AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi all,

I'm looking into ordering the ELAC Uni-Fi UB5, and am considering integrated amps to power them. After a bit of research, I'm between a used Peachtree Audio nova125se and the nova220se. The 125 puts out 200 watts per channel into 4 ohms (which is the impedance of the UB5s), and the 220 puts out 350 watts per channel into 4 ohms. I've heard some people say the more power the better for these speakers, and am wondering if the more powerful amp will yield any appreciable improvement over the other. I'm not going to be playing these super loud (I live in an apartment), but want to be able to get the fullest sound possible at low to moderate volume levels. Can I expect to hear any difference between these amps (200W vs 350W per channel) at the same volume levels? If not, I'll go with the cheaper, less powerful amp.

Thanks in advance for your input!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,748 Posts
Those speakers are rated for 140 watts peak

Basically, if they can withstand 350 watts for any length of time, you'll just get massive distortion and power compression for the effort. Since they are rated 85dB at 2.83V, in reality they are at 82dB at one watt. Combine the very low efficiency (Bose cubes are 85dB at one watt) and then calculate the watts--you won't be getting high SPL...because that is the price paid for getting that level of performance in a small box.

So, if you have to get them--get the smaller amp. If you need higher SPL than the Elacs can give you, get a more efficient speaker to meet your SPL needs.

Speakers don't "sound better" the more power you put into them--the opposite is correct. If you ever look at the distortion charts on speaker drivers, you'll notice the distortion skyrockets before they hit their thermal limits. The only thing you get out of an overdriven speaker is massive distortion, possible suspension damage by exceeding Xmax or Xmech or burning up the voice coils.

You are in an apartment, that is fine to use the ELACs--your SPL requirements are not that great so a 100 to 200 watt amp will be more than enough. Enjoy! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
@18Hurts' advice is spot on. Just a few other points to pick up on...

I'm looking into ordering the ELAC Uni-Fi UB5, and am considering integrated amps to power them. After a bit of research, I'm between a used Peachtree Audio nova125se and the nova220se.
So you're scoping a $500/pair of speakers and amps up to around $1000 used? If you want the best sound for your total budget (who doesn't?), you need to reverse those budget allocations, at least. The more you can spend on the speakers, the better. For a ~$1500 system in an apartment, I'd be looking first for a ~$800/pair bookshelf speakers, a modest sub and a budget AVR with whatever's left over. (Example: Ascend Sierra 1 B stock + SVS PB-1000 + Denon AVR-S700W = $1470 shipped.)

The 125 puts out 200 watts per channel into 4 ohms (which is the impedance of the UB5s), and the 220 puts out 350 watts per channel into 4 ohms.
No they don't actually. Those are output ratings based on the specific test conditions given and are simply a consistent, repeatable method of directly comparing the outputs of different amps. The way amplifiers deliver output playing program material through real speakers is completely different.

I've heard some people say the more power the better for these speakers,
Some people are wrong. ;) As 18Hurts said, dissipating power causes distortion in speakers. What you want is speakers that dissipate minimal power to reach your preferred listening levels.

and am wondering if the more powerful amp will yield any appreciable improvement over the other.
Only if the less powerful amp is regularly clipping (unable to provide the voltage to accurately track program peaks). If you only require 50W bursts of power to reach your preferred maximum volume levels, that's all that will be generated. It won't make any difference whether it's delivered by an amp[ rated for 100WPC or 500WPC.

I'm not going to be playing these super loud (I live in an apartment), but want to be able to get the fullest sound possible at low to moderate volume levels.
A power amp cannot do that. Within it's capabilities, it simply multiplies the voltage of the incoming pre-amp signal it's presented and supplies the current required. It cannot distinguish and pick/choose which frequencies to differentially multiply. If you want the "fullest sound possible", that's what a capable sub is for.

Can I expect to hear any difference between these amps (200W vs 350W per channel) at the same volume levels? If not, I'll go with the cheaper, less powerful amp.
As above, only if the less powerful amp is regularly clipping. By the way, the difference between 200W and 350W equates to
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,748 Posts
Very good points GEIGAR,

Some people want a big amp--because they like the look and concepts of the things. Fully understand that, I've owned a few arc welders in the past and have a Crown XTi1002 amp with DSP in my garage system. I don't need, have no desire and would gain nothing from hauling in my Crown for my living room speakers. My speakers are rated 300w RMS but at that level, I'm over 110dB at 10 feet away so my ears would give up before the speakers would.

