Stereo & Speakers

[stethomas]

Hi all,

Would somebody kindly point me in the right direction, which brand and model do you use?

The same also applies to your audio set up - amp, cd recorder etc...

Only recently bought some decks and still using them on a micro system lol. Hoping to get a decent stereo, or at least start building one towards the end of the month.

Thanks in advance guys,
Steve

 

[Elate]

I know that theres probably better out there but I've been using technics stuff since the early 90's now and the only problem I ever had was the cd player on my old mini stack system burnin out. About 6 years ago I decided, like you, that I needed somthing a bit more beefy to plug my decks into so went out and bought some seperates...
Technics su-a707 amp
Technics sl-pg5 cd player
Yamaha kx-393 tape player
And a technics sh-ge70 graphic equalizer
I originaly got myself a pair of celestions to plug all this into but they died a death, tweeters lasted about 5 mins so they're now takin up attic space
Went to a local disco equip dealer to have a nose at some new speakers and got a pair of these...
Gemini 320 Watt 3-Way Speaker System GSM-1532
They look brutish but sound realy good in my little 12x12 foot office. I can even listen listen to classical and folk and it still sounds great

 

[stethomas]

Thanks Elate,

Yea I originally used;

Technics SU-V660 Amp (which I sold)
Technics RS-TR 474 (still have)

So ideally i'd be looking to use Technics again but also for obvious reasons too.

Speakerwise, I did have my eye on either some Mission 701's and the Jamo 165, 265 maybe, any thoughts on these???

 

[BlackburnRaver]

I picked one of these up cheap off a mate and it does the trick nicely, I'd recommend it:

Teac AR-610 Stereo Amplifier | Amplifiers | HiFi 4 Less

Just can't decide on what speakers yet, I've been told the KRK Rokit 5's are the schnizz but can lack a little in bass. Think the best way to go is to listen b4 you part with you hard earned...

 

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

celestions

Celestion are really good for spares, you'll be able to swap the tweets out no bother if you wanted to sell them on & get em out yer attic lol.

I know this cos I've blown several pairs of tweets in my Celestions over the years, with amplification setups of varying stupidity :$

Cracking little speakers though, nevertheless. So easy to drive.

Running mine on me decks at the minute actually, through a cheap-ish Cambridge Audio Hi-Fi amp oot of Richer Sounds. Will win no awards, but decent gear & does the job reasonably for next to no money.

If size is a factor, maybe think about JBL Control 1s. Tiny wee things but a big big sound... like that dead bitey dog out the cartoons... what was his name... need a hefty amp though, but if you can drive them hard enough they are jaw dropping.

Don't neglect yer cables either and good speaker placement is v.important to the overall sound

 

[Elate]

Cheers man, will look into fixin them up now. Just a bit shit with leccy stuff:S

 

[Brock Landers]

Thanks Elate,

Yea I originally used;

Technics SU-V660 Amp (which I sold)
Technics RS-TR 474 (still have)

So ideally i'd be looking to use Technics again but also for obvious reasons too.

Speakerwise, I did have my eye on either some Mission 701's and the Jamo 165, 265 maybe, any thoughts on these???

I still use the mission 701s in my home cinema and they are really quite good speakers, if a little bass light for djing. I would suggest using them with a sub to back up the lower (sub 65hz) frequencies.

The BKelec sub here should do the trick nicely:-

XLS200

 

[stethomas]

Thanks for the replies guys.

Speakerwise, I ended up getting some Eltax - Century 150 free off my mate and they are pretty decent:

ELTAX CENTURY 150

Hoping to buy a technics amp this month, hopefully for less that £100. Does anyone have any suggestions for around this pricemark?

Steve

 

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

To be honest mate, for that sort of money, you'd be best off checking online & round your local hi-fi shops for something in the sale. Often you can get end of line models quite heavily discounted.

Rather than looking at features or sonic comparisons, you're probably best off just looking for the biggest discount off RRP you can get. Sound-wise, 100 quid amps will be much of a muchness.

