Do you consider yourself an audiophile?

[Athos]

It's very much a matter of taste, but, with that budget, I'd go for a secondhand turntable (£250), a vintage amp (£100), some Q Acoustics 3020 speakers (£200), and an Airport Express (£50). That way, you get the best of all worlds - a decent vinyl sound, and the ability to stream wirelesly via your amp. If you want to, you can upgrade to a standalone DAC, later.

In terms of turntables, I like the SL-7, but, if you don't like linear tracking, maybe an old Dual or Thorens, or a more recent Pro-ject or Rega. Obviously, you might want to upgrade the cartridge, but, at the very least you'll want a new stylus, and maybe a belt. And speaker wire etc. (£100).

There are some cracking amps at giveaway prices, I like the sound of a lot of the old Maranz (especially the PM66SE) and Pioneer receivers. But, as others have pointed out, speakers are more important to the sound.

 

[moody]

It's very much a matter of taste, but, with that budget, I'd go for a secondhand turntable (£250), a vintage amp (£100), some Q Acoustics 3020 speakers (£200), and an Airport Express (£50). That way, you get the best of all worlds - a decent vinyl sound, and the ability to stream wirelesly via your amp. If you want to, you can upgrade to a standalone DAC, later.

In terms of turntables, I like the SL-7, but, if you don't like linear tracking, maybe an old Dual or Thorens, or a more recent Pro-ject or Rega. Obviously, you might want to upgrade the cartridge, but, at the very least you'll want a new stylus, and maybe a belt. And speaker wire etc. (£100).

There are some cracking amps at giveaway prices, I like the sound of a lot of the old Maranz (especially the PM66SE) and Pioneer receivers. But, as others have pointed out, speakers are more important to the sound.

got ya, but the speakers only amplify the sound the amp produces, so i guess the amp is just as important?

 

[fishfinger]

got ya, but the speakers only amplify the sound the amp produces, so i guess the amp is just as important?

The amp is the least important part of the equation. Whereas, speakers are an extremely subjective thing.

 

[moody]

The amp is the least important part of the equation. Whereas, speakers are an extremely subjective thing.

what is good in an all round sense speaker wise for around 100/150 new or the same second hand?

 

[fishfinger]

what is good in an all round sense speaker wise for around 100/150 new or the same second hand?

I cannot tell you. It is far too subjective. You really need to listen to them for yourself, as one person's perfect speakers are another's most hated.

 

[Athos]

what is good in an all round sense speaker wise for around 100/150 new or the same second hand?

Subjective. But lots of people (me included) like the Q Acoustic 2010i.

 

[moody]

I cannot tell you. It is far too subjective. You really need to listen to them for yourself, as one person's perfect speakers are another's most hated.

gotcha.

 

[Athos]

The amp is the least important part of the equation. Whereas, speakers are an extremely subjective thing.

There's far less variation in the ability of amps to reproduce sound as there is in speakers.

 

[Nylock]

my old hifi set up used to consist of an arcam 7se amp, kef coda 7se speakers and a rega planner 2 deck and some half decent cables.

Listening to vinyl on this system was amazing, the way the speakers could pick out parts of songs ?i might overwise not of even noticed was really nice,

Now, i have a digital set-up as i fiddle about on my computer with music software, I have good quality active monitors (KRK rokits) and a nice soundcard. Whilst this achieves a very nice sound, especially with electronic tunes (great sound seperation), it's not quite the warm rich sound my hifi set up used to produce.

I actually need to get myself a half decent hifi set up, maybe something similar to the equipment I had before.

Can anyone recommend a simple set up, speakers, amp, deck?

II have a budget of around £700, speakers should be bookshelf size ideally, my kefs were and they sounded great.

Thanks.

Bear in mind that if all you ever did on your old setup was listen to vinyl then you may never achieve quite the same warm rich sound with the stuff on your computer. Analog always sounds warmer than digital. Especially when driving the signal hard.

 

[fishfinger]

There's far less variation in the ability of amps to reproduce sound as there is in speakers.

I know, that's why I said what I did

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

got ya, but the speakers only amplify the sound the amp produces, so i guess the amp is just as important?

In spite of what hifi buffs will try and tell you, almost all modern amplifiers sound exactly the same, providing you're a) not thrashing the shit out of them, and b) driving a speaker load that's suitable.