Back around 25 years ago, there was a movement to change watts to decibel watts so the consumer would be better educated. Speaker would be rated accurately for efficiency/sensitivity as averaged over their claimed frequency
response and done. This idea was strongly detested by the audio industry, consumers could determine what SPL
they wanted (say 115dB at one meter) they would know that their 95dB speakers when added to a 20dB/W amp
would give them 115dB.

You can see how far that went... Then again audio peaked in 1990 and declined steadily until bottoming out in 2009.
It is recovering some but I see no effort to be more accurate, it is actually getting worse. So always best to educate
yourself with how it works before going into the unicorn and fairy dust of marketing.

There is nothing "wrong" with spending insane amounts of money on a mature technology like amplifiers. There is everything wrong with thinking it will improve sound quality--it don't work like that. If you blow big bucks on amplifiers and cut costs on speakers while trying to get the best sound quality--then it is time to do some more research.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,836 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,748 Posts
Hey, I resemble that remark :D.
So do I! I have no use for a big amp in my house to push the mains--my realistic side. However, thanks to subwoofers and HT...I have a reason to have a big amp in the house. :)
I just tell my wife that the big amp eliminates the need for really BIG subwoofers so I'm doing it for her. :rolleyes:

The Crown big amp is in the garage since it gets really hot out there in the summer and requires fan cooling. Very true, but an AVR with a fan panel would so the same thing but... big amps are cool in man caves. A garage sound system that is not cast off old junk is a toy, so might as well have cool toys.

Just don't justify a big amp in an apartment for "sound quality" This confuses others into thinking they are required or have mystical qualities. They don't but if you like the look and
concept of them... party on. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,836 Posts
Just don't justify a big amp in an apartment for "sound quality" This confuses others into thinking they are required or have mystical qualities. They don't but if you like the look and
concept of them... party on. :cool:
Oh, I fully agree with your statements and GIEGAR’s, but I when I saw myself in your first sentence, I had to laugh at that statement and myself :). However, I really did/do need a powerful big amp because Maggies are not the most sensitive 4 Ohm speakers on the planet. The good thing about that big amp, other than the mesmerizing meters, is that it has carried very heavy loads for the past 38 years. I keeping thinking I’m going to have to replace this brute soon, but it keeps telling me no I won’t.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
@18Hurts ' advice is spot on. Just a few other points to pick up on...


So you're scoping a $500/pair of speakers and amps up to around $1000 used? If you want the best sound for your total budget (who doesn't?), you need to reverse those budget allocations, at least. The more you can spend on the speakers, the better. For a ~$1500 system in an apartment, I'd be looking first for a ~$800/pair bookshelf speakers, a modest sub and a budget AVR with whatever's left over. (Example: Ascend Sierra 1 B stock + SVS PB-1000 + Denon AVR-S700W = $1470 shipped.)


No they don't actually. Those are output ratings based on the specific test conditions given and are simply a consistent, repeatable method of directly comparing the outputs of different amps. The way amplifiers deliver output playing program material through real speakers is completely different.


Some people are wrong. ;) As 18Hurts said, dissipating power causes distortion in speakers. What you want is speakers that dissipate minimal power to reach your preferred listening levels.


Only if the less powerful amp is regularly clipping (unable to provide the voltage to accurately track program peaks). If you only require 50W bursts of power to reach your preferred maximum volume levels, that's all that will be generated. It won't make any difference whether it's delivered by an amp[ rated for 100WPC or 500WPC.


A power amp cannot do that. Within it's capabilities, it simply multiplies the voltage of the incoming pre-amp signal it's presented and supplies the current required. It cannot distinguish and pick/choose which frequencies to differentially multiply. If you want the "fullest sound possible", that's what a capable sub is for.


As above, only if the less powerful amp is regularly clipping. By the way, the difference between 200W and 350W equates to
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,805 Posts
I can't believe you just recommended a $200 AVR receiver over a peachtree which is a true 2 channel integrated which is what he's looking for... idiotic!
Are you saying the OP should spend twice as much on his amp as he has on speakers? Really??
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjackkrash

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
Are you saying the OP should spend twice as much on his amp as he has on speakers? Really??
Well to me the processor is the most important part of a system. So since this would be an integrated, I say that's the most important piece. My bookshelves are $1250, my processor $3000 and my amp is $5000 so call me crazy. I connected $40 Sony bookshelves to my set up before (when using a McIntosh processor) and they sounded insane so yes my claim still stands.

