newbie 1st post 2 channel reccomendations.

Atagi

I'm somewhat of a newbie to this hobby too, but I've gotten to audition some gear.

I hear you on the Polk LSi15s. I think the problem you have with them(the loose bass) is that, they need an amplifier with (REALLY)high current capability, and a high damping factor to excersize control over them; and most receivers are not very happy driving them. Try moving them around too, play with position...

I have a Perreaux Radiance R200i integrated amp, and took it to the Polk LSi dealer close to me. The guy couldn't believe how good these speakers sounded when driven by my amp, and how different it was when they were being driven by a receiver(even a really good one like your B&K, well he was actually using the top of the line Pioneer Elite which is competitive with your B&K).

In general these speakers are really good, but they do like a lot of power.

Another thing is, I do agree with some posters here, selecting a good source. Recently I've been auditioning CD Players and had the chance to audition a Linn Ikemi, side by side with an Arcam FMJ CD33. While it comes down to personal preference, I had no trouble noticing differences right away, and thinking the Ikemi was more to my liking. Anyway sources do make a difference.

I do believe things should be somewhat balanced, but in the end, the only person that has to like it is you. So it really doesn't matter if you spend 80% of your budget on speakers and the rest on electronics, or vice-versa, as long as you are happy with your selections.

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.

Cloudgif.

If you where any more off base I could not imagine.

Why is it that a 850.00 Rega Speaker kept sounding better and better as the front end got better and better.

I had the pleasure of bring a music lover who has never been exposed to high end.

Over and over again the sales guy was able to demonstrate.

That no matter what speaker he chose for us the better the source the better the sound. Over and over again.

Others walked into demo room and same deal consistently when the better sources where added the better the sound.

In the end we detirmend that and 850.00 Speaker with a 3200.00 front end sounded much better than a 3000 speaker with a 1000.00.

So to make sure this was not Illusion we tried the same thing on Audio Row in Seattle and every where we went the same speaker allways sounded better with a better source.

GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT.

Please inform us as to what a proper Double blind test involves.

Here is wow it was done.

Speakers set up same amp pre amp same cables same everthing.

3 Cd players in rack along side gear.

sales guy just switched RCA from one to another back and forth.

Then we trie it with different speakers.

Same way. Same result.

Would be willin to take any speaker you choose and play it with a a CDP's from the same MFG. low mid and high level units from same mfg.

If there is no difference then I will tell you one thing.

The speakers are not worth buying.

The Biggest profit and markups are in Speakers.(cables Another story in itself)

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! ;)

Sorry buddy ,thats just a bunch of Audio Speak that makes as much sense as George Bush.

Reality is
when presented with all constant, a Digital volume control that brought the sound to same level for each test. Consisistently the bettr source made the same 850.00 Sound better.

The sources where alternated in no particular order.

Everything was constant.

all he did was swich back and forth and even left same source attached to see if he could catch us. Never did.

SOURCE SOURCE. READ WWW.UHFMAG.COM

There are some awesome articles on that issue.

Reminds me when I replaced a 179.00 Costco Nikko Player 5 years ago with a Mcintosh 7008, Everyone who came over asked if I had new speakers.

They where 20 year old speakers that had been heard by same folks for years.
Point made.


Music is like Process control. total system error is key, the less error you start with the better the system accuracy will be.