Essentials for getting yourself good music in the home

[Sawyer]

By way of a starter, let me set out the equipment I have used in a long and largely enjoyable audiophile journey, having now reached a place where I can share my experience in this area. At the outset, let me say that I do not want to start any controversies by running counter to what may be established wisdom here, these are purely my opinions, but I do stick to these now for all my home audio needs, and I am content that I now have the best quality music at home from a wide pool, to the extent I can afford it.
With that out of the way, here is the list, and I am sure even I am going to be surprised at how long it will end up being, and may miss out an item or two! For brevity I will not list the many all in one systems I have owned before looking at the high end. And I may not be accurate in all model descriptions since this is all from memory. The idea behind setting this out is to establish some credentials, and most certainly not as recommended practice - just the opposite in fact.
1. Speakers : Cadence Amaya, Quad 11L, KEF Q1, Spendor S3/5 SE, Harbeth C7ES3, Sonos Play1, Sonos Play5, Sonos Sub.
2. Sources: Rega P5 turntable, Marantz 6001 CDP, Quad CDP-2, NAD 320CDP, Marantz KI Pearl Lite SACDP, Sonos front end units, Ipod classic/touch.
3. Amplification: Cadence VA1, Rotel RA2, NAD C350, Unison Unico, Unison S6, Marantz PM 7004, Quad 99/909, NAD C325 BEE, Yamaha AX 397, Conrad Johnson MF 2500, Sonos Connect Amp.
4. DACs - Musical Fidelity TriVista tube DAC
5. Interconnects - mainly van den hul
6. Speaker cables - mainly van den hul

to be continued...

 

[Sawyer]

to be continued...

7. Miscellaneous exotica: Power conditioners, Tube buffer, Dedicated PSU Box for said buffer, Rings for valves, Dedicated cord between Tube buffer and PSU Box...
Looking back, even my mind boggles!
Right from the beginning though, I stayed away from HT systems. I found that using a stereo amp with decent front speakers was enough to augment the sound well enough for a large screen TV - even now, where the TV is a 50 inch HD plasma. Surround sound of the 5.1 or more variety never ticked any box for me, so I haven't wandered down that path much, and it therefore isn't something I have too much experience with.
But over this long journey with 2 channel audio, based on research, forum discussions with much more knowledgeable people than I, and my personal experiences, my views may be useful to people to not go through the same journey to get excellent quality music into the home. Excellent is of course a subjective term, and can still be as expensive as one can afford. My attempt in following posts will be to share my learning on where money is best spent for maximum audible improvement, and where throwing money will yield only psychological and therefore a short term feeling of satisfaction before the urge to tweak further strikes.
And these attempts are aimed at those that are more interested in listening to music of good quality at home, and not those that are interested in playing around with different equipment, who tend to see the music as a test signal. Nothing wrong in that by itself, that can be a valid hobby too. But an expensive one, that usually yields rewards other than music enjoyment - indeed, it can get music to take second place.

 

[Sawyer]

How to know if any change in the system is an improvement for real?

The short answer to this is - by the evidence of your ears! Sounds simple?
It isn't so. Because what you actually perceive as having heard happens in the brain, and the ears only convey a part of the inputs that the brain processes in coming to a decision about what it thinks it has heard. And what your brain thinks it has heard is what you hear.
Examples of other inputs that play a role:
1. The way the equipment looks - things such as VU meters, hefty casework, lots of knobs and buttons, speaker cabinetry, number of drivers etc.
2. The way the equipment feels - things such as how the control knobs are finished and how they move, how damped the CD tray is, etc.
3. Knowledge of what others have said about the equipment in AV magazine and internet reviews.
4. The price one has paid for the equipment in place.
And many others. Including things like the lights turned down low, the glow of valves, and within limits, some alcohol in the blood stream.
I am not saying here than none of the above are related to equipment quality/capability, just that regardless of the effect of some of these things on sound quality or equipment reliability, the brain uses these as inputs in deciding the quality of the sound it thinks it has heard. Human nature, and just the way the brain is built to work.
The other big factor at play is this - louder always sounds better, other things being equal. A secret that is known to all audio equipment salesmen. And louder needs to be as little as a 0.2 db difference in sound levels for the brain to be fooled.

