What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[Shrunk]

Those are probably horn-loaded subwoofers (with exponential CD horns which are the openings you see). I don't understand though why that makes his house easier to break into?

The full link shows it in more detail.  They are, indeed, bass horns driven by compressions drivers, as you can see in this view from the exterior of his house:

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Seems he neglected his power supply:

[Wanderer]

What a waste of space; this patch of land could become a nice little garden.

[drogulus]

    I'd hook up my bass to those things and see if I could get some interesting feedback. _{(I'd probably get some interesting feedback from the neighbors )}

[Joe_Campbell]

    I'd hook up my bass to those things and see if I could get some interesting feedback. _{(I'd probably get some interesting feedback from the neighbors )}

See what a nice square wave looks like? Maybe even a saw?

[M forever]

The full link shows it in more detail.  They are, indeed, bass horns driven by compressions drivers, as you can see in this view from the exterior of his house:

OK, that is pretty funny. And pretty silly, too. I know what the theory behind this shape and the dimensions of the horn throat is, but that is really totally over the top.

I don't see the point behind those double drivers though, especially since he already has two horns and regular 2" drivers already produce such a high SPL (esp.in the small space of the listening room) that it could easily go well over the pain threshhold. Taking into account that that is probably not what the idea is and that, yes, generously spread out power requirements make sure that the drivers operate in a for them comfortable dynamic range with low distortion, it still is a total overkill.

None of the instruments on his recordings have such large bass resonators in reality, so unless he listens to a lot of church organ stuff (but again, in that small room?) or his aim is to faithfully reproduce the sound of alphorns in his living room, there is really no point in that setup. In order to time-align the subwoofer horns with the woofers in his main speakers (and those woofers with the mid and high range drivers) to avoid phase shifts between the components, delay circuits would be needed which I don't see in his equipment rack. The number of delay circuits that would be needed to align all these drivers would add a lot of processing to the playback chain which on the other hand is generally an audiophile no-no. So the basic design of the speakers themselves is already faulty.

[rickardg]

Thanks to all those that posted helpful advice.

Some experiments with an old foam mattress and a couple of blankets have thoroughly cured me from any desire to buy new hardware before I've done something about the room acoustics. The hardest problem will probably be to dampen the glass wall.

[vandermolen]

NAD Amp, KEF speakers, Sony CD player, which I need to upgrade when I can afford it.

[Joe_Campbell]

NAD Amp, KEF speakers, Sony CD player, which I need to upgrade when I can afford it.

Do you mean you need to specifically upgrade the cd player, or the entire system? If so, what is the reason? I've never understood the benefit of a high quality cd player, although I'm admittedly not very familiar with the subject.

[DavidRoss]

Do you mean you need to specifically upgrade the cd player, or the entire system? If so, what is the reason? I've never understood the benefit of a high quality cd player, although I'm admittedly not very familiar with the subject.

The CD player must read the pits in the disc accurately and then convert those digital 1s and 0s to analog electrical signals which then get amplified to power your speakers and reproduce the sound of music. Here's a wiki article that explains the basic process and variables involved.  A good one will do the job well, reliably creating a signal that will accurately reproduce the sound of the recorded performance.  A bad one can be unlistenable, as were virtually all CD players in the early days...unless you liked having your teeth set on edge!

There have been several posts on other threads about the merits of CD players.  Some folks have claimed that there is literally no difference whatsoever among different players.  Others have pointed out, correctly, that the differences among CD players are generally of much lower magnitude than the differences among loudspeakers.  (Some have concluded from this that therefore only idiots would care about CD player quality.  )

You can theorize all you like about the existence or non-existence of differences, or the comparative significance of differences, or others' ability to hear the differences, and so on, but the only way to know whether they matter and how much to you is to find out for yourself by the simple expedient of some comparative listening. 

[vandermolen]

Do you mean you need to specifically upgrade the cd player, or the entire system? If so, what is the reason? I've never understood the benefit of a high quality cd player, although I'm admittedly not very familiar with the subject.

I just meant the CD player. Your post interests me. Are you saying that there is no need to upgrade the CD player?  The NAD and KEF components of the system are relatively new (bought second hand off a friend) but the Sony CD player, bought new many years ago is, I thought, the weakest component of the system and I always assumed that a better player would improve the sound quality. I am quite lo-fi and v ignorant of the technology but the NAD amp and KEF speakers made an appreciable difference in sound quality. The Sony player does not always recognise the discs. My cheapo portable always recognizes the discs, so that is another issue with the Sony player.

[vandermolen]

The CD player must read the pits in the disc accurately and then convert those digital 1s and 0s to analog electrical signals which then get amplified to power your speakers and reproduce the sound of music. Here's a wiki article that explains the basic process and variables involved.  A good one will do the job well, reliably creating a signal that will accurately reproduce the sound of the recorded performance.  A bad one can be unlistenable, as were virtually all CD players in the early days...unless you liked having your teeth set on edge!

