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

[The new erato]

    Congratulations on your new turntable.  I would like to ask you if you had replace the cartridge yet?  I have been told that if I play records frequently the cartridge needs to be replaced once every 6 months.

  marvin

I think we'tre talking lifetimes in the 1000 of hours here, 6 months seems absurdly short (and I was an avid vinyl spinner back in the days).

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

  Congratulations on your new turntable.  I would like to ask you if you had replace the cartridge yet?  I have been told that if I play records frequently the cartridge needs to be replaced once every 6 months.

No. I've only had it a month, and the guy at the audio store told me it had a useful life of 500-1000 hours. So I'm expecting to replace it about once a year.

BTW a nice thing about the Pro-Ject is that it comes with the cartridge already mounted.

[Parsifal]

I think we'tre talking lifetimes in the 1000 of hours here, 6 months seems absurdly short (and I was an avid vinyl spinner back in the days).

The cartridge never has to be replaced, unless the stylus is not replacable these days.

[marvinbrown]

  without prejudice

  Dear all,

  As some of you know I have been considering buying a turntable and starting a vinyl collection. Yesterday after work, I booked a demonstration at the local Hifi shop. I wanted to do a comparison between a vinyl record and its CD counterpart. The record I picked was Karajan's Die Meistersinger von Nuremberg (Dresden) on EMI. I bought a used copy of this in very good condition. I have the CD of this recording in my collection. The set up was the system I have at home: Marantz PM6004 CD and amp and monitor audio speakers. The turntable used was the Project Debut Carbon. I kept alternating between vinyl and CD.

  Conclusions: the CD sounded " brighter" and"crisper" but more importantly CLEARER than the vinyl. The vinyl had more depth but clarity and dynamic range were not as impressive as the CD. The occasional static on the vinyl annoyed the hell out of me. I found myself drawn more to the CDs clarity more than anything else. The more I listened the less I was impressed with the vinyl. Needless to say, I did not buy the Project Debit Carbon Turntable.

  marvin

[Parsifal]

Your experience is similar to mine.  The lower distortion/increased clarity of CD is the overriding factor.  There are cases where the LP "sounds better" than the CD, but normally that is because the frequency equalization has been messed up and the CD sounds too bright.  It used to happen a lot in the early days of remastering, probably because the producer were anxious to show that the analog recordings sounded better on CD and making them brighter made them seem more "digital."  But in case of over-bright remastering jobs the situations can normally be remedied using the tone control or an equalizer.

[Fëanor]

Your experience is similar to mine.  The lower distortion/increased clarity of CD is the overriding factor.  There are cases where the LP "sounds better" than the CD, but normally that is because the frequency equalization has been messed up and the CD sounds too bright.  It used to happen a lot in the early days of remastering, probably because the producer were anxious to show that the analog recordings sounded better on CD and making them brighter made them seem more "digital."  But in case of over-bright remastering jobs the situations can normally be remedied using the tone control or an equalizer.

In my opinion CDs are still produced too bright. I have equipment to accurately measure frequency response at my listening position and also the means to equalize the sound from my system so that response measures flat. However this accurately flat response sounds far, far too bright in case of almost all classical recordings. To get a more natural level while still getting all the harmonics, I have to roll off response gradually from about 4000 Hz so it is down 5-6 dB at 10,000 Hz.

[Parsifal]

In my opinion CDs are still produced too bright. I have equipment to accurately measure frequency response at my listening position and also the means to equalize the sound from my system so that response measures flat. However this accurate, flat response sounds far, far too bright in case of almost all classical recordings. To get a more natural while still getting all the harmonics, I have to roll off response gradually from about 4000 Hz so it is down 5-6 dB at 10,000 Hz.

My experience is similar, although it varies by label and by individual recording.  Telarc recordings generally sound the most naturally equalized to me (except early Telarc which made every piece sound like a bass-drum concerto).  Teldec, MDG and BIS are generally not as bad as most, in my experience. 

