you want. The chaintek is ok. You will hook this up to the 5.1 inputs on the reciever so it will just do amplification. If you use toslink, as I do, you will get AC3 audio and DTS passthrough. The rest of the audio will be 48khz 2 channel PCM audio unless you go with a dobly digital live card that encodes everything to 5.1. Except for the 48khz resample, your audio will be clean and accurate. So, all audio will work, it just gets resampled with some quality loss, though not as bad as AC97 audio. Try it out first, if you want to change you can get a PCI soundcard.

Floorstanding or Bookshelf speakers

Personal preference really. Some bookshevles have enough bass for some people. I recomend finding bookselves with at least a 50hz response. Do you want smaller speakers? Do you have a place to put them? Bookshelves sound best on stands which turns them into a floorstander anyways. You will get better quality for your money on a bookshelf, with the tradeoff being bass response. For movies, you will require a sub if you want to get the best sound with either bookshelf or floorstander, but you can get away without a sub if you get a good floorstander with a good low end. Look for something near 35hz on a floorstander. Good speakers don't cost a ton of money like one guy says. You can find great bookshelves for $400 + $200 stand and good floorstanders for $800. I prefer floorstanders for music because you don't have to worry about sub to speaker matching, which requires careful setup and experiementation. I don't know what speakers are available in europe, I just know the good internet direct brands in the US. Room size also plays a role. Do you have a medium sized room? floorstanders are prefered the larger the room gets.

As for polite forums, I like Audioholics.com. All audio sites are a little snooty, but this one is pretty practical and specializes in bang for your buck.

I use Axiom m60 floorstanders, but i'm a fan of the looks of the Kef iQ series. I listened to them and they sounded pretty good. They are a British company. B&W is always a good option as well but are more expensive.

And more on the topic of Digital Amplification:
(which I read on wikipedia to be referred to as Class D and sometimes Class E amplification)
You say the Panasonic XR Series have it, does anyone know what other receivers do? I'm assuming just because a Receiver posseses Dolby Digital capabilities doesn't mean it has an actual digital amp.... or does it? If so than any AV-Receiver should do well with the digital signal... If not I'll need to find one with Class D.

Digital vs Analog amp. Digital amps are more efficient. Analog amps put out a lot of heat. Panasonic digital amps are quite good. Yamaha uses analog amps that sound great as well. The amp is the just part that takes the signal and amplifies it. It has nothing to do with whether the receiver can handle digital signals. That is a separate issue. As a general rule of thumb, 5.1 receivers support digital signals, 2 channel receivers do not. Most amps are analog and usually analog is prefered.

[ronrem]

as far as i know, there aren't many multi-channel music sources out (that are accessible to regular people)... so i think it would be a waste to get a multi-channel reciever... unless you'll be using it for movies or something...

a nice entry level amp would be an NAD... my friend's dad has one hooked up to some B&O speakers and i think it sounds phenomenal... i would love to get one for myself if i could... anything above an entry level amp (and i don't mean stuff from best buy) suffers from severely diminishing returns...

the cheapest entry level audiophile solution would be some nice headphones and a small headphone amp... my grado SR-125s sound great to me. better than anything i could affor otherwise.

in the end, trust your own ears... no sense in spending an extra $X for brand A, if brand B sounds the same TO YOU.

I got a used NAD 302 for my "computer" stereo and built tiny but quality sheilded spealers that hang just above ear level on each side of the monitor...quite nice for the tweaking I do in Soundforge.

In the living room-I got a Sherwood reciever-a big one at least 20 yrs old with plenty of inputs. It has Pre-out so I set up a Bi-amp system with a Pioneer amp for the Subwoofer. Both amps were yard sale finds and cost me about $50 total. I like them much better than my friends Sony 5 ch AV amp for sond and controls.....it's not close.

That may be in part due to speakers.

My first real speakers were AR-3's,legendary now,cost me a months pay back in 1969 ....used. One of those massive 30lb woofers still survives and I built a Subwoofer around it helping is a pair of ESS 10" woofs,I got a pair of ESS's in the deal when I got the Sherwood-but the Passive radiators were trashed. These however had the Heil Air Motion Transformer....basically the original Planar Tweeter. These cross over at a mere 2k and are just PURE. I already had a pair of 3 way JBL's. I'd always LOVED the JBL midrange....their classic 5". The layout of the room had the JBL's to far apart -however. I built a set of small hanging speakers using the Heils and the excellent crossover that came with them. Since I had a Subwoofer I could go with a small but very quick 5 1/4" carbon-fibre woofer. The idea was to get a soundfield that's broad but without a gap in the middle. Also....the JBL's are very rich and smooth,but can't give the detail-the perfect highs these mini speakers produce. I'd basically built a system....dirt cheap...using mainly stuff that I'd loved 20-30 years ago when I'd wander around stereo shops dreaming. I'd combined the best Tweeter,Midrange,and Woofer....with ample Watts to get "live show" volume

Later added a Toshiba DVD that has an on board 24/192 ADC. I can actually set up some conventional amps for rear + center channel someday-since it's got all the decode for Dolby Digital and DTS in the DVD player and 6 ch line outs. I'd have to balance the outputs every time I change volume though.