 

[manoj.p]

Re: How to know if any change in the system is an improvement for real?

The short answer to this is - by the evidence of your ears! Sounds simple?
It isn't so. Because what you actually perceive as having heard happens in the brain, and the ears only convey a part of the inputs that the brain processes in coming to a decision about what it thinks it has heard. And what your brain thinks it has heard is what you hear.
Examples of other inputs that play a role:
1. The way the equipment looks - things such as VU meters, hefty casework, lots of knobs and buttons, speaker cabinetry, number of drivers etc.
2. The way the equipment feels - things such as how the control knobs are finished and how they move, how damped the CD tray is, etc.
3. Knowledge of what others have said about the equipment in AV magazine and internet reviews.
4. The price one has paid for the equipment in place.
And many others. Including things like the lights turned down low, the glow of valves, and within limits, some alcohol in the blood stream.
I am not saying here than none of the above are related to equipment quality/capability, just that regardless of the effect of some of these things on sound quality or equipment reliability, the brain uses these as inputs in deciding the quality of the sound it thinks it has heard. Human nature, and just the way the brain is built to work.
The other big factor at play is this - louder always sounds better, other things being equal. A secret that is known to all audio equipment salesmen. And louder needs to be as little as a 0.2 db difference in sound levels for the brain to be fooled.

Bang on. Bias plays a big part in audio experience.

 

[Santy]

Welcome to the forum Sawyer.
Good start; looking forward to read more of your experience.

 

[Sawyer]

Re: How to know if any change in the system is an improvement for real?

Bang on. Bias plays a big part in audio experience.

Right, and great cue in for this post.

Good start; looking forward to read more of your experience.

Thank you. Hopefully, it will be of use to people who love good music and are at the start of their journey in this sphere.
Bias does a play as great a part in this as in every part of our lives. In this case, there is even a word for it - Expectation Bias.
It's influence gets diminished though, as soon as it's presence is acknowledged. And there are well known ways of eliminating it, followed in research labs everywhere.
Which brings me to the first controversial subject in the world of audiophiles - Double blind, sound level matched AB testing of the single variable introduced in the system. I will explain later why the controversy, but first the explanation.
The purpose of this test is to eliminate as far as possible, every input other than the one provided by your own ears, from reaching the brain and forming a conclusion as to whether a change in your system has resulted in a change in the nature of the sound, whether for better or for worse. The great thing about this test is that it leaves the judgement in the hands of the person who matters the most when you are looking to spend your hard earned cash - YOU! The rigour that a well constructed test of this kind imposes is only to ensure that your assessment is not coloured by biases of the kind referred to earlier, leading you to a decision based on things other than the messages your ears are providing your brain. Including eliminating the "louder sounds better" thing explained earlier.
This test is easy to understand.
It just means that you deny yourself any knowledge of which of the two alternates being assessed is in play, by putting a blindfold over your eyes if necessary, and have someone else switch over quickly back and forth from one to the other, taking care to keep sound levels the same. And if you are still able to identify correctly which alternate is in play enough number of times for it to be statistically significant, you can conclude that there is an audible change between the two alternates. For example, in ten attempts you need to be right about 8 times out of 10. And based on the nature and extent of the change, you can then make a more rational decision about whether the money to be spent on the alternate is justified. This will still be a subjective decision, but you are trying to be as objective about the way it is done, as is possible.
Believe only the evidence of your ears is all that this test is seeks to do, and be careful that even in this case, you aren't fooled into thinking sound quality is better because of even marginal sound level differences.

 

[Sawyer]

Music tastes

Before proceeding, I have to describe the music I like as a reference point for some of the beliefs I now hold. I suspect that the kind of music one listens to isn't relevant for these discussions, but it does no harm to give a full background.
1. Jazz
2. Indian classical
3. Western Classical
4. Close miked acoustic vocals - think Norah Jones, Diana Krall, Mark Knopfler, Johnny Cash as examples.
5. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and some others in that genre
6. Classic Rock
7. New age instrumental
8. East West fusion
I don't listen to most of modern Bollywood, EDM, trance, or music with heavy head pounding beats. It all sounds the same or tires me out just listening to it.
For my tastes, midrange clarity, sweetness and musicality is critical. Loud thumping bass is the least needed.