There have been several posts on other threads about the merits of CD players.  Some folks have claimed that there is literally no difference whatsoever among different players.  Others have pointed out, correctly, that the differences among CD players are generally of much lower magnitude than the differences among loudspeakers.  (Some have concluded from this that therefore only idiots would care about CD player quality.  )

You can theorize all you like about the existence or non-existence of differences, or the comparative significance of differences, or others' ability to hear the differences, and so on, but the only way to know whether they matter and how much to you is to find out for yourself by the simple expedient of some comparative listening. 

Thanks David. Interesting points. A friend recently changed his CD player and said that it made an appeciable difference to sound quality.

[Mark]

If money, time and space permitted, I'd like this system from Linn.

[drogulus]

Thanks David. Interesting points. A friend recently changed his CD player and said that it made an appeciable difference to sound quality.

     All of my new equipment produces an appreciable difference. Not all appreciable differences are real, though. I'd want to know more about the reality of the difference before spending a large sum. If there's not much money involved, then you can indulge your whims and play around with the placebo effect. If you plan on spending a big sum, it would be a good idea to apportion your spending according to a realistic idea of where it will do the most good.

     Since you have good inexpensive components by NAD and KEF, this would indicate you want value for money. So you can stick with your basic approach and only replace the CD player if you have a reason to.

     It isn't necessary to believe that all CD players sound exactly alike. There are possible tiny differences that don't relate to output level. They tend to disappear when tested for. It doesn't matter if CD players aren't exactly the same, since the unimportance of any difference (like for example one you can't hear unless you know the players identity and/or price tag) is what really matters. The theology of CD player differences doesn't matter. What should matter is how your system sounds.

[vandermolen]

Point taken thanks. I don't have much money to spend on it anyway, so will look around and listen to recommendations.

[Joe_Campbell]

Now that it's complete, I figured I post my 'stereo system' in its entirety:

http://ca.denon.com/ProductDetails/3321.asp

What a great, simply to use and set up receiver! No complaints.

http://www.bostonacoustics.com/HS-50-P161.aspx

I like these speakers a lot, and the price was right. Very powerful for their size.

http://nadelectronics.com/products/cd-players/C515BEE-CD-Player

This is a nice CD player...

And...because I had a few other things to hook up as well, I got this universal remote:

http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/remotes/universal_remotes/devices/376&cl=us,en

What a sweet remote. It was so easy to program; it also included support for my comparatively older TV.

[Siedler]

So, I've found a guy who's selling used B&W CM1 speakers. Now I need to find an amp, I think I'll go with a stereo amp because I don't watch movies that much plus I'll only have a 2.0 setup. Hardly any stereo amps have optical-in, correct? If I'm going to use my Macbook as cdplayer, does it matter whether I use optical or analog (I mean the sound quality-wise)?

[drogulus]

So, I've found a guy who's selling used B&W CM1 speakers. Now I need to find an amp, I think I'll go with a stereo amp because I don't watch movies that much plus I'll only have a 2.0 setup. Hardly any stereo amps have optical-in, correct? If I'm going to use my Macbook as cdplayer, does it matter whether I use optical or analog (I mean the sound quality-wise)?

    If the sound quality of the analog out on your laptop is very good you could run it into your amp with good results. You could compare the sound from a CD playing on your laptop through the headphone out of the amp with the sound of a CD player. Most often the player will be much better than the laptop. You would need to use a USB sound card from the laptop to get analog sound as good as the player.

[Daverz]

So, I've found a guy who's selling used B&W CM1 speakers. Now I need to find an amp, I think I'll go with a stereo amp because I don't watch movies that much plus I'll only have a 2.0 setup. Hardly any stereo amps have optical-in, correct? If I'm going to use my Macbook as cdplayer, does it matter whether I use optical or analog (I mean the sound quality-wise)?

Macbooks have an optical out through their 1/8" headphone jack.  I got a Monster optical cable that came with the 1/8" adapter, and I hook this up to a Perpetual Technologies P3-A DAC.  The PerpTech is pretty old, and I'm sure they have better sounding and cheaper external DACs now.

There are also receivers and integrated amps coming out now with built in DACs that can take computer input, like the Outlaw Audio receiver which has an USB input:

http://outlawaudio.com/products/rr2150.html

[Daverz]

The UPS guy brought me this system today.  It's the NHT Xd speaker system.  It's an active sattelite/subwoofer system, but the satellites have no crossover, that's all done in the digital domain by the electronic box in the middle there, which is a class D digital amplifier with a built-in digital signal processor.  This is selling for half price on the web, unfortunately because NHT gave up on the whole concept.

You can't really get an impression from this pic of just how tiny the satellites are.  Maybe I'll tidy up later and snap a pic in situ.