I HAVE heard a few Multi Channel AV amps I liked.....and they were way out of my budget. Too bad there's no cheap multi channell pre-amp.

I gather you are in Europe?

In the US,Parts Express is sort of the New Egg of Speaker Building. If I had use for another speaker system- I'd build one around Bohlander-Graebner ribbon tweeters---about the clossest thing to my ESS's that's available. I'd use at LEAST a good 10" woofer unless I went Subwoofer.

My friends stereo has a compact....but not cheap...Polk surround system. Tiny main speakers--which actually are decent...but a DREADFUL Subwoofer with a wimpy 8" that is not near as good as if I played my JBL's with my Dub off. Tubby....can't even FAKE the low notes well.

You are better off with a TIGHT if light Bass from a 6" woofer than an undersize Sub trying to pretend to have some bass. NO 6" or 8" can do a clean 20hz bass. A 12" in a proper cabinet is the best answer for that.

If you have the bottom,a good sub, the Mid-Bass speakers can be pretty compact, 5-6 1/2" woofs are fine. The 10" woofs in my JBL's don't even see much signal below 100 hz,as that crosses to the subs.

If you do go for 5.1,you don't need identical speakers--but you should have similar efficiency.

Klipsch? I had a freind who drove a pair of classic,HUGE Klipsch Horns with Vintage McIntosh tube amps. Audio perfection.
Not budget stuff

[ronrem]

Highly recommend M Audio soundcards for good audio from a computer. Way better than any onboard-even my Soundstorm NF 2....Better than any Creative card I have heard.

[klankymen]

I'm a practical audio newbie, but I believe that my experience in this is enough to recommend products that the average newbie audio guy will love. All of the advice here is good, but it is geared towards audio nirvana and not practical casual music listening.

Thanks, I think this kind of advice may do me more good than true audiophility.

What are your current speakers?

I have a Thomson Subwoofer / "receiver" which is connected to the computer with an RCA cable, and has speaker plugs on the back. picture with 3.5" HDD for size reference. bought it from a neighbour for like 15 bucks.
Attached to it are some aiwa speakers from an old 200$ stereo I have/had. picture with dvd and NSK-2400 for size reference

What % do you value movies to music? If there are movies in your future, skip the 2 channel amps.

Well, temporally movies only make up 10-20% of the usage, but value-wise I'd place them at almost equal importance to music, 50-50 or 60-40 maybe.

Except for the 48khz resample, your audio will be clean and accurate.

Well winamp lists the FLAC I'm currently playing as 44KHz.... and all other audio I have too..... I've never really understood what the KHz means anyway... is it like the fps or Hz on a video file? so resampling to 48Hz would have a similar effect as the Judder one gets from playing a 24fps movie on a 60Hz screen?

Do you have a medium sized room?

16 square meters, aproximately 3x5, but a 4m high ceiling.

I prefer floorstanders for music because you don't have to worry about sub to speaker matching, which requires careful setup and experiementation.

hmmm, I would be using a subwoofer either way, would it be better to leave it off while listening to music? judging by your post, for floorstanders, yes. but also for "bookshelfs"?

As for polite forums, I like Audioholics.com. All audio sites are a little snooty, but this one is pretty practical and specializes in bang for your buck.

OK, nother one to sign up for.....

Digital vs Analog amp. Digital amps are more efficient. Analog amps put out a lot of heat. Panasonic digital amps are quite good. Yamaha uses analog amps that sound great as well. The amp is the just part that takes the signal and amplifies it. It has nothing to do with whether the receiver can handle digital signals. That is a separate issue. As a general rule of thumb, 5.1 receivers support digital signals, 2 channel receivers do not. Most amps are analog and usually analog is prefered.

So if I didn't completely misunderstand your last 4 words, analog is basically better than digital, or at the very least not worse. So the analog Yamaha should do as well as the digital Panasonic? If so that's reassuring, because I like the style of the Yamaha better, especially stacked on top of a NSK-2400

Thanks for the big post.