Why have great speakers with a crappy bottom-end AVR powering them? It'll sound dull and muffled. It's better for him to get the Peachtree and pair it with the speakers of his choice and it will sound great.

I'm sure powering 805 diamonds with a $200 Denon AVR will sound worse than powering CM1s with a Peachtree. See my point?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Well to me the processor is the most important part of a system. So since this would be an integrated, I say that's the most important piece. My bookshelves are $1250, my processor $3000 and my amp is $5000 so call me crazy. I connected $40 Sony bookshelves to my set up before (when using a McIntosh processor) and they sounded insane so yes my claim still stands.

Why have great speakers with a crappy bottom-end AVR powering them? It'll sound dull and muffled. It's better for him to get the Peachtree and pair it with the speakers of his choice and it will sound great.

I'm sure powering 805 diamonds with a $200 Denon AVR will sound worse than powering CM1s with a Peachtree. See my point?
May be the first time I have seen someone say the amp / processor / AVR is more important to the sound of the system than the speakers. I don't care what you drive them with, I have never heard any $1,250 bookshelf speakers that sound as good as my Salk HT-3's. And I drive them with a $500 Crown amp.

To each his own I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
May be the first time I have seen someone say the amp / processor / AVR is more important to the sound of the system than the speakers. I don't care what you drive them with, I have never heard any $1,250 bookshelf speakers that sound as good as my Salk HT-3's. And I drive them with a $500 Crown amp.

To each his own I guess.
So why spend 20k on a datasat if it's going to process things the same in a Denon AVR? Or why spend 5k on an audio research 2 channel pre amp if it's going to sound the same on an Emotiva? It's not only branding that you're paying for...

The processor is extremely important because it decodes the music from the source, then the power amp has its own characteristics just how Bryston sounds a bit edgy and Levinsons have a warmth to them. Every piece has its own characteristic and sound personality
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
So why spend 20k on a datasat if it's going to process things the same in a Denon AVR? Or why spend 5k on an audio research 2 channel pre amp if it's going to sound the same on an Emotiva? It's not only branding that you're paying for...

The processor is extremely important because it decodes the music from the source, then the power amp has its own characteristics just how Bryston sounds a bit edgy and Levinsons have a warmth to them. Every piece has its own characteristic and sound personality
Exactly my point. I would never pay $20k for a datasat. You might be able to tell the difference between a Bryston and a Levenson power amp with both fed the same source to the same speakers. I won't say you can't, I can say I can't. But either of us can tell the difference between a pair of $50 Sony's and a pair of KEF LS50's, or a pair of Salk HT-3's. And the difference between the speakers is orders of magnitude more than the difference between the power amps.

Again, to each his own. I have my opinion, you have yours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
You guys are perfectly demonstrating the dilemma with the Elac Uni-Fi's: In order to sound their best, they need some decent amplifier oomph. But to get enough clean power, you're probably looking at a receiver or integrated amp in the $400-500 range. So the speaker-to-electronics cost ratio is about 1:1. To me, that's hardly a great value.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,748 Posts
Oh, I fully agree with your statements and GIEGAR’s, but I when I saw myself in your first sentence, I had to laugh at that statement and myself :). However, I really did/do need a powerful big amp because Maggies are not the most sensitive 4 Ohm speakers on the planet. The good thing about that big amp, other than the mesmerizing meters, is that it has carried very heavy loads for the past 38 years. I keeping thinking I’m going to have to replace this brute soon, but it keeps telling me no I won’t.
You are THAT guy!

Maggies--the speakers were amplifiers go to die. They remind me of the original Infinity Kappa 9's that dropped to around 1 ohm. Arc welder amplifers are required for those type speakers for impedance and SPL reasons. I've heard those speakers back in the 80's, they were like a super model girlfriend, tall, sleek, sexy but really, really high maintenance! A buddy of mine had the Kappa 9's--those things would get the M80's cooking and thankfully they had a good protection mode.

The biggest mystery i consumer audio is speakers--so to "improve" them, improve the signal going in! Take the Elac, a very low efficiency speaker with small drivers in a small box... how many watts will it take to exceed 1% distortion? I would hazard to guess less than 5 to 10 watts. How many watts would it take to exceed 10% distortion...you can bet it would be less than 100 watts. Bass distortion at 100 watts would be much higher than 10%...