I did a quick google of your speakers cos I don't know owt about them, but couldn't find anything, so will assume they are fairly run of the mill 100W (or thereabouts) at 8 Ohm HiFi Speakers...

My advice on choosing an amp would be as follows...

- Look at RMS output power (don't be fooled by "peak power" figures they are meaningless). Higher RMS power output is a good thing. You are more likely to blow speakers with an underpowered amp than with an overpowered one. Personally, 40W RMS would be the absolute minimum I'd look at. In an ideal world, your amp should be slightly higher rated than your speakers... (40W speakers driven by a 60W amp etc). If your speakers are rated significantly higher than your amp (200W speakers on a 20W amp, say) then you'll risk damaging your speakers to get any kind of volume out of them.

- I personally like tone controls on an amp. Not all have them, and it goes against all the HiFi purist arguments, but they are useful. nothing worse than wanting to tweak the EQ on a track to your taste and being unable to do so.

- If your speakers are bi-wire-able (each one has 2 sets of terminals on the back) then it's a bonus if you can get an amp with 2 sets of speaker outputs (cable one set of terminals on the speakers to each set of speaker out terminals on the amp, and switch the amp to drive both sets of outputs). Takes double the cable, but makes better use of the amp & will in theory improve the sound.

Those are the most important features on a budget amp IMO, you may or may not get all of them depending on what you can find in the sales. It wouldn't surprise me if you see summat like an end of line Marantz reduced from 250 or so to around 100 quid, in which case you'll do fine

For the record (soz for the long post) here's the Cambridge Audio one I use for my decks. It's nothing special, but 60W is reasonable, it's OK to look at, and decent for the money. Have a measure up for how much speaker cable you need, and if you do go in to Richer Sounds it's always worth having a bit of a haggle with them. Quite often they'll throw in a bit of speaker cable or summat if it will swing a sale, and better speaker cable is a useful upgrade (depending on what you've got already).

Hope that helps, good luck, and I'll be interested to hear about what you get!

 

[ilovepiano]

Like Sheik said, the difference between amps isn't going to be all that great.

Spend as much as you can afford on speakers, and deffo go somewhere to listen before you buy.

Don't get suckered into buying expensive cables. You'll never hear a difference. Total rip-off placebo effect.

 

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

Like Sheik said, the difference between amps isn't going to be all that great.

Spend as much as you can afford on speakers, and deffo go somewhere to listen before you buy.

Don't get suckered into buying expensive cables. You'll never hear a difference. Total rip-off placebo effect.

Bizarre how you can get completely conflicting advice...

He's already got speakers, if I read his earlier post correctly.

I wouldn't spend lots of money on cables for a 100 quid setup either, but better cables definitely make a difference. It's not a placebo effect. There might only a miniscule barely noticeable difference, but improvement is improvement, and it's gotta be worth doing if it costs you nowt

As for "listen before you buy" that's a total waste of time if you're only buying one component IMO. You'll never get another room that sounds like your room, and you'll never match exactly the rest of your system, so it's a pointless exercise. Even more so in the 100 quid price band.

If you're buying more than one component at a time then it's helpful, but for just one it's a waste of time.

 

[ilovepiano]

better cables definitely make a difference. It's not a placebo effect. There might only a miniscule barely noticeable difference, but improvement is improvement

I said you'll never hear a difference. It's a total con.

 

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

I said you'll never hear a difference. It's a total con.

ROFL I reckon actually you just want yer ears syringing

I had this same discussion with a bloke from work about 100 Hz tellies
"...but the human eye can't sense anything above about 60Hz so 100Hz tellies are a ripoff..."
Yeah... OK then...

 

[Art Awreet]

Might sound like a daft question, but other than the Amp and the Speakers, does anyone have any advice on the stereo itself?