[mc ukrneal]

Well here is a question: Are there any surround sound systems that do well with classical music? I do not currently have any surround sound, but as our tv is old, we have been considering a new one. If we get a new one, we were thinking of getting a surround sound system as well. If we do that, I was wondering how well (if at all) these systems would do for classical music. It only occurred to me because the system would be in the main room, and it would be nice to hear music through the whole house sometimes.

[71 dB]

Well here is a question: Are there any surround sound systems that do well with classical music?

Of course there is. In fact I think classical music is one of the few areas where multichannel recordings (SACDs etc.) work well.

For movie soundtracks subwoofers are important (5.1, 6.1, 7.1) but for music a system without subwoofer works well if the main speaker can deliver enough bass. I have a compromise of these two: a passive subwoofer that extents the bass of my main speakers that are identical with my center and surrouns speakers (that's a 5.(1) setup). For good results the center speaker must be identical with main speakers except for the lowest frequencies that can be re-directed (functional bass management must be supported!). Not only frequency response but also phase-response must match. Using 3 identical front speakers is simple solution. Even better if rear-speakers are identical too. Since the center speaker is often placed acoustically differently from main speakers, there usually is a need to adjust response. My center speaker is lower (under tv) so I cut frequencies below 300 Hz a bit to balance stronger floor effect.

Good surround system is not always easy to install. Too many compromises makes it waste of money and investing into a really good stereo system instead might be a good idea.   

[mc ukrneal]

Of course there is. In fact I think classical music is one of the few areas where multichannel recordings (SACDs etc.) work well.

For movie soundtracks subwoofers are important (5.1, 6.1, 7.1) but for music a system without subwoofer works well if the main speaker can deliver enough bass. I have a compromise of these two: a passive subwoofer that extents the bass of my main speakers that are identical with my center and surrouns speakers (that's a 5.(1) setup). For good results the center speaker must be identical with main speakers except for the lowest frequencies that can be re-directed (functional bass management must be supported!). Not only frequency response but also phase-response must match. Using 3 identical front speakers is simple solution. Even better if rear-speakers are identical too. Since the center speaker is often placed acoustically differently from main speakers, there usually is a need to adjust response. My center speaker is lower (under tv) so I cut frequencies below 300 Hz a bit to balance stronger floor effect.

Good surround system is not always easy to install. Too many compromises makes it waste of money and investing into a really good stereo system instead might be a good idea.   

Actually, I like this idea. I am sure my wife would dislike cables/wires intensely, and the supposed 'wireless' systems are not truly wireless. I understand the regular stereo system better too and hiding components or picking more stylish pieces will be easier (I think). 

[Parsifal]

Well here is a question: Are there any surround sound systems that do well with classical music? I do not currently have any surround sound, but as our tv is old, we have been considering a new one. If we get a new one, we were thinking of getting a surround sound system as well. If we do that, I was wondering how well (if at all) these systems would do for classical music. It only occurred to me because the system would be in the main room, and it would be nice to hear music through the whole house sometimes.

The main thing is not to buy a system that describes itself as "home theater."  In such systems, neutral reproduction of sound is not the goal.  The goal is that when a bomb goes off in the movie your house should be knocked off its foundation.

Find speakers that have a reputation for good music reproduction and simply buy 5 of them instead of 2.  In most cases, the company will make a center-channel version of the speaker than you can use the the center channel.  (Typcially the shape is more appropriate for center placement and the bass response is not as good.)  For the amplifier, restrict yourself to brands that have a reputation for audiophile sound (Marantz, NAD, Yamaha, etc).

My own experience is that there are not so many multichannel recordings available, and if you have a finite budget it is better to get 2 really good speakers than 5 middling speakers.

[Daverz]

  Conclusions: the CD sounded " brighter" and"crisper" but more importantly CLEARER than the vinyl. The vinyl had more depth but clarity and dynamic range were not as impressive as the CD. The occasional static on the vinyl annoyed the hell out of me. I found myself drawn more to the CDs clarity more than anything else. The more I listened the less I was impressed with the vinyl. Needless to say, I did not buy the Project Debit Carbon Turntable.