Soooo.... you are at 10% distortion from the speaker. Tell me again how anything in the signal chain would improve that? As anyone that has measured speakers or can read a distortion chart knows, that is not going to happen. You fix the thing making the distortion, not the minor or undetectable distortion somewhere else.

Speakers are really bad at what they do if accuracy is your goal. Compared to the electronics driving them, they are utter crap...however, it is the best tech we have to make sound and until a completely different design is made--we are stuck with it.

You can cheat a little, go for very high efficiency to keep the power levels down. This increases the size of the speaker box, the size of the drivers and costs keep going up so a line has to be drawn somewhere. There is no magic in it, you can actually model speakers with free programs that show the relationship. It does not matter who makes the drivers from the cheapest clock radio speakers, JBL concert speakers or $70,000 a pair Japanese full range drivers--it's just math and science.

If you really care, a bunch of audiophiles in Spain did amp/pre-amp/source/cable testing in a creative way. They bought the RCA cable from a gas station, the cheapest CD player they could from a big box store and a $199 studio amp from a music store. The other choice was Classe' stuff, giant amp, giant pre-amp, huge power cords, interconnects, wazoo source...even the furniture was "audio grade" The poor cheapo amp sat on a folding chair.

34 audiophiles got together...hours go by and.. who do you think won? The $250 system playing through the same nice speakers or the $14,000 ultra wazoo system playing through the same nice speakers--but blind.

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

Interesting read, I thought getting the RCA cables at a gas station gave it that special something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Thanks everyone for all the helpful input so far. Just to clarify, the Peachtree nova125se (sounds like this is clearly enough power) is $600 used. So it'd be closer to 1:1 speaker to amp cost. I definitely want to keep things under $1k total, so am relieved to hear I don't need the power of the nova220se. Keep the input coming... much appreciated!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,836 Posts
You are THAT guy!

Maggies--the speakers were amplifiers go to die. They remind me of the original Infinity Kappa 9's that dropped to around 1 ohm. Arc welder amplifers are required for those type speakers for impedance and SPL reasons. I've heard those speakers back in the 80's, they were like a super model girlfriend, tall, sleek, sexy but really, really high maintenance! A buddy of mine had the Kappa 9's--those things would get the M80's cooking and thankfully they had a good protection mode.

The biggest mystery i consumer audio is speakers--so to "improve" them, improve the signal going in! Take the Elac, a very low efficiency speaker with small drivers in a small box... how many watts will it take to exceed 1% distortion? I would hazard to guess less than 5 to 10 watts. How many watts would it take to exceed 10% distortion...you can bet it would be less than 100 watts. Bass distortion at 100 watts would be much higher than 10%...

Soooo.... you are at 10% distortion from the speaker. Tell me again how anything in the signal chain would improve that? As anyone that has measured speakers or can read a distortion chart knows, that is not going to happen. You fix the thing making the distortion, not the minor or undetectable distortion somewhere else.
Yep. I am THAT guy. There always has to be one of us ;).

And yes, I agree with everything you have written. I am pretty sure that anyone who has been in audio very long, realize that speakers are the number one culprit in audible distortion. I have never recommend the music system I own to people looking for impressive HT. I rarely recommend any “one” speaker, but usually give out a list of the usual suspects and those I’ve personally auditioned. I’m in full agreement with those who list importance as follows: front speakers, subwoofer, center channel, AVR, surrounds. And that is the budget balance I’d recommend to the OP (the AVR and center channel certainly could be switched in that order). I also recommend not to spend more than 20 to 25 percent of that budget on the receiver/AVR. If you noticed my movie setup, you won’t see anything out of the ordinary.

The Maggies have had a lot of myths thrown about as facts for decades. Yes, they have a sensitivity rating of around 85 dB. Yes, they are 4 Ohm speakers, which dip less than 1 Ohm at any frequency. When I play my music, the needles on my amp swing between .2 watts and 20 watts. When those transient peaks hit, those needles swing rapidly to between 100 and 200 watts, but the Maggies have never triggered the amp’s safety circuit (although I had speakers that made that safety circuit blink surprisingly often). Could they? Of course, but I don’t listen at reference levels (usually -10 to -15 dB).