 

[Sawyer]

Level matched blind AB tests

The difficulty in these tests is in making quick changeovers to see if the ears alone can tell the difference, with sound level changes not exceeding 0.2 db.
This is very difficult to set up at home, because it needs a device that will adjust the sound level from each alternate to match to the degree required. An AB comparator box can be built, but few will have the time or resources to do this. Certainly no dealer is going to sell one!
However, proving to oneself the negative - i.e. that nothing different can be heard in a blind test is a lot easier. If one cannot hear the difference in a blind test even without precise sound level matching, that is the end of the story. Nothing different will then be concluded with that precision in place. I have found this method to be very useful in ruling out additions of new/different boxes/cables to my set up. Or in satisfying myself that nothing is being lost by either eliminating a box or changing to a cheaper one.
What's to be done to prove a positive at home then? All that can be done is to keep in mind the impact of the level matching thing, and try to come as close to it as possible, using the volume control. And rely on the information on the net about the lack of rigorously controlled level matched blind AB tests supporting a conclusion of better sound quality from any changes in modern day electronics in the signal chain, once certain things I will refer to later have been taken care of. Passive speakers and room acoustics are a different kettle of fish, again for reasons I will refer to later.

 

[Sawyer]

The "case" against level matched blind AB tests

There are two main planks to this, one of which is frankly silly, to say the least.
The valid argument against it is that it is difficult to set up to the precision needed, and needs test instruments. And the introduction of an AB comparator box can itself be the source of the sonic changes, leading to misleading conclusions. A bit like the scientists dealing with quantum reality where the fact of observing has an effect on what is being observed. Seem far fetched to me, but not irrational as the next one sounds - to me at any rate.
The silly argument goes something like this - if I can't hear the difference in the test that I know is there, there is something wrong with the concept of the test.
Not much arguing against that too, it is like a faith thing. When you point out the fossil evidence to people who refuse to believe in evolution, they will say that God also planted the fossil evidence along with all the rest he did in creating man in his image. No way to end that debate to mutual satisfaction, so it is best not to debate.
Anyone interested will find an ongoing raging debate on this topic on the net, on some audiophile forums. I don't wish to be one to introduce it here.

 

[Sawyer]

My findings

Before giving a summary of my findings for the various part of the audio signal chain, I will reiterate that I do not speak of multi channel AV receivers, with built in digital signal processing ( DSP ) of different levels of sophistication. I have never felt the need to have one, and have no user experience of these beasts. All that follows relates to only 2 channel audio systems for music. I think that a good 2 channel system is more suited for a combined music and TV need than the typical home theatre in a box atrocity, but more on that later.
I will set out my experiences and reasonings for each of what follows in later posts, these are just bullet point conclusions. And whenever I use the word "audible difference", I mean difference as can be heard in level matched double blind AB listening tests.
1. Room acoustics - Audible difference
2. Speakers - Audible difference
3. Speaker placement - Audible difference
4. Recording and mastering quality/style of the recorded source - Audible difference
5. Performance quality - Audible difference
That's it - indeed, given a base quality and specification level for everything else, 95% of what you hear is influenced by these. Maybe even 99%.
Which means that for reasons/conditions explained for each item in separate posts to follow, there isn't anything to be obtained in terms of audible difference for any of the following and these can be used interchangeably. Provided minimum conditions are met, budget end is as effective as high end/expensive. Which also means that it is more rewarding to spend time, money and efforts in getting the 99% referred to above as right as you can afford to or are able to.
1. Amplifiers
2. CD players
3. External DACs - not even required, to be honest
4. Speaker cables and interconnects
5. Power cable and conditioners
6. High resolution CDs/SACDs/Downloads
7. Any other exotica, starting from expensive speakers stands, component racks down to green magic marker CD treatment and the like

 

[sound_cycle]

subscribed ! thanks

ciao
gr

 

[Sawyer]