[autoboy]

Don't worry about the analog vs digital for amps. Most are analog which is fine. It is not like TVs where you want a digital TV over analog.

Whoa, those are some crappy speakers. Yes, the folks here with the audio nirvana stuff are out of your league. You would get a big step up with a good Logitech system over that. Some complete systems are $300 for really nice ones that actually sound pretty good like this one.

But, you said you wanted real speakers and I can feel that. Take a look at the AV123 speakers. Their new towers are really inexpensive, look great, and have great bass for your rock music. The guys at audioholics didn't think they were perfect, but I think they suit you just fine. They are a little big though. Thier smaller tower might be perfect, and their bookshelves from the same line are considered great speakers. With these towers, you don't need a sub for most stuff. And please don't tell me you are going to use that Thomson.

When they speak of soundstage, that is not really as important with rock music, rap, alternative that you listen to. Especially since you are probably not sitting in a chair just listening to the music like these guys. The fact that these lack soundstage is more important for critical listening with jazz and classical.

The resample to 48khz is the audio version of judder. I don't hear it on my system and I would think you won't hear it either until your audio experience grows considerably. It is the kinda thing audio guys fiddle with and layman never know the difference. You need a serious system and A/B testing to tell the difference. Coming from Aiwa you have a long way to go my friend.

So, pick up a basic yamaha receiver, and some av123 towers if you like them, and you will be all set for 2.0 for less than your budget. For speaker cable just get the radio shack gold or equivalent.

That should rock your house pretty well and when you want 5.1 you can get those AV123 bookshelves and center for cheap. Their X-sub is also a good performer, but those towers are pretty close to enough bass even for HT I bet. The light finish is supposed to be beautiful on them too.

[fgp]

I second aef110 advices although it is 30% above budget.

Folowing his suggestions you will get a very good audio system that you will enjoy for years. In the light of my own experience, I advice you to consider waiting a month or two, and also to look for this equipment on ebay.

One more point, I recommand to use a cheap sound card with optical out (not coax) such as the chaintech AV710 to connect your PC to your audio system. This breaks a ground loop with the amplifier (this eliminated a small but annoying hum for me) and external DACs are usually better (cleaner power...).

[colin2]

Just to be clear on the technical point, your signal is starting in digital form and ending up, when it is transmitted to the speaker, in analog form. The distinction is whether you do the D-A conversion before the amplification stage or at the end of it; in the latter case you have digital amplification.

Digital amplification offers the advantage of efficiency as autoboy notes, and some very good inexpensive implementations have become available in the last 5 years, such as the Panasonic XRs; digital had previously been available only in some high-end amps.

But neither digital nor analog amplification is inherently better than the other, at any price range. It depends on the specific implementation in a circuit. And it also depends on your personal taste in how the music sounds. Your budget gives you a lot of choices, and the best course is to harvest suggestions from a few boards like this, and then take some CDs of favorite music out to the shops and listen. It's more like buying wine than buying DRAM.

[aef110]

MP3's get a bad rap, there are plenty of poorly ripped ones out there. But given the LAME converter at 256kbps or so, you'd be very hard pushed to tell the difference from the original source, which is pretty good at 1/6th wav size.

The difference between any MP3 (or LAME, or OGG, etc.) and the original is typically astronomical. If you're not hearing a difference, let alone a large one, it's exposing the limited resolution of your equipment and / or your setup. I've done extensive testing of all audio compression formats with various source material, and even others listening blindly have commented that the difference is like night and day, even with the highest bit rates compressed using the highest quality settings. (On very old, mono recordings I was surprised to have heard no difference, though it's surely due to the limited resolution of the originals.)

That said, compression technology is clearly useful and it's quite a miracle of mathematics and psychoacoustics that you can literally throw away 90% of the information and still have recognizable music. The primary differences lie in tonal beauty, depth, resolution, soundstage, imaging, timbre -- all the things audiophiles (I'd like to say music lovers) value so much. These are precisely the things that poor quality mass-market equipment can't reveal, yet it's where the magic is.

Most people have unfortunately never heard music properly reproduced. It's not necessary to spend tens of thousands on the true state-of-the-art; modest equipment by dedicated, quality-minded manufacturers, at realistic prices -- the prices that the average person pays -- can, when combined thoughtfully, reveal so much more of the music.

It's important to point out that listening to music is a skill that develops over time. If you invest in better, more musical, equipment you'll gradually open your ears to what you've been missing and the investment will pay emotional dividends. The great news is that it's no longer necessary to treble your budget just to get entry-level hi-fi. You just have to ignore all the components trying to be more than they can at a budget price level and stick with the more modest ones that give the genuine bang for your buck. Practically speaking, that means forgetting about unrealistic goals such as quality surround sound for 1000 euros. That money can get you a perfectly enjoyable two-channel system that you can enjoy for years.