I don't doubt it for a second.  I'll almost always choose an EMI CD over the Lp, though there are cases where they mucked up their transfers (e.g. Callas).  In particular, the EMI Lps pressed in the US by Capitol (Angel) were often crap.  UK pressed Lps were always smoother and quieter sounding.  Of course an Angel copy is often all you can find in the US these days.  Also records need to be cleaned, even if they look pristine.  And I don't really think much of these entry level turntables, particularly for orchestral music.  None of this is an argument for the superiority of Lps, of course.  The reason for getting a turntable is that you have records you want to listen to.

That said, a well made Lp in good condition can sound wonderful on good equipment.

My hypotheses on why some people prefer Lps:

* Compression was used in the mastering and cutting process.  This adds "presence" and makes the dynamic range more manageable in the average domestic listening room.
* Much of the music was recorded for Lp in mind.
* Exclusivity.  CD brought "hi-fi" to the masses.  You didn't need to know how to align a cartridge to get the best sound.  There was nothing to adjust at all.
* Lp playback can be fun, in a geeky way.  It's more tactile.
* Early CD players sounded terrible.  DACs have improved a lot in just the past decade.
* Many vinyl fans listen to to music where surface noise -- noise that would be bothersome in a quiet orchestral passage -- is well below the volume level of the music.
* Nostalgia.  Even people who were born in the digital era are affected by this.

[71 dB]

The main thing is not to buy a system that describes itself as "home theater."  In such systems, neutral reproduction of sound is not the goal.  The goal is that when a bomb goes off in the movie your house should be knocked off its foundation.

Cheap supermarket systems call themselves "home theater". You don't get earthquake bass out of those tiny boxes. Real subwoofers and neutral sound aren't exclusive. Movie soundtracks contain ridiculous bass bursts, so a house knocked off it foundations is only part of neutral sound reproduction.  If you want to keep your house in place, buy a smaller subwoofer, turn the volume down or watch old movies without bass.

Find speakers that have a reputation for good music reproduction and simply buy 5 of them instead of 2.

Exactly.

In most cases, the company will make a center-channel version of the speaker than you can use the the center channel.  (Typcially the shape is more appropriate for center placement and the bass response is not as good.)

Actually those "horizontal" center spearkers are often bad because the sound radiation pattern differs from "vertical" speakers. In cases when only one coaxial speaker cone is used, the result might be very good but when there's separate bass and treble cones, go for identical speakers.

It's sad that people has been "brainwashed" to think those horizontal "bass-treble-bass" boxes are real center speakers.

Some speaker manufacturers have "identical" floor and pedestal speakers, where the pedestal model is simply the upper part of the floor speaker. Acoustically these speaker are almost identical, lowest bass being the only difference. A system of floor model as main speakers and pedestal model as center and rear speakers may work well even without a subwoofer, since bigger floor speakers can produce bass quite well.

For the amplifier, restrict yourself to brands that have a reputation for audiophile sound (Marantz, NAD, Yamaha, etc).

Agreed.

My own experience is that there are not so many multichannel recordings available, and if you have a finite budget it is better to get 2 really good speakers than 5 middling speakers.

Depends on how you count them. Of course the amount of multichannel recordings is a tiny fraction of the amout of stereofonic recordings.

Purists may disagree but in my opionion many stereo classical music recordings work surprisingly well in surround modes like Dolby Pro Logic II. Acoustic recordings have natural ambience and limited phase/amplitude differencies between channels. This means that these matrix-decoders don't add vicious artifacts to the sound image. How well this works depends on how the recording is made, what kind of microphone set-up is used etc. I have noticed that "church music" with long reverberation usually works very well adding the feel of ambience while acoustically dry chamber music is best listened in stereo mode. 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

My hypotheses on why some people prefer Lps:

* [snipped]

I agree with most of these, but one extra I've noticed is that LPs seem to produce a bigger, more space-filling sound. Maybe this is totally subjective, because I rarely see other people pointing it out. But I really do feel like I'm sitting closer to the performers, or something like that.

