Transparent Amps and Colored Speakers (1 Viewer)

[RichardHOS]

I think looking at speaker/amp costs as a ratio or from a proportionality aspect is probably not the best thing to do. That's because I see amplification as leaning more towards a fixed cost than highly variable, while I see speakers as much more variable than fixed.

What do I mean? Well, suppose that you're not going to use a receiver, but instead want good, quality multichannel amplification (let's say 5 channels). You can get good, high power and high current 5 channel amps for $2000, maybe less depending on what brand tickles your fancy. That amp would be perfectly capable of running most any speaker you might want to connect to it, excluding some highly demanding low impedance models. That amp would be perfectly suitable for an HT speaker package deal costing $1500, or four pairs of most floorstanders with an expensive matching center costing $15000, and I don't really see either as being an extreme purchasing decision. In the $1500 speaker system, the owner might recognize that a good, quality amp purchase is something that might last him through several source, pre/pro, and speaker upgrade cycles. And the $15000 guy might recognize that in his moderately sized room, he'd never need more power than that no matter what speakers he might purchase.

In my case, because I've chosen to actively biamp each channel of an elaborate multichannel system, I'll have roughly $7000 in amplification (with approx. $10000 total speaker cost). But once in place, I'd be absolutely comfortable using that same amplifier stack to power $3000, $30000, or $300000 worth of speakers (I don't see 6kW being inadequate for any speaker setup that would fit in my house).

 

[RobertR]

In my case, because I've chosen to actively biamp each channel of an elaborate multichannel system, I'll have roughly $7000 in amplification (with approx. $10000 total speaker cost). But once in place, I'd be absolutely comfortable using that same amplifier stack to power $3000, $30000, or $300000 worth of speakers (I don't see 6kW being inadequate for any speaker setup that would fit in my house).

Well stated, Richard. It's silly to think that a $30,000 speaker "needs" a $30,000 amp.

 

[RobWil]

Transparent Amps and Colored Speakers

Is it politically or socially correct to call them 'colored speakers' anymore? Shouldn't there be a more sensitive term to use? I am personally offended by this and I'm sure others are too! Comeon Chu!... get with the program! This is the 21st century!

 

[Yogi]

Colored speakers - no matter what you call them the peaks and dips in the FR are changing the 'closer-to-truth' signal that your components are generating.


$7000 amplification for $300,000 speakers. That looks like the same $ ratio of Pio powering Wilsons or maybe even worse. Are you sure you wouldn't even consider a $20,000 pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks for the $300,000 speakers? At least I would, if I had $300,000 to burn on speakers...Wondering how a pair of $300,000 speakers would sound like.. better then live, perhaps?

 

[Chu Gai]

then let's call them transparently challenged, shall we?

 

[Yogi]

Richard, why did you choose to buy Rotel all along? Any specific reason for going with Rotel as opposed to Parasound, B&K, Marantz etc in the same price range? or for that matter why not Crown, QSC, Samson etc which have tons of brute power for fair prices?

 

[RobWil]

then let's call them transparently challenged, shall we?

Excellent! I can live with that Thank you for your quick response to this sensitive matter!

 

[David Judah]

As stated earlier, the 50/50 suggestion doesn't apply to the ultra high-end stuff. No one is suggesting that you need a $30,000 amp to drive $30,000 speakers.

Incidently, the 50/50, at least as far as I see it, applies to all of the components, not just the amp. It's a guide, not a rule, for stuff that is commonly available and mass produced.

Hey, if someone can afford $30,000 speakers, then I say more power to them(altough there are probably reasons other than performance that make them more than $10,000 speakers), but in that scenario, I doubt there would be a choice of better speakers or better components anyways.

DJ

 

[RichardHOS]

Richard, why did you choose to buy Rotel all along? Any specific reason for going with Rotel as opposed to Parasound, B&K, Marantz etc in the same price range? or for that matter why not Crown, QSC, Samson etc which have tons of brute power for fair prices?

Actually, the reason is pretty simple. When I started shopping for HT/audio gear six or seven years ago, there was a dealer in the area that carried Rotel gear. It seemed to be competent gear, competitively (reasonably) priced, had good specs re: power and current output, and it looked nice (I've always had my gear on display). At the time, I knew zilch about the prosound world, so those weren't even options. I bought three amps (RB-981's) for the HT and a powerstrip to turn them on/off conveniently.

Fast forward to this year. New house/HT under construction, huge system upgrade/overhaul. After conceptually designing the audio part, I realized I'd need massively more amp channels. Also, unlike some who have completely hidden equipment rooms, I still am a bit vain and like to display my components (they'll be in built-in racks in the rear of the new HT). Therefore, I wanted to keep matching amplifiers as much as possible. I figured I could sell what I had and start from scratch, or just add to what I had. After looking at the alternatives, I didn't see any that I thought I could really save much money on by selling mine used and collecting 8 different ones, especially if I took asthetics into consideration (Aragorn was tempting for a while).