I’m a big believer in double-blind testing. I’m a big believer that most audio myths are just that, myths. You won’t see fancy cabling, cable elevators, or pixie dust in my system. I’ve been around the block long enough to have heard it all. And most of these myths began in audio’s heyday (70’s and 80’s) and have remained.

The reason I picked Maggies is simple. It had everything I was looking for in a speaker (except looks and sensitivity). But speaker selection is highly subjective, and it’s up to each and everyone of us to find the speakers that move us the most. The reason I picked McIntosh isn’t so simple, but I’m glad I did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,748 Posts
Yep. I am THAT guy. There always has to be one of us ;).

I’m a big believer in double-blind testing. I’m a big believer that most audio myths are just that, myths. You won’t see fancy cabling, cable elevators, or pixie dust in my system. I’ve been around the block long enough to have heard it all. And most of these myths began in audio’s heyday (70’s and 80’s) and have remained.

The reason I picked Maggies is simple. It had everything I was looking for in a speaker (except looks and sensitivity). But speaker selection is highly subjective, and it’s up to each and everyone of us to find the speakers that move us the most. The reason I picked McIntosh isn’t so simple, but I’m glad I did.
My father had McIntosh tube amps...1950's era stuff. Asked him why and he said sometimes I like over designed, overbuilt and wildly over engineered stuff...don't need it, but it is really cool--just because I'm old does not mean I don't like cool stuff! He would sit in the basement and bias the tubes, hook up his o-scope and meters to the thing as audio was his hobby. Hobbies take work so the Altecs he built himself (common in the 50's)

I'd say your McIntosh amps are cool...always liked the meters on them, they are worth fixing if they break, built like a tank, weigh as much as a tank and use the highest quality parts. If you like, they will last a lifetime as McIntosh will refurb/rebuild them for you and certify the results on paper--for a fee of course!

As far as recommendations for audio gear go, I just tell them to go to the big box store and put your hand on top of the AVRs you plan on looking at. Error on the side of the coolest running ones...the other parts is your preference. Speakers is about the same thing, get the largest ones you can stand that have the most efficiency. If you are stuck between 2 or 3 different ones, the process of elimination is simple. For AVR use, narrow it down by using only 8 ohm speakers...next step is to get the most efficient speaker out of the 3.

It is much easier to turn an efficient speaker down than an inefficient speaker up. Unless you are THAT guy with the Maggies and arc welders--because racecar. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,836 Posts
As far as recommendations for audio gear go, I just tell them to go to the big box store and put your hand on top of the AVRs you plan on looking at. Error on the side of the coolest running ones...the other parts is your preference.
Sounds like I like your dad already!

I love your statement concerning heat. Ha, my son’s Onkyo felt like I could cook eggs. The Marantz AVR I tested at home didn’t feel much cooler. The Denon (I kept) didn’t feel any different than the Marantz. I couldn’t believe how hot these felt. I could play music all day long and the top of the Mac amp would be only slightly warm.

To the OP: Sorry for getting so off topic, but I found this to be a fun discussion with 18Hurts. Helps break up my day….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
I can't believe you just recommended a $200 AVR receiver over a peachtree which is a true 2 channel integrated which is what he's looking for... idiotic!
Steady on stallion! Clearly the red mist has descended because my post cut across your purchasing decisions. You can't believe it because you're clearly way over-estimating the contribution of the electronics to the final sound we hear.

Having said that, I can't believe that's all you took away from my post. Look at the system. What the $200 AVR gives him is: primarily the opportunity to consider a significantly higher calibre speakers; another octave of frequency response from a modest sub; greater connectivity and processing options; digital bass management (a way to "get the best out of" the speakers); adequate output; auto speaker setup; room EQ (optional) and the ability to go multichannel later if desired. All these things are off the table with the peachtree. Believe it?

Well to me the processor is the most important part of a system. So since this would be an integrated, I say that's the most important piece.
Well to me the speakers (including subs) are the most important part of a system and explained why; and yet I can't give an example of a system that prioritises speakers to illustrate a point without you coming at me with "idiotic".

It's pretty simple when you're just sniping from the sidelines... how about you give us your $1500 system recommendation to rival the objective performance of the example I gave?
My bookshelves are $1250, my processor $3000 and my amp is $5000 so call me crazy.
OK then... you’re crazy. Contemporary electronics are digitally controlled commodity items that operate with levels of distortion and deviation from linearity that are vanishingly low; well below what we can readily distinguish. Higher price may translate to improved measured performance, but that simply puts their performance even further below the threshold of our hearing.