At the moment I've only got a Sharp XL-ES50 5-Disc Microsystem which I got about 4 years back and am after replacing, see below:

Amazon.com: Sharp XL-ES50 5-Disc Microsystem: Electronics

At the moment it just does not have the power or bass I'm after, so will follow Sheik's advice from an earlier thread and head off to Richer Sounds next weekend (hopefully there'll be a sale on

The main problems with the stereo itself are that it annoyingly doesn't allow surround sound for Aux-In (and IPOD connection) or Radio, but only for CD's. Also there are only a fixed no. of equalizer options, e.g. Rock, Pops, etc, with no freedom to choose a "user defined"

Is it worthwhile keeping the stereo and getting a new Amp and Speakers , or should I just go for a new stereo + separates? If the latter can anyone suggest a decent stereo with good surround sound?

 

[ilovepiano]

I'd wager that if you sat a double blind ABX test using some fancy £10,000 per metre speaker wire that was hand made, rolled on the thighs of a virgin, and the electric cord ripped from the back of your dishwasher, that your results would be inconclusive. If you can find any study (and I mean like peer reviewed study, not just some random guy in his garage) that says otherwise, then fair enough.

Next you'll be telling me that a ducks quack doesn't echo, and that if you paint the edge of your CDs green, it will improve the sound.

 

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

Might sound like a daft question, but other than the Amp and the Speakers, does anyone have any advice on the stereo itself?

At the moment I've only got a Sharp XL-ES50 5-Disc Microsystem which I got about 4 years back and am after replacing, see below:

Amazon.com: Sharp XL-ES50 5-Disc Microsystem: Electronics

At the moment it just does not have the power or bass I'm after, so will follow Sheik's advice from an earlier thread and head off to Richer Sounds next weekend (hopefully there'll be a sale on

The main problems with the stereo itself are that it annoyingly doesn't allow surround sound for Aux-In (and IPOD connection) or Radio, but only for CD's. Also there are only a fixed no. of equalizer options, e.g. Rock, Pops, etc, with no freedom to choose a "user defined"

Is it worthwhile keeping the stereo and getting a new Amp and Speakers , or should I just go for a new stereo + separates? If the latter can anyone suggest a decent stereo with good surround sound?

There are a load of points raised in that post mate, I'll try & clarify a couple of them... First of all "power".
I know what you mean when you say power, but it isn't the same thing as power in HiFi speak.
What you are really after isn't in fact more power but in fact more "loudness". When you're choosing amp & speakers, to get a feel for how loud they will be, you need to look at the speakers efficiency (measured in dB).

A speaker's efficiency is effectively a sound level reading taken 1 metre in front of the speaker when it is being driven at one watt (a more efficient speaker will be louder for a given input than a less efficient speaker).

So if you have very efficient speakers, you can get away with a less powerful (in terms of output wattage) amp to drive them, and still get good loudness levels.

If you look at speakers, you'll see a lot of them quoting efficiency ratings of around 89dB. That's fairly typical. If you look around at a few more, particularly at the more expensive end, then you'll probably find speakers rated a few dB either side of that figure.

So why is it so important, well, check this out...

In order to increase sound output (efficiency rating) by 3 dB, you must double the output power of the amp.

So to get the same loudness level out of an 87 dB rated speaker as you get from a 90 dB rated speaker, you need an amp which is twice as powerful

So... you're looking to buy an amp & speakers & you want more "power"?
Choose the most efficient speakers you can (that you like the sound of obviously) and drive them with an amp who's nominal RMS output power exceeds the rating of your speakers. Do that and you won't go far wrong.

Obviously the most important thing is subjective... you should just buy whatever you like best... but there is a science to how "powerful" the sound will be.

OK... EQ's... surround sound... presets etc. IMO just the sight of an EQ with presets or surround sound is reason enough to chuck your whole system over the hedge, but then I'm an arsehole, and that wouldn't help you much They really aren't very nice though. They use DSP chips to fuck around with the sound between leaving the CD & exiting the speaker to "fool" your ears into thinking you're in a concert hall, or a nightclub, or listening to a really really expensive stereo... right... ugh... Usually what they actually do is add chorus, reverb & echo in varying quantities to whatever sound they read off the CD or whatever. Basically, what they do is deliberately fuck the sound up for no good reason whatsoever (most likely to try and hide the inadequacies of the stereo which in fact sounds shite... you be the judge... switch all the effects & shit off & see how it sounds then).