Any tiny sonic differences are irelevant in a domestic listening environment. You'll get more change by moving your listening position a few feet to the left.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Bear in mind that if all you ever did on your old setup was listen to vinyl then you may never achieve quite the same warm rich sound with the stuff on your computer. Analog always sounds warmer than digital. Especially when driving the signal hard.

This isn't really true.

 

[Athos]

I know, that's why I said what I did

Sorry, was trying to quote Moody.

 

[fishfinger]

Sorry, was trying to quote Moody.

No problem.

 

[Nylock]

This isn't really true.

Which bit: "analog always sounding warmer than digital" or "especially when driving the signal hard"?

 

[existentialist]

Which bit: "analog always sounding warmer than digital" or "especially when driving the signal hard"?

When you're "driving the signal hard", you're risking pushing the amplifier into overload. At which point, most amps will clip the signal. Depending on what kind of amplifier it is, it will either clip hard (transistor), in which case it won't sound warm at all, or will clip somewhat more gently (MOSFET, valve), in which case it won't sound so nasty. But the sound of a domestic amplifier being overloaded, whatever the owners of Fender guitar amps might think about theirs, is rarely ever going to be "warm".

As for the analogue vs digital thing - I am pretty well convinced that it's a subjective perception thing, more to do with people's appreciation of the rituals and history of listening to music on "analogue" media than anything else. It's interesting, incidentally, that you never hear anyone waxing (ahahaha) lyrical about the "analogue" tape quality over digital - it seems to be confined to LPs.

Whatever it is that's nice about listening to analogue - LPs or otherwise - I suspect it's got very little to do with the quality of sound reproduction.

 

[Athos]

When you're "driving the signal hard", you're risking pushing the amplifier into overload. At which point, most amps will clip the signal. Depending on what kind of amplifier it is, it will either clip hard (transistor), in which case it won't sound warm at all, or will clip somewhat more gently (MOSFET, valve), in which case it won't sound so nasty. But the sound of a domestic amplifier being overloaded, whatever the owners of Fender guitar amps might think about theirs, is rarely ever going to be "warm".

As for the analogue vs digital thing - I am pretty well convinced that it's a subjective perception thing, more to do with people's appreciation of the rituals and history of listening to music on "analogue" media than anything else. It's interesting, incidentally, that you never hear anyone waxing (ahahaha) lyrical about the "analogue" tape quality over digital - it seems to be confined to LPs.

Whatever it is that's nice about listening to analogue - LPs or otherwise - I suspect it's got very little to do with the quality of sound reproduction.

On decent kit, most people would notice the difference between, say, mp3 (even 320 kbps) and analogue (be it vinyl or tape) - a lot is noticeably missing from mp3s. BUT, most people don't use decent kit, and many don't particularly care about sound quality anyway.

In any event , when you get to high resolution digital, you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference from analogue. At that point, my preference for vinyl is largely nostalgia, ritual, the ability to appreciate the sleeves, and there being something pleasing about a physical 'thing.'

But I don't really buy into the idea that vinyl is 'warm'; to me, that sounds as though the music is being coloured (in reality, distorted) by the playback system. I can see why people prefer the distortion to which they're accustomed, but I'd prefer any system (vinyl or digital) to reproduce music so faithfully so possible.

In short, some analogue audio is objectively better than some digital. It also offers a range of subjective advantages. Many of these appeal to me, but not the one about 'warm' (distorted) sound.

 

[bi0boy]

I wonder if blind people are disproportionately audiophiles? You'd think if there was anything in it, they would be better placed than most to discern the nuances in all these adjectives that HiFi pseuds throw about.

 

[existentialist]

I wonder if blind people are disproportionately audiophiles? You'd think if there was anything in it, they would be better placed than most to discern the nuances in all these adjectives that HiFi pseuds throw about.

I suspect they're disproportionately not audiophiles in the sense this thread is about

 

[Athos]

I wonder if blind people are disproportionately audiophiles? You'd think if there was anything in it, they would be better placed than most to discern the nuances in all these adjectives that HiFi pseuds throw about.

No. However, I can barely tolerate MP3s, even at 320.

Very bassy Low end and screeching high-end, such as with dissonant metal and avant-garde free jazz, sounds muddy to me on a 320 MP3. the difference is subtle but it's definitely there.