Speakers/subs on the other hand, are a electro-mechanical device who's level of design, engineering, manufacturing effort and materials have a profound influence on quality of the sound we hear. Even some of the best speakers in the world routinely operate at levels of distortion that is 100's, if not 1000's of times greater in magnitude than the electronics driving them are operating at. With some simple maths this can be readily demonstrated by examining speaker THD+N charts here and (say) AVR test bench graphs here.

Therefore, if optimum audio performance for the dollar is the goal, expenditure should be heavily skewed towards getting higher calibre speakers, not expensive boutique electronics. Given a $9000 total budget, many members here could come up with system recommendations that would comfortably outperform your choices in most (if not all) objective criteria.

I'm not going to convince you of anything though am I? You're too heavily "invested" and locked up tight in your subjective logic box. Keep going though... this will be object lesson in how following rampant subjectivity and relying on audio mythology over technical knowledge results in how NOT to make purchasing decisions for optimum audio performance.
I connected $40 Sony bookshelves to my set up before (when using a McIntosh processor) and they sounded insane so yes my claim still stands.
Big deal! You sat down to a casual, sighted, non level-matched audition of new equipment, therefore you've got no way of distinguishing if the "insane" sound was due to the processor or the inherent perceptual biases we are all subject to. In addition, due to our transient audio memory, you actually had almost no real memory of what the $40 Sony's sounded like with the previous processor.
Why have great speakers with a crappy bottom-end AVR powering them?
Because on a finite budget (like the OP) compromises need to be made and that combo will yield far better objective performance than the other way around. (By the way, your choice of descriptor for the AVR speaks to the bias you harbour.)
It'll sound dull and muffled.
Not only is that a baseless assertion, it's complete nonsense. "(D)ull and muffled" will be a characteristic of the speakers, their placement and their interaction with the room, NOT solid state electronics.
It's better for him to get the Peachtree and pair it with the speakers of his choice and it will sound great.
The OP has a ~$1000 budget. A $600 peachtree will limit him to budget speakers; a proven recipe for sub-optimal audio performance for the dollar.
I'm sure powering 805 diamonds with a $200 Denon AVR will sound worse than powering CM1s with a Peachtree. See my point?
I do, and you've just given yourself a uppercut because believing audiophile myths means you'd be dead wrong.

According to B&W's own specs, the 805 D3's (88dB/2.83V/1m; 8Ω nom/4.6Ω min) are an easier speaker to drive than the CM1 S2's (84dB/2.83V/1m; 8Ω/4.0Ω min) The 805 D3's will need 1.6X less voltage (2.5X less power) to play at any given SPL than the CM1 S2's and draw correspondingly less current. Additionally, any slight difference (if any) the peachtree may exhibit will be totally swamped by the performance advantage the 805 D3's have over the CM1 S2's. It's a self-serving consumer audio myth that expensive speakers must only be hooked up to similarly expensive electronics. The B&W 800 Diamonds are excellent speakers, but they have no idea how much was paid for the amp feeding them voltage and current. Only us humans do, and we're subject to several perceptual biases.

So why spend 20k on a datasat if it's going to process things the same in a Denon AVR?
Reliability, warranty, pre-out voltage, number of channels, more sophisticated auto-EQ... any number of considerations that have nothing to do with the native sound of the unit.
Or why spend 5k on an audio research 2 channel pre amp if it's going to sound the same on an Emotiva? It's not only branding that you're paying for...
No it's bragging rights, brand caché and treating yourself to some audio jewellery. But if it's at the expense of better speakers, it's just a dumb purchasing decision. There's a sucker born every minute.
The processor is extremely important because it decodes the music from the source,
... in the digital domain; a mature technology that is - for all intents and purposes - a "perfect" process, regardless of how much the equipment costs.
then the power amp has its own characteristics just how Bryston sounds a bit edgy and Levinsons have a warmth to them. Every piece has its own characteristic and sound personality
More assertions based on myth. Assigning meaningless subjective descriptors to the supposed "sound" of meticulously engineered (or any) power amps is a subjective audiophile construct supported by those who don't/won't have a basic grasp of the science of human perception.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top