The "proper" answer here is that any EQ or surround, or bass/treble controls are the work of Satan because they all fuck the sound up in one way or another and all amps should only have 1 knob for volume. That way what you hear will be exactly what's on the disc. Lovely. Except that half the time "what's on the disc" sounds fucking awful. (Play either of the first 2 Oasis albums with your EQ flat, then play Frankie Welcome to the Pleasuredome the same way and you'll see what I mean).
So they're a practical necessity in most cases. But all you really need from an EQ are Bass/Treble controls. Those are enough to allow you to sort out the varying quality of your CD collection so they will all sound reasonable, and at least they won't use DSP circuits to add effects & really fuck the sound up badly.

If I were in your shoes mate, I'd transfer all your music to your ipod & sling your current stereo altogether. Then go out & choose yourself a nice amp and pair of speakers. Then you'll be forced to listen to everything off your ipod, but at least it will sound decent... Or to put it another way, you'll be able to tell your good recordings from your bad ones! The beauty of separates is that you can then add stuff like CD player, tape deck etc. on to your system & build it up gradually as and when you get the cash.

But it's horses for courses. At the end of the day all in one systems are easy, and convenient & have tape/CD/Radio etc already built in. You pay for that in sound quality though... even with the expensive ones.

 

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

I'd wager that if you sat a double blind ABX test using some fancy £10,000 per metre speaker wire that was hand made, rolled on the thighs of a virgin, and the electric cord ripped from the back of your dishwasher, that your results would be inconclusive.

ROFL well thats a totally inconclusive test, so of course you'll get inconclusive results. But if you send an analog signal spanning 10Hz - 50kHz down a long bit of each of those cables & compare what comes out one end from what goes in the other, then I'll wager you WILL see differences.

if you paint the edge of your CDs green, it will improve the sound.

ROFL there you go again "improve the sound" what exactly does that mean? I will tell you it might change the sound. But whether it does or not is impossible to prove scientifically.


In the second case, as in the first, whether it's an improvement or not is for the listener to judge.

 

[Art Awreet]

There are a load of points raised in that post mate, I'll try & clarify a couple of them... First of all "power".
I know what you mean when you say power, but it isn't the same thing as power in HiFi speak.
What you are really after isn't in fact more power but in fact more "loudness". When you're choosing amp & speakers, to get a feel for how loud they will be, you need to look at the speakers efficiency (measured in dB).

A speaker's efficiency is effectively a sound level reading taken 1 metre in front of the speaker when it is being driven at one watt (a more efficient speaker will be louder for a given input than a less efficient speaker).

So if you have very efficient speakers, you can get away with a less powerful (in terms of output wattage) amp to drive them, and still get good loudness levels.

If you look at speakers, you'll see a lot of them quoting efficiency ratings of around 89dB. That's fairly typical. If you look around at a few more, particularly at the more expensive end, then you'll probably find speakers rated a few dB either side of that figure.

So why is it so important, well, check this out...

In order to increase sound output (efficiency rating) by 3 dB, you must double the output power of the amp.

So to get the same loudness level out of an 87 dB rated speaker as you get from a 90 dB rated speaker, you need an amp which is twice as powerful

So... you're looking to buy an amp & speakers & you want more "power"?
Choose the most efficient speakers you can (that you like the sound of obviously) and drive them with an amp who's nominal RMS output power exceeds the rating of your speakers. Do that and you won't go far wrong.

Obviously the most important thing is subjective... you should just buy whatever you like best... but there is a science to how "powerful" the sound will be.

OK... EQ's... surround sound... presets etc. IMO just the sight of an EQ with presets or surround sound is reason enough to chuck your whole system over the hedge, but then I'm an arsehole, and that wouldn't help you much They really aren't very nice though. They use DSP chips to fuck around with the sound between leaving the CD & exiting the speaker to "fool" your ears into thinking you're in a concert hall, or a nightclub, or listening to a really really expensive stereo... right... ugh... Usually what they actually do is add chorus, reverb & echo in varying quantities to whatever sound they read off the CD or whatever. Basically, what they do is deliberately fuck the sound up for no good reason whatsoever (most likely to try and hide the inadequacies of the stereo which in fact sounds shite... you be the judge... switch all the effects & shit off & see how it sounds then).

