newbie 1st post 2 channel reccomendations.

Keith:

Natnic and RNM have given you good advice.

They just happen to be dead wrong.

Find speakers that you love. Your auditions of the ProAc and the Thiel speakers should be helpful as well as instructive. ProAc and Thiel both make well regarded speakers. Quandary: they sound different. That means that one of them is "wrong" or both of them are "wrong."

I repeat: find speakers that you love. Keep listening. It would be nice if the speaker you like is high efficiency. No big bucks to shell out for big amps.

This may be a heresy around here.....but: most audiophiles could not pick out a $500 front end from a $5,000 front end in a properly set up double blind situation. (We are talking digital front ends here......analogue involves another transducer!) Almost all humans, audiophiles or not, can hear differences between most speakers.....from the next room, blind, double blind or blind drunk.

Above all----have fun in the quest.

Rnm you write that I am right (that speakers are the the most "distinguishably different" and, therefore the most important component in a system) but only if the differences in speakers bring one the greatest listening pleasure. (see posts above)

You go on to say that better speakers don't make as significant a difference as a fancy front end in imbuing the reproduced sound with "pace" etc. You also opine that I am wrong that most audiophiles in a controlled, double blind listening "test," could not tell the difference between a competent $500 digital front end and the fancy, high-priced spread.

You support your disagreement as follows: "he's wrong that the $500 player will not be distinguishable from a good, more expensve one. I auditioned (long ago, now) a Rega planet ($850 at the time) against a Naim CD3 ($2k then) and while I bought the Rega -- which sounded way less jittery and glaring than all the Sonys, Rotels, Cambridge Audios, and Arcams I had heard -- the Naim was vastly better, albeit in subtle ways"

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But you are not really answering my "challenge." You tell us that the Naim was vastly better but you don't mention the methods you used to determine that. Clearly you did not put your ears in the "hotseat" of a double blind test.

I'd like to politely drop the gauntlet at your feet. See if you can pick out the Naim (or a current "equivilent" piece) as the "superior" front end in a properly set up double blind situation. I'll bet all the toe-tappin' pace and slam from here to Scotland that you cannot.

Natnic:

Who can disagree with "garbage in garbage out?" Not I. I suggest that a competent "modern" digital front end will not reveal its more modest price point, consistently or reliably in a double blind test.

At the bottom of this post I have copied some criteria for a double blind test which I found at http://www.pcabx.com/#ten_req

The #8 "requirement" is crucial. Volume levels must be checked closely and matched exactly. Preferably by instrument using a test tone. (You can't properly match volume with music because it is a "moving target.") Very slight differences in volume play havoc with any attempt at subjective comparison of hi fi components. The oldest "sales trick" in the hi fi biz is to have slightly more gain coming from the purportedly better component. It makes it "sound better" to the customer. You will need a switching box (Radio Shack) so that the test subject (you in this case) can choose between source "A" and source "B" as explained below.

At the same time, the subject must not know which digital source is CDP "A" and which one is CDP "B." That means that someone other than you and any other test takers has to do the set-up. We’ll chauvinistically call him the set-up man. The two components must be run through the same electronics at the same time to the same speakers. Sure, match the wires too, just to cover all bases. Make sure that the length of the wires is the same.

The test takers enter the room one at a time. A tester is present to help but the tester can't
know A from B either. Two identical music CDs need to be cued up and started at the same time.

The test taker(s) (you and as many other "trained listeners" who you can gather) can then switch from “A” to “B” and back and forth as many times and as often and at whatever intervals he wishes (with the switching box) while listening to the type of program material described below. I personally think it helpful if it is program material that you are very familiar with, too. Keep a log in which you commit in writing (or the tester does, based on what you say) whether "A" or "B" is better. Maybe make notes as to why "A" or "B" is better. The tester should preserve the notes, and when there is time, record the results for each individual and for the entire group. Then, finally, the set-up man "translates" the results with the use of his record of which CDP was "A" and which was "B" in each round of the test.

Now round #1 is over. The set-up man comes back to the room and either switches "A" to "B" or doesn't switch “A” to “B” according to a random sequence previously written down. No one else knows if “A” is still “A,” or if now “A” is in fact “B.”

Then proceed to round #2, following the same procedures that were followed in round #1. Do this for a reasonable and fair number of rounds. Say, twenty. Tally the results. Has the more expensive component been identified as “better” significantly more frequently than the laws of probability allow for?

With as many emotional factors removed as possible (the $20,000 Zapmaster looks gorgeous and is SOTA and it, therefore, MUST, sound better) and the crucial volume levels matched, your job is really in front of you. Hard work, but fun.

Which speakers you use to conduct the test is not crucial as they will be a constant. To be as fair as possible, to your point of view, the speakers should be as good as possible, as revealing as possible, as transparent as possible, etc. Do it in your own home with your own gear or at the home of a friend. It is not likely that any dealer is going to let anyone in his/her Salon to commandeer it for the several hours the test may take, especially if the high priced spread they are selling may fall victim to the procedure.

I don't have any specific suggestions for the digital front ends but I think fair criteria would be a well regarded $2,000 CDP and a well regarded $400 - $800 CDP. We are not looking for "giant killers" here. Just fairness.

(quote from http://www.pcabx.com/#ten_req)

"Ten (10) Requirements For Sensitive and Reliable Listening Tests

(1) Program material must include critical passages that enable audible differences to be most easily heard.

(2) Listeners must be sensitized to a audible differences, so that if an audible difference is generated by the equipment, the listener will notice it and have a useful reaction to it.