The 30/30/30/10 budget allocation story

This is something I still hear bandied about. That one should spend equal amounts on source, amplification and speakers, with 10% reserved for cables.
This one dates from before the solid state era, using turntables, valve amps and speakers. Making a good turntable is expensive, as is making a good valve amp. Sticking to that allocation today means ignoring all the price reductions that have been brought about in the solid state age with modern precision manufacturing technologies, with no loss in manufactured quality.
A graphic example using the top of the line Harbeth speakers, the M40.1, which costs around Rs 10 lakhs for a pair, and is widely acknowledged to be one of the best 2 channel home audio speakers in the world today:
Using this budget allocation would mean a spend of Rs 35 lakhs for a 2 channel music system at home, with nothing spent on room acoustics.
Knowing my much cheaper Harbeths very well, I am sure that the sound produced by a well selected system around the 40.1, for a total spend of around Rs 12/13 lakhs, would produce music with no audible difference from the Rs 35 lakh one. Indeed, I could save money even there, by using a well specced amp that has a digital input socket that will take music signals from an iPod containing lossless CD rips, and eliminate the CD player entirely.
As an aside: for over a year the owner of Harbeth had made a public offer to anyone who would come to his factory in the UK, and be successful in identifying amplifier differences in an AB test to be set up by him. The prize to any winner was a pair of brand new 40.1 speakers. No entry fee, nothing. I was amazed there were no takers, not even from someone in the UK, with no significant travel cost investment, and after a year, he withdrew the offer.

 

[Sawyer]

Speakers and their placement - the keys to the kingdom

I would say just this - get yourself the very best speaker pair you can afford, once you are sure about the music/sound you like!
And if you are serious about good music sound at home, this is one area where even maybe more than you can afford isn't a bad idea.
I say this because a good passive speaker will, along with room acoustics, be the largest by far determinant of sound quality at home. With reasonable care, it can last for decades, and can be seen as much more of an investment than any other thing we buy, short of a house.
Do research on this investment, including things like how much space does it need around it to give of its best, and can your room afford it that space.
Different speakers also present different electrical loads to amplifiers - some expensive speakers seem to take pride in being difficult loads, needing lots of amplifier power to sing. Not bad in itself, but it will drive up the cost of amplification.
Other than as a delighted owner, I have no affiliation with Harbeths, but they are one case of a speaker I know which is also designed to be a benign load to amplifiers. There are many others too, I am sure, but it needs research on these lines.
Stand mounted speakers can be just as good, often better than floor mounted, where you pay more money for expensive cabinetry. And stands just need to provide the function of providing a safe and stable place to keep the speakers, usually such that the tweeter is at the height of your ears in the listening positions. Nothing more exotic is necessary. The well regarded - and horrifyingly expensive - Harbeth flagship 40.1 is a stand mounted speaker.
Speakers are one item in the chain that you can't buy by just looking at the spec. Speaker voicing changes from brand to brand, model to model too at times, and can never be conveyed by spec. The only answer is to listen to them, preferably at home. If that isn't possible, at a friends home. At the very least, using music you are familiar with and like.
At home is best, because speakers coupled to your room is what delivers the sound you hear, and every room is unique and every speaker will interact with the room in unique ways. And difference in voicing can be such that a blind man can tell them apart - so could you in a AB blind test.
With a lot of noble and ignoble exceptions, speakers are also the one area where price/ audible sound quality go hand in hand much more than anything else in the system.
Speaker cables: All that is needed is good twin core insulated copper cable. It has to do nothing more glamorous than conduct electricity. Commodity cable is perfectly suitable. Anything more is for other than sound quality - and more can be in crazy multiples of the commodity cable price, that people seem to want pay for. The thickness of the cable is important, the longer the cable run, the thicker the section of the copper core to avoid current attenuation. There is guidance on the net that specifies recommended thickness for different cable run lengths. What is important is the connection of the cable to each end, so that electrical connection integrity is maintained, with use of good quality terminal plugs as required.

 

[Sawyer]

