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

[Coopmv]

Indeed they are active!

I have a fair amount of misgivings for the active speakers.  Who are the players in that space?

[Valentino]

Not many in hifi, but some: Meridian, B&O, Adam, and then some semi-active, like Vandersteen.

Don't you like active speakers? In that case how come? I can only see benefits.

[Coopmv]

Not many in hifi, but some: Meridian, B&O, Adam, and then some semi-active, like Vandersteen.

Don't you like active speakers? In that case how come? I can only see benefits.

I used to have a Yamaha power sub, which I gave to my brother-in-law a number of years ago.  I have never owned another one since.

[Valentino]

New stash for the holidays.



Dipoles 40Hz-20Khz, sealed subs below. Computerized crossovers, processor loop applied on Logitech Transporter, a RME Fireface UC, class D amplification. C'est la Avant Garde!

[Coopmv]

New stash for the holidays.



Dipoles 40Hz-20Khz, sealed subs below. Computerized crossovers, processor loop applied on Logitech Transporter, a RME Fireface UC, class D amplification. C'est la Avant Garde!

Valentino ,  First time to see your post in weeks.  Been on an extended cruise?

[Valentino]

I have been busy finishing these babies, the Christmas run-up at home, and a heavy professional workload. But between that Wagner, Mozart and Haydn.

[Coopmv]

I have been busy finishing these babies, the Christmas run-up at home, and a heavy professional workload. But between that Wagner, Mozart and Haydn.

So these speakers are specialized for hooking up to computer soundcard?   They certainly look much larger than my Altec Lansing setellites ...

[Fëanor]

Here is an interesting link with some excellent article on audio ...

Thanks, Coop,

And of course Roger Russell's site is a classic those interested in McIntosh Labs vintage equipment.  (Another is Bremer's site.)

[Cristofori]

Except for my SACD player, my equipment (receiver, turntable, tape deck, speakers) is all decent quality vintage stuff in excellent condition picked up at various estate sales.

I used to have a higher end system in the past, but sold it off due to financial difficulties at the time.

I will someday get something better, but I've grown to like my vintage equipment, especially considering it only cost me around $300 total for everything including new cartridge, belts, etc, and a little elbow grease!

[Coopmv]

Except for my SACD player, my equipment is all decent quality vintage stuff in excellent condition picked up at various estate sales.

I used to have a higher end system in the past, but sold it off due to financial difficulties at the time.

I will someday get something better, but I've grown to like my vintage equipment, especially considering it only cost me around $300 total for everything including new cartridge, belts, etc, and a little elbow grease!

The only equipment that is missing from my system is really an SACD player.  I have over 200 SACD titles but can only play their stereo layers.  There are 2 that are not hybrids and therefore will not play in my redbook CDP's.

[Cristofori]

The only equipment that is missing from my system is really an SACD player.  I have over 200 SACD titles but can only play their stereo layers.  There are 2 that are not hybrids and therefore will not play in my redbook CDP's.

The SACD I'm using is a Sony 5-disc carousel I got at Best Buy a few years ago for around $150 or so.

Certainly not the greatest for Redbook CD playback, but the SACD capability is excellent. I think this player is still available. You could probably get it at Crutchfield with free shipping, at least to serve for temporary SACD duty until you get something better.

If I was you, I couldn't sleep at night having over 200 SACD's, and no player use them in!

[jlaurson]

The only equipment that is missing from my system is really an SACD player.  I have over 200 SACD titles but can only play their stereo layers.  There are 2 that are not hybrids and therefore will not play in my redbook CDP's.

Although most (self-declared) audiophiles might violently disagree, I suggest that if you upgrade, go for surround sound (which would involve getting 3 more speakers and a new amp. The upgrade from Red Book to SACD stereo-only (although there are many fine dedicated stereo SACD players (Marantz' 11S1, for example)) doesn't really improve matters sufficiently enough to be worth it. (That is: for there to be an easily detectable difference.)

[Coopmv]

The SACD I'm using is a Sony 5-disc carousel I got at Best Buy a few years ago for around $150 or so.

Certainly not the greatest for Redbook CD playback, but the SACD capability is excellent. I think this player is still available. You could probably get it at Crutchfield with free shipping, at least to serve for temporary SACD duty until you get something better.

If I was you, I couldn't sleep at night having over 200 SACD's, and no player use them in!

Do you have a 5.1 HT receiver?  My preamps are all 2 channel and as such I will need an SACD player with the regular RCA connections and not with some fancy digital connection.  There is a Sony 5400ES out there that seems to meet my need, but it was out of stock at Crutchfield for a while ...

[Cristofori]

Although most (self-declared) audiophiles might violently disagree, I suggest that if you upgrade, go for surround sound (which would involve getting 3 more speakers and a new amp. The upgrade from Red Book to SACD stereo-only (although there are many fine dedicated stereo SACD players (Marantz' 11S1, for example)) doesn't really improve matters sufficiently enough to be worth it. (That is: for there to be an easily detectable difference.)

I might tend to agree with you on most classical recordings, as they tend to benefit more from ambiance, but the improvments stereo only SACD gives is certainly noticable in the lower end/bass department, with the few pop/rock recordings I've heard. It also benefits classical organ music and other bass heavy type recordings. Not so much for piano, chamber, or vocal stuff though.

Also, getting a surround system can greatly complicate things, and the cost involved may be prohibitive for some people.

I'd rather pool my resources into 2 outstanding speakers than 5 or more merely "good" or mediocre ones. Not to mention the subwoofer, receiver, cables, interconnects, etc.

[Cristofori]

Do you have a 5.1 HT receiver?  My preamps are all 2 channel and as such I will need an SACD player with the regular RCA connections and not with some fancy digital connection.  There is a Sony 5400ES out there that seems to meet my need, but it was out of stock at Crutchfield for a while ...