(3) Listeners must be trained to listen systematically so that audible problems are heard.

(4) Procedures should be "open" to detecting problems that aren't necessarily technically well-understood or even expected, at this time. A classic problem with measurements and some listening tests is that each one focuses on one or only a few problems, allowing others to escape notice.

(5) We must have confidence that the Unit Under Test (UUT) is representative of the kind of equipment it represents. In other words the UUT must not be broken, it must not be appreciably modified in some secret way, and must not be the wrong make or model, among other things.

(6) A suitable listening environment must be provided. It can't be too dull, too bright, too noisy, too reverberant, or too harsh. The speakers and other components have to be sufficiently free from distortion, the room must be noise-free, etc..

(7) Listeners need to be in a good mood for listening, in good physical condition (no blocked-up ears!), and be well-trained for hearing deficiencies in the reproduced sound.

(8) Sample volume levels need to be matched to each other or else the listeners will perceive differences that are simply due to volume differences.

(9) Non-audible influences need to be controlled so that the listener reaches his conclusions due to "Just listening".

(10) Listeners should control as many of the aspects of the listening test as possible. Self-controlled tests usually facilitate this. Most importantly, they should be able to switch among the alternatives at times of their choosing. The switchover should be as instantaneous and non-disruptive as possible.”

HAVE FUN. Keep us posted! ;)

Nantic: Sorry you feel that way about it.

I think you are totally ignoring (among other things) the possibility of psychological influences in an environment not under your control. Believe it or don't: your expectations of how something will sound can influence how you think it sounds. Especially during a short "test" situation in a dealer's showroom where you are not intimately familiar with all the other components and the acoustics of the room. The most valid subjective "test" of the strengths and weaknesses of a component is: live with it for a few months.

How do you know that the volume levels were the same? I hope you are not saying that you know the levels were the same because the volume control on a pre-amp was set to the same position! Odds are the levels were NOT the same if that was your "control"---because of differences in voltage output from the various CD players

I urge you to reconsider, if not now, at least at some future date and go through a double blind, or at least a single blind test. (in a single blind test the tester knows what the source is but the subject does not) I think you will be shocked at how differently you will hear or not hear differences in the components.

I ain't exactly calling you Chicken, but. . . you picked up the gauntlet and said that you would subject yourself to a blind A-B test and report the results. What happened? Is it scientific method that you object to?

I have never before been accused of sounding like George Bush.....;)

Not to hit below the belt, your reaction to the application of just a little scientific method to subjective evaluation reminds me of Dubyah hurling the epithet of "Fuzzy Math" at Gore to indicate that all them thar’ numbers and statistics wuz jes’ fancy talk designed to befuddle and confuse the Common Man. In this case, since we are discussing digital components, I can't resist the rejoinder of, "Fuzzy Logic!" right back at ya.

I'm glad that we appear to agree on politics.....if not hi fi.

Nantic: you are kidding yourself.

You say in your most recent post here, "All one needs is a sound meter to insure the Levels are same." (sic) Do you mean to imply that you had one in your possession and used it in the course of the "test" that you describe?

I didn't think so.

You claim that you auditioned three Naim CD players "all having identical output levels." You think that is so. But it ain't.

Guess what, my friend, Naim only makes three CD players and according to their specs they do not have the same output levels.

The top of the line CDXZ has voltage output of 2Vrms @ 1 khz and an output impedance of 50 Ohms.

The (mid) CDXZ has voltage output of 2.1Vrms with a maximum output impedance of 10 Ohms.

The CD5 has voltage output of 2.0V w/ the same output impedance spec as the CDXZ

The higher its' output impedance and voltage output the louder a CDP will play--all other things being equal. I don't know if the 40 Ohm difference between the Naim units would make a significant difference. That would have to be measured. Did you check that out with your "sound meter?"

Are you going to accuse me of George Bush-like "audio speak" again? Are you willing to consider that "a little bit" of scientific method might be a good idea?

A hi-fi store is not a church, or other place of worship where we check our skepticism at the door and don the mantle of Believer. It seems to me that you are falling into the trap assuming that just because your trust in your dealer may be well founded, based on his character, that he isn't under a misassumption.....which you have adopted. That is Religion not careful audio evaluation.

Shall we shake hands and make up?

Atagi: you are doing the right thing by doing a lot of listening to a variety of gear in a variety of venues.

A few suggestions. Reduce as many variables as you can. For example, select a few "test" selections from CDs that you are familiar with and use the same music to audition with, wherever you go. Maybe you do or don't like violin music. The old "E" string on the violin (the highest pitched of the four strings) in a good recording can and will expose overly bright sound reproduction. I suspect that if you listen to some fiddling on the Theils and then on the Vandersteens you might decide that the Theils are forward and aggressive in the treble and that the Vandersteens are a little veiled.

What is important is that you focus on what you are listening for. How good is the bass? How transparent the midrange? How extended the top end? And so forth.

As to the ethical dilemma you raise: you are absolutely right. The dealer is nice to you because he is a nice guy AND because he hopes that his investment of time with you will put a few dollars in his pocket down the road. The "right" thing to do is to buy the product you like from the guy who introduced you to it and spent the time with you. But how many of us can actually DO the right thing when discounts and/or used gear may be available elsewhere?

Good luck with your Quest and keep us informed (while we quibble among ourselves).

Natnic: thank you for the words of agreement.

Your suggestion of handling the "helpful dealer" problem is a great one. Everyone's time is of value. If a guy is going to serve as our audio consultant we should let him know that and compensate him for his services.