2 Channel amplifiers

The neatest description I have read for an amplifier is the one by the late Peter Walker, founder of Quad - straight wire with gain. This one admirably states that all an amplifier is supposed to do is amplify the strength of the signal, without either adding or taking away anything from it in any other respect.
When it comes to speakers, it is far from a solved problem. A speaker is also an electro mechanical device, with many different material usage possibilities, unlike solid state amplifiers. Designing speakers has many degrees of freedom for the designer, and the ability to voice the speaker in distinctively different ways. The amplifier problem on the other hand has been solved decades ago, as far as 2 channel solid state amplification is concerned.
Look at the definition again - it says that an amplifier is not supposed to have a sonic signature.
The position that is taken by people like me is often misunderstood/misquoted by audiophiles to say that we think that all amplifiers sound the same.
Whereas the position I support says that in a level matched blind AB test, it is not possible to distinguish between two amplifiers, both of which are operating within their design limits.
To explain this, let me turn to something called clipping.
Most people think that an amplifier pushes out power to speakers. This isn't the case. Speakers pull power from an amplifier, which, subject to the volume control setting, supplies it as demanded. Remember too that a speaker connected to an amp terminal is a closed loop - almost a short circuit, with the speaker coil in place. The resistance of the speaker/speaker coil is what is the speaker impedance and what stops it from being a true short circuit. But this resistance, about 8 ohms, is very small. And the power/current that the speakers draw from the amp depends on the frequency of the music that the speaker has to reproduce, with lower frequencies resulting in a higher power draw. In poorly designed speakers, this can also result in a dropping of the impedance to close to zero, in the 1-2 ohms region, compounding the power draw increase. When this happens, the speakers can demand more power than the amp can supply, leading to distortion in the signal wave form causing clipping to it, which is audible as distortion. This distortion is not necessarily unpleasant, sometimes it is this that gives the so called warmth to the music. Beyond a point, it can damage the speaker, which is why there is a greater risk of speaker damage from low powered amps, and not ones with higher power than even the speaker specs recommend. For higher powered amps as long as the volume control is used carefully, because it is the speakers that are in control of the power draw, they don't get damaged.
But coming back to clipping induced audible distortion - it may sound good, but it isn't hifi. High fidelity means that nothing is added or taken away from the characteristics of the recorded signal.
But when clipping isn't happening - that is to say when the amp is working within its designed limits - that is when the amp is not distinguishable for any other statement holds good, as long as sound levels are within 0.2 db of each other.
What then should decide the purchase of an amplifier?
My views:
1. Enough power to do the job, defined by the speaker needs, plus something more as a power reserve. For a very large majority of applications at home, 60-80 wpc is enough. Even 100wpc, solid state amplifier watts aren't very expensive now.
2. Features such as input/output sockets, USB sockets, etc., based on individual needs.
3. Availability of parts and after sales service
4. Brand reputation for reliability
5. Tone controls - another thing isn't hard to implement without, as some think it does, "corrupting" the signal chain. The ability to tweak bass and treble levels is invaluable in customising the sound of a speaker to the room acoustics/environment.
6. Integrated amps are as good as any. With solid state designs and properly implemented power supplies, the preamp separation to protect the delicate low voltage signal at the preamp stage from distortion causing effects isn't as important any more, where the power outputs are in the ranges mentioned above.
7. Footprint criteria
Sonic signature doesn't figure any where in this list.
Amplifiers from even the budget end of reputed makes such as Marantz, Rotel, NAD, Cambridge Audio to name just a few, meet many of these criteria quite easily. I am partial to Quad for long term use, but that is because their amps are built from non special parts and their UK service is legendary - even today one can ship a 40 year old amp to them and they will bring it to perfect working condition. But I have never had any problem with any of my solid state amps, ever. And I have bought some without having heard them first. Never a cause for regret, except when I realised it hadn't made a damn difference to what I was hearing!

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Sawyer, you'll like my signature, I think

There are some very vocal dedicated subjectivists here ...and, of course, they sound good ...but some of them may drop by the thread to accuse you of heresy. Don't worry, though, they won't actually burn you at the stake. I can vouch for that, as some of them have become valued friends of mine . Like those circle diagrams that overlap, however contradictory the extremes of out viewpoints may be, it is better to dwell in the shared ground when we are not actually engaged in arguing them.

But some won't get that close, as any intrusion of science and technology is absolutely unwelcome to them --- although how they think those boxes of electronics actually came about beats me!

Personally, I'm a shopoholic and a gadget lover, so I too can go for all those soft, glowing lights and machined-from-a-block cases. They make my mouth water and there is plenty of hifi that I'd be happy to gaze at, if I could afford it.

What I find hard to understand in others is that the fascination with technology ends at the ear drum, which is where all the interesting stuff is just starting!

Anyway, this is just a quick hello in reply to your opening post. Now I have to read the rest!