[autoboy]

One more point, I recommand to use a cheap sound card with optical out (not coax) such as the chaintech AV710 to connect your PC to your audio system. This breaks a ground loop with the amplifier (this eliminated a small but annoying hum for me) and external DACs are usually better (cleaner power...).

I'm not sure I follow this. There is only one reason to use a separate soundcard with toslink when you motherboard supports toslink also, and that is that some soundcards are able to bypass windows audio and do not resample the 44khz signal to 48khz. This is a pretty rare thing and i've not seen too many do it. The chaintek is one of those boards that do it but the software setup is more involved than standard toslink.

As for the ground loop issue, i'm not sure how a groundloop problem would cause hum with a digital signal but moving to a optical cable would eliminate ground loop problems, though I have never heard of it with a toslink. Optical cables IMO are less robust, have bad connections, and are prone to failure, while the copper cable is robust, effective, and free because you always have some spare video cables lying around. They use the same specs (75ohm) so they can be used interchangably

[The Gangrel]

The difference between any MP3 (or LAME, or OGG, etc.) and the original is typically astronomical.

That is ever so slightly bombastic.

That said, compression technology is clearly useful and it's quite a miracle of mathematics and psychoacoustics that you can literally throw away 90% of the information and still have recognizable music. The primary differences lie in tonal beauty, depth, resolution, soundstage, imaging, timbre -- all the things audiophiles (I'd like to say music lovers) value so much.

Yet your music goes through countless eq's, compression and fx on a mixing desk prior to it's arrival on cd, where most of these primary differences are significantly diminished anyhow.

It's important to point out that listening to music is a skill that develops over time. If you invest in better, more musical, equipment you'll gradually open your ears to what you've been missing and the investment will pay emotional dividends.

Did you pull this straight out of a NAD brochure?

The great news is that it's no longer necessary to treble your budget just to get entry-level hi-fi. You just have to ignore all the components trying to be more than they can at a budget price level and stick with the more modest ones that give the genuine bang for your buck. Practically speaking, that means forgetting about unrealistic goals such as quality surround sound for 1000 euros. That money can get you a perfectly enjoyable two-channel system that you can enjoy for years.

My problem with the "hi-fi industry" is that an £1000 amp will only have £150 worth of electronics inside it, you are paying for brand/lifestyle/boasting prowess etc. That's why I suggest buying as cheap as sounds good enough, because basically you're getting ripped off.

Even the hugely expensive "audiophile" equipment is grounded far more in aesthetics and lifestyle than it is in physics.

I'm not here to argue, just enlighten.

[kittle]

Another low-budget audiophile here...

First off:

In any case, it's worth auditioning components (bring CDs whose sound you know well) at your local hi-fi shops, just to get a feel for what's out there. Enjoy exploring, and good luck!

Do this BEFORE you buy anything!!!!!
Knowing what is possible helps considerably. Explain to the salesperson what you are after... every hi-fi store I have been to is happy to show off their equipment.

My own experience has shown that speakers make the biggest difference in sound quality. A good amp helps, but a good amp with bad speakers is a waste of a good amp. Pretty much any amp built in the past 20 years will perform decently. So I would concentrate on investing in some decent quality speakers.
or if your the handyman type, you can possibly build your own (visit www.diyaudio.com for more info).

If your going to get an amp and speakers, plan on spending 2x-3x on speakers over what you spend on your amp.
Bookshelf vs floorstanding? ... thats really personal preference - I preferr floorstanders, others like bookshelves, and this is where visiting a hi-fi store really comes in handy, you can actually hear what the differences are.

My own setup - I went with the DIY route and built 4 identical speakers and a subwoofer. It took a lot of time to get everything built and setup properly, but I like what I have. The only thing I purchased was a center channel speaker from klipsch.
Last year I got a pioneer elite 7.1 amp on sale from my local hi-fi store and it works great. In the PC I have an audigy 2 sound card and a cable that runs all 6 channels out to the amp, so im able to have all the PC sounds played through my stereo system. No digital anything was required for this.. I got a couple of cables with the right number of wires from my local computer store, some connectors and built the cables myself. Thats not truely needed, as you can get premade cables that will stretch -- I just preferred having 2 cables to 6.

But the main thing is not to expect everything to come together all at once, it takes a lot of tweaking and fiddling to get things sounding right.
and with a quiet PC you can actually hear it!