No, just an old Pioneer vintage 2-channel receiver.

The Sony SACD I have (model # SCD-CE595) can be used for both multi-channel or stereo only SACD playback. There is a selector on the remote to switch between the two. You can also switch between the SACD and CD layers, although I don't know why anyone would want to.

[jlaurson]

I might tend to agree with you on most classical recordings, as they tend to benefit more from ambiance, but the improvments stereo only SACD gives is certainly noticable in the lower end/bass department, with the few pop/rock recordings I've heard. It also greatly benefita classical organ music and other bass heavy type recordings. Not so much for piano, chamber, or vocal stuff though.

Also, getting a surround system can greatly complicate things, and cost involved may be prohibitive for some people.

I'd rather pool my resources into 2 outstanding speakers than 5 or more merely "good" or mediocre ones. Not to mention the subwoofer, receiver, cables, interconnects, etc.

...and I, in turn, agree with you. That's part of the problem of SACD. It really shines in 5.0 or 5.1 (depending on what speakers you use), but to get there, there is a cost--and space--factor to consider. Better excellent red-book stereo than modest 5.1 SACD. But if you've found speakers you like, and you have the room and eventually the budget, the upgrading to surround unlocks a few very nice surprises. After years of not doing surround at all (or properly), I've finally started planning the permanent move. With five Thiel SCS4 (incredible precision, dead-accurate, instant response... with an analytical tendency, no 'beautification' of sound whatsoever, like B&W CM5, which really rubs me the wrong way) and, possibly, eventually (because they need it) a subwoofer at some point.

Despite not-so-subtle opposition from my HiFi shop's clerks, I might go with the NAD M-Class on Amp & SACD player.

[Cristofori]

...and I, in turn, agree with you. That's part of the problem of SACD. It really shines in 5.0 or 5.1 (depending on what speakers you use), but to get there, there is a cost--and space--factor to consider. Better excellent red-book stereo than modest 5.1 SACD. But if you've found speakers you like, and you have the room and eventually the budget, the upgrading to surround unlocks a few very nice surprises. After years of not doing surround at all (or properly), I've finally started planning the permanent move. With five Thiel SCS4 (incredible precision, dead-accurate, instant response... with an analytical tendency, no 'beautification' of sound whatsoever, like B&W CM5, which really rubs me the wrong way) and, possibly, eventually (because they need it) a subwoofer at some point.

Despite not-so-subtle opposition from my HiFi shop's clerks, I might go with the NAD M-Class on Amp & SACD player.

I may be getting the new Marantz SA8003 SACD in a few months. In fact, I've decided to go with Marantz for my whole system in the future, now that I found out their new PM8003 integrated amp has a toroidal transformer.

Plus, they have all the features and build quality I'm looking in a matching system at a not too outrageous price, and I can get it all from Crutchfield with free shipping and without having to deal with pretentious, stuck up audio dealers who don't like to take returns if your not happy!

I'm still open on the speakers end of it though. Funny, you mentioned it. I was considered looking at the B&W CM5's. I used to have a pair of B&W 601 S3 bookshelves, and they were great!

[Cristofori]

...and I, in turn, agree with you. That's part of the problem of SACD. It really shines in 5.0 or 5.1 (depending on what speakers you use), but to get there, there is a cost--and space--factor to consider.

Another problem with multi-channel music, is there seems to be few set standards. Your pretty much at the mercy of the producers of any given disc you buy.

Some surround mixes are wonderful, or tastefully done, while others are inaccurate, annoying, or barely noticeable at all.

[Coopmv]

No, just an old Pioneer vintage 2-channel receiver.

The Sony SACD I have (model # SCD-CE595) can be used for both multi-channel or stereo only SACD playback. There is a selector on the remote to switch between the two. You can also switch between the SACD and CD layers, although I don't know why anyone would want to.

So you just use the regular RCA connection between the SACD player and the receiver since your receiver is 2-channel.  For me, the problem is mainly with my 3 dachshunds.  They like to lay on the bay window looking out.  If I go 5.1, the two rear speakers will be right by the bay window and will be constantly knocked over.  In theory, all I need are just two rear-channel plus a center-channel speakers and a powered sub plus the HT processor since I have 7 power amps (some are in boxes) at the house I can use.  I have heard of combo box that combines the rear and center channels (or perhaps all the channels) into one box, but how the sound becomes surround is beyond me since that combo box will be placed in front of me.  Besides, how is that SQ?  So this is both a space and a pet issue.

[Cristofori]

So you just use the regular RCA connection between the SACD player and the receiver since your receiver is 2-channel.  For me, the problem is mainly with my 3 dachshunds.  They like to lay on the bay window looking out.  If I go 5.1, the two rear speakers will be right by the bay window and will be constantly knocked over.  In theory, all I need are just two rear-channel plus a center-channel speakers and a powered sub plus the HT processor since I have 7 power amps (some are in boxes) at the house I can use.  I have heard of combo box that combines the rear and center channels (or perhaps all the channels) into one box, but how the sound becomes surround is beyond me since that combo box will be placed in front of me.  Besides, how is that SQ?  So this is both a space and a pet issue.

Right, you can still get a partial benefit from multi-channel without having to get the surrounds, which is the part that complicates things the most, as your situation is an example. You'll just be missing the surround info, which you wouldn't have anyway if you were just using stereo.

As far as the HT Processor and the 7 power amps goes, all that stuff is over my head. I just use a conventional HI-FI system.

Also, I wouldn't bother with any kind of "fake surround" type set up. That type of stuff will almost always make your system sound worse. There is no substitute for proper surround speakers.