The "proper" answer here is that any EQ or surround, or bass/treble controls are the work of Satan because they all fuck the sound up in one way or another and all amps should only have 1 knob for volume. That way what you hear will be exactly what's on the disc. Lovely. Except that half the time "what's on the disc" sounds fucking awful. (Play either of the first 2 Oasis albums with your EQ flat, then play Frankie Welcome to the Pleasuredome the same way and you'll see what I mean).
So they're a practical necessity in most cases. But all you really need from an EQ are Bass/Treble controls. Those are enough to allow you to sort out the varying quality of your CD collection so they will all sound reasonable, and at least they won't use DSP circuits to add effects & really fuck the sound up badly.

If I were in your shoes mate, I'd transfer all your music to your ipod & sling your current stereo altogether. Then go out & choose yourself a nice amp and pair of speakers. Then you'll be forced to listen to everything off your ipod, but at least it will sound decent... Or to put it another way, you'll be able to tell your good recordings from your bad ones! The beauty of separates is that you can then add stuff like CD player, tape deck etc. on to your system & build it up gradually as and when you get the cash.

But it's horses for courses. At the end of the day all in one systems are easy, and convenient & have tape/CD/Radio etc already built in. You pay for that in sound quality though... even with the expensive ones.

Many thanks Sheikh for your in-depth answer and advice. Got everything on the IPOD now anyway so I'll be off to get meself a decent amp and speakers this weekend

 

[ilovepiano]

ROFL well thats a totally inconclusive test, so of course you'll get inconclusive results.

Why would that be an inconclusive test? If you compared what you think is an 'excellent' cable, with one that you think is 'rubbish' then that would be a great way to find out if you could hear a difference. The fact that neither you or the tester would know which was which would be even better.

If there was a big difference, which I suspect you think there would be, then I would expect you to get it right 100% of the time, which I don't believe for a minute that you would.

ROFL there you go again "improve the sound" what exactly does that mean? I will tell you it will change the sound. whether it's an improvement or not is for the listener to judge.

What do you mean "there I go again"? You only quoted half my sentence, and I never said that it would improve the sound. Do you honestly believe that painting the edge of a CD green would make a difference to the sound quality? :|

It's exactly the same as people believing that a £200 HDMI lead will give a better picture than a £10 one. It's all bollocks.

This is going to go round and round in circles. Find me a study that proves without a shadow of a doubt, with listeners getting it right 100% of the time, that that expensive speaker cable sounds better than cheap speaker cable and I'll hold my hand up and admit I'm wrong.

 

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

Why would that be an inconclusive test? If you compared what you think is an 'excellent' cable, with one that you think is 'rubbish' then that would be a great way to find out if you could hear a difference. The fact that neither you or the tester would know which was which would be even better.

It's an inconclusive test because it's subjective.

What do you mean "there I go again"?

I said "there you go again" because both scenarios you outlined were aimed at proving "an improvement" in sound. Which, as I pointed out, is completely subjective and therefore unprovable.

Whether something is "better" or not cannot be scientifically proved, but, to use the speaker cable example, you CAN prove higher quality signal transfer down a piece of wire, if you use a long enough piece.

Do you honestly believe that painting the edge of a CD green would make a difference to the sound quality? :|

LOL nope, I don't recall ever saying such a thing.

It's exactly the same as people believing that a £10 HDMI lead will give a better picture than a £200 one. It's all bollocks.

To which I'd suggest you get your eyes checked as well as your ears.
Better quality cables are not guaranteed to give improvements, and may not yield improvements in all cases, but in general terms the science which backs up the claims has factual merit.
Your statement of "it's all bollocks" is, in fact, bollocks

Find me a study that proves without a shadow of a doubt, with listeners getting it right 100% of the time, that that expensive speaker cable sounds better than cheap speaker cable and I'll hold my hand up and admit I'm wrong.

There you go again (see above for explanation of why I said that).
This time I quoted your full sentence.
ROFL.