 

[Sawyer]

Sawyer, you'll like my signature, I think

There are some very vocal dedicated subjectivists here ...and, of course, they sound good ...but some of them may drop by the thread to accuse you of heresy. Don't worry, though, they won't actually burn you at the stake.

I too can go for all those soft, glowing lights and machined-from-a-block cases.

Anyway, this is just a quick hello in reply to your opening post. Now I have to read the rest!

Yes, apt signature, that. Indeed, one of the most effective audio tweaks I know of is to influence that bit via a decent glass of wine, and turn the lights down low. Music starts sounding divine soon after! A very real example of how what is heard is a lot more than what the ears convey.

As is the soft glowing tubes bit. I still miss that part of my tube amps, for the "liquid warmth" I thought it added to the sound. Later I always suspected that if I were to put a tube amp on the rack, connected only to the mains, the glowing tubes would enhance the sound for visitors. Wouldn't work for me because I would know the reality, so I dismissed any thoughts of doing that.

As to being accused of heresy or worse, I have no inclination to even defend myself. Having come from that world, I know the thought processes of its denizens. And good luck to them, as long as it floats their boat, who am I to criticise? The only purpose of this thread is to give the benefit of my experience to people who are looking for good music at home, but don't have cash to burn in pursuing some road to audio nirvana. I also know that human nature is such that one has to burn one's fingers before any learning happens, but that isn't anything I can do anything about.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Well, quite. The only thing is that when I read "an amplifier is not supposed to have a sonic signature," I thought, "Unless the buyer wants one!" Many do, and I'm fine with people getting the sound that they actually enjoy listening too --- but if that is what we want, then we should lower the Hifi flag, because it isn't.

The ironic thing in the relationship I have, in some threads, with fellow HFV members is that, after so many decades, it is only after joining this forum that that I began to seriously question some of the "audiophile" precepts and aspirations!

 

[jls001]

Re: 2 Channel amplifiers

What then should decide the purchase of an amplifier?
My views:
1. Enough power to do the job, defined by the speaker needs, plus something more as a power reserve. For a very large majority of applications at home, 60-80 wpc is enough. Even 100wpc, solid state amplifier watts aren't very expensive now.
2. Features such as input/output sockets, USB sockets, etc., based on individual needs.
3. Availability of parts and after sales service
4. Brand reputation for reliability
5. Tone controls - another thing isn't hard to implement without, as some think it does, "corrupting" the signal chain. The ability to tweak bass and treble levels is invaluable in customising the sound of a speaker to the room acoustics/environment.
6. Integrated amps are as good as any. With solid state designs and properly implemented power supplies, the preamp separation to protect the delicate low voltage signal at the preamp stage from distortion causing effects isn't as important any more, where the power outputs are in the ranges mentioned above.
7. Footprint criteria
Sonic signature doesn't figure any where in this list.

How about budget?

 

[Sawyer]

Re: 2 Channel amplifiers

How about budget?

I don't know exactly what you mean, but this is an excellent cue, thank you.
The thrust of this thread is on how to get good music by spending money appropriately, where it will deliver maximum bang for the buck, so here goes:
A great thing about the audiophile community is that in their constant upgrade churn, there is great value available in the used market, and a lot of equipment gets put up for sale with a large part of its useful working life still available, at significantly reduced prices. Audio components are a much safer buy than a car, for example. No life or death issues lurking as can in a used car, and other than cosmetic blemishes perhaps, the functionality is unimpaired.
And manufacturers bring in new models all the time that do not carry any audible differences - features get added, some of which are relevant as music carrying media changes form or nature, but nothing on the sonic side, marketing talk notwithstanding. Things like CD players need to be carefully selected because CD tray mechanisms can be abused, but for the large part, the used market is a fantastic place to shop in. The other thing about most audiophiles is that they take great care of their equipment. As long as the electronic equipment is in sound working condition, and after sales support is available, even a lack of warranty need not be a deterrent if the price is right.
Keeping the same general buying guidelines in mind, looking at used equipment can be an excellent way to start - more than just start, in many cases.

 

[jls001]

Re: 2 Channel amplifiers

I don't know exactly what you mean, but this is an excellent cue, thank you.

Thanks, please go ahead with your helpful posts! I was only trying to point out that for most music lovers, money - or more precisely the lack of it in sufficiently large disposable quantity , can put tight constraints when buying audio gear.