On the whole, CDs win on points. I didn't get into LPs for the sound quality anyway, but because a lot of records were never reissued on CD, are difficult to find in that medium, or were somehow botched in the reissue.

[Daverz]

I agree with most of these, but one extra I've noticed is that LPs seem to produce a bigger, more space-filling sound. Maybe this is totally subjective, because I rarely see other people pointing it out. But I really do feel like I'm sitting closer to the performers, or something like that.

There's more of a sense of space being filled between the speakers.

For me, chamber music seem to come off best on Lp.   For most orchestral music, I'd generally rather have the CD.

One issue is that I hate cleaning records (I have a VPI 16.5), and I have a lot of dusty used records.  I wish I could afford that new ultrasonic cleaning machine.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

For me, chamber music seem to come off best on Lp.   For most orchestral music, I'd generally rather have the CD.

My impression too. Chamber music sounds nice and comfy with the ambient LP sound. But that same sound can smother orchestral detail.

[Todd]

Whilst at Best Buy to get a new monitor for my PC, I decided on a whim to buy the Pioneer SP-BS22-LR mini-monitors for the princely sum of $130.  They look cheap with cheap, presumably fake black oak (or whatever) veneer and cheap grill, but the sound is most impressive for the money.  The obviously low-cost tweeter is expertly deployed, with very well controlled sibilance, and it rolls off nicely in-room so as not to offend.  The woofer is pretty darn good through the mids, though the upper bass is very obviously boosted and can sound wooly at times.  They work quite well with piano recordings, but not quite so well with rock music.  These can compete with some speakers in the $500-ish range (or even much higher if one wanted to compare them to horrid Wilson CUBBs).  They may end up in an office system at some point, or perhaps the kitchen.

[DavidW]

In my opinion CDs are still produced too bright. I have equipment to accurately measure frequency response at my listening position and also the means to equalize the sound from my system so that response measures flat. However this accurately flat response sounds far, far too bright in case of almost all classical recordings. To get a more natural level while still getting all the harmonics, I have to roll off response gradually from about 4000 Hz so it is down 5-6 dB at 10,000 Hz.

Movies are mastered that way (with the expectation that the upper-mids/treble will be cut by 5 dB).  Music has no such standard (or any standard), but it could be that they've drifted to the standard that movies used.  Many (but not all) digital era recordings sound a touch bright to me too.  But since there are also many recordings with a more natural sound you really have to be flexible.

[Fëanor]

Movies are mastered that way {too bright} (with the expectation that the upper-mids/treble will be cut by 5 dB).  Music has no such standard (or any standard), but it could be that they've drifted to the standard that movies used.  Many (but not all) digital era recordings sound a touch bright to me too.  But since there are also many recordings with a more natural sound you really have to be flexible.

Maybe the reason is as you say.  I any case I just leave my correction on at all times without fine-tuning for given recordings.  This works for me.

[mahler10th]

 
On Sunday I'll be taking delivery of some very fancy hardware...but somewhat old.  It consists of two oak cased floor standing speakers (three way I think) and an accompanying Amp.  My sister in law who is a music nut (but sadly not Classical) bought them to compliment some high end audio equipment in 2001, and at that time the whole system bundle cost over £1,500.  She has changed her audio setup now, and I'm the lucky guy who gets the stuff!  Free.  (I'm a relative!)  I am excited as hell, because obviously I have heard her setup in action, and the sound from those speakers was OUTSTANDING in every way.  I remember enviously thinking they would be perfect for my music.   
For all the audiophiles here, I will return on Sunday in suitably excited fashion to report exactly what they are, make, wattage, etc, and post a picture.  I know the audiophiles here already have monster high end stuff, but it will be  nice to share what difference such an upgrade makes to someone who isn't all there when it comes to more sophisticated setups.