I also tend to like multiple separate components, because it seems more flexible for future system upgrades (as in my particular case, for example... a 5-channel amplifier wouldn't have worked out quite as well as the three stereo amps I have). Buying used, the price isn't that much more (ex: pair of 991's - $1100, $275/channel; single 1095 - $1200, $240/channel). So there's your answer... to complete the 8 amps I needed, I decided to just stick to the same line that had worked well for me (never had an amp failure or problem), seemed to be a competitive value, and looks nice; therefore I bought 5 more amps used when they came up for good prices.

A thought or two on the prosound amps. I'd be perfectly happy with using all QSC, Crown, etc. for the entire system, except they just don't visually look all that nice IMO (they weren't really designed to look nice in home audio rooms... QSC's new line might be different, but won't be as great a value either). For sub amplification, there was no way I was going to spend the dollars it would take to get the power I wanted (~2500W) in matching Rotel amps, or any other common consumer amp. Prosound was the obvious choice, and I'll be perfectly honest and say that the current front runner is my favorite primarily because it wouldn't look too out of place alongside the rest of my components. That happens to be the Crown XLS-402 amps. Carvin's are also a great value, but man are they industrial looking. Again, I suppose it's vanity but I can't see having that many toys and keeping them all locked away in a closet somewhere! I want them out where I can tend to them and talk to them on a regular basis.


OK, I just realized that was nowhere near as simple an answer as I had intended to write. I'm really bored at work today... passing the time until, oh... right about now!

 

[Chu Gai]

sounds reasonable to me

 

[Yogi]

No... I think I'd dump the $15000 difference into even better speakers, or more likely better room treatment.

Another $15000 into $300,000 speakers

Now I would call that a little too extremely subjective. Do you think another $15000 over $300,000 would give you a substantial improvement in sound? I wouldn't, but then its just me.

 

[Chu Gai]

You know Yogi, I've sometimes wondered, when you see a price like $11,239 just what the $239 is for.

 

[RichardHOS]

Another $15000 into $300,000 speakers... Do you think another $15000 over $300,000 would give you a substantial improvement in sound?

More substantial than another $15000 in amplification would.

Besides, I did mention a better place to spend the money - room treatment.

 

[Yogi]

More substantial than another $15000 in amplification would.

More substantial or just a more differently colored. neither would be substantially more accurate than the other.

Room treatment will get you some other sound not necessarily better in absolute terms but just a subjectively (to your ears) different sound. Basically what you are doing with room treatments again is changing the FR of your system. A little color here or a little color there is what you will get, but better? Thats again subjective. So you are just as subjective as the next audiophile, IMHO.

 

[Michael R Price]

Why is frequency response so much more important than everything else?

 

[Yogi]

The FR is not important to me but it should be for anyone that wants a transparent system or claims to want one. I am ready to take non flat FR as long as it pleases my ears. I am just questioning the claims of people that claim substantially better sound from more expensive speakers when I think the better speakers are only sounding different not necessarily better. They are more pleasing to the ears thats all. Now if someone can get the same pleasing effect by adding the same $$ tube components to their system why are they labelled as being subjective?

Thats my only concern.

 

[Michael R Price]

Yogi, I agree. I could have chosen speakers significantly more "accurate" - +/- 1.5db instead of 3db, or something - than what I have, but I didn't because other aspects of the sound quality are every bit as important. Somehow I find it strange that people tend to ignore the qualities of other components like amplifiers as well. Your favorite tube amp may have 10 times as much second harmonic distortion, but it may also have 10 times of something else that bothers you more.

I asked this one already and I wanted to see again if anyone had an opinion: We're all familiar with the fact that most equipment uses circuits that have really high distortion and apply feedback to reduce that distortion. This seems like an awfully simple way of looking at it. What problems can't feedback fix?

 

[RichardHOS]

So you are just as subjective as the next audiophile, IMHO.

Nothing wrong at all with being subjective sometimes. Like Michael, I chose my speakers for properties other than ruler flat FR. I happen to think red cars look better than blue ones as well, and that's certianly subjective. There are a ton of subjective decisions I make every day I'm sure. However, I don't see why you have a problem with my opinion that $15000 more spent on amplification would be an utter waste and could be spent better elsewhere.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Room treatment will get you some other sound not necessarily better in absolute terms but just a subjectively (to your ears) different sound. Basically what you are doing with room treatments again is changing the FR of your system. A little color here or a little color there is what you will get, but better? Thats again subjective.

Room treatment is to fix bad room modes which simply hempers any good speakers performance to a degree.Once treated it will be much more "friendly" to any speaker you install in there then before,it's not coloring the sound,it's "uncoloring" it if you will.
BTW my current speakers are fare more flatter[measured in room]then my previous ones and they much more pleasing to my ears. I don't think that flat FR response is the "Holy Grail" of audio,but it's a good start to that quest.
I agree with Robert R. that amplification shouldn't cost as much as the speakers themselves,to create a good balance.

 

[Yogi]

We dont have to go to the extent of bad rooms or resonant rooms. I was assuming a good room to begin with assuming that if you were spending 300K on speakers you would have almost an ideal room, and from that point on an additional 15K will only get you a 'different' room not necessarily better one. Same goes with speakers, IMHO, after a point you can only get a subjectively different sound not necessarily a better one.

Nothing wrong at all with being subjective sometimes

Thanks for seeing my point. There is no reason why people cant be subjective in audio.