I doubt it TBF. I use my ears for practically everything in daily life, running my speech synth at 350/400 WPM. It's definitely noticeable to me. Now, if I had sight and wasn't so dependent on hearing, I'd take your point because the differences between MP3 320 and FLAC are really quite subtle. But because I've trained my ears to guide me those subtle differences are noticeable without me having to do much work.

 

[existentialist]

What do those who find MP3 unpleasant think of FLAC to listen to?

FLAC, being a lossless compression format, won't introduce any artefacts into the sound - so any deficiency would have to be at the encoding/capture stage.

 

[Athos]

What do those who find MP3 unpleasant think of FLAC to listen to?

FLAC, being a lossless compression format, won't introduce any artefacts into the sound - so any deficiency would have to be at the encoding/capture stage.

I think FLAC can be much better than mp3; I stream Tidal instead of Spotify for that very reason (despit it being twice the cost). It's 44.1kHz and 16 bit (the same so CD) , which equates to 1411kbps, versus Spotify's maximum of 320kbps. But it can be 'better' still - right up to the equivalent of 9216kbps (about 30 times the resolution of the best mp3). That said, personally, I can't discern the difference of anything over 24/96, when I've done blind tests.

 

[existentialist]

I think FLAC can be much better than mp3; I stream Tidal instead of Spotify for that very reason (despit it being twice the cost). It's 44.1kHz and 16 bit, which equates to 1411kbps, versus Spotify's maximum of 320kbps. But it can be 'better' still - right up to the equivalent of 9216kbps (about 30 times the resolution of the best mp3). That said, personally, I can't discern the difference of anything over 24/96, when I've done blind tests.

I don't follow where all the additional information to fill that 9216kb/s bandwith is going to come from?

It seems generally agreed that 44.1/48kHz are acceptable rates at which to sample (the general rule is 2x the maximum frequency being encountered, and there are few of us for whom anything above 22kHz is going to be even noticeable), and the sampling bit depth is down to the hardware doing the sampling, so there's nothing extra to be squeezed out from there...

 

[Athos]

I don't follow where all the additional information to fill that 9216kb/s bandwith is going to come from?

It seems generally agreed that 44.1/48kHz are acceptable rates at which to sample (the general rule is 2x the maximum frequency being encountered, and there are few of us for whom anything above 22kHz is going to be even noticeable), and the sampling bit depth is down to the hardware doing the sampling, so there's nothing extra to be squeezed out from there...

It's the stuff lossy formats (like mp3) lose; they exploit psycoacoustics i.e. cut out stuff they think you can't perceive. But, in my opinion, they go to far, and cut out stuff you can hear, by, for instance setting the masking thresholds 'incorrectly.'

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I think FLAC can be much better than mp3; I stream Tidal instead of Spotify for that very reason (despit it being twice the cost). It's 44.1kHz and 16 bit, which equates to 1411kbps, versus Spotify's maximum of 320kbps. But it can be 'better' still - right up to the equivalent of 9216kbps (about 30 times the resolution of the best mp3). That said, personally, I can't discern the difference of anything over 24/96, when I've done blind tests.

Yeah anything above 24/96 doesn't make any difference to me. Though as I'm generally using headphones on a laptop 16/44.1 FLAC suits my needs adequately, still markedly better sounding than MP3 320.

 

[twentythreedom]

There was a really interesting show on radio 4 the other day, about compression in digital music files. Must be on iPlayer, well worth a listen, very enlightening

 

[existentialist]

There was a really interesting show on radio 4 the other day, about compression in digital music files. Must be on iPlayer, well worth a listen, very enlightening

Compression versus Art - BBC Radio 4

 

[Athos]

There was a really interesting show on radio 4 the other day, about compression in digital music files. Must be on iPlayer, well worth a listen, very enlightening

Thanks, I just listened - interesting stuff. Particularly hearing what mp3 digital compression left out of that Steely Dan track.

 

[Crispy]

Yeah anything above 24/96 doesn't make any difference to me. Though as I'm generally using headphones on a laptop 16/44.1 FLAC suits my needs adequately, still markedly better sounding than MP3 320.

Nothing above 16/44.1 is required for playback (Nyquist will fight you on this one)
Higher/deeper rates are only useful in the studio.

 

[badseed]

I was thinking of buying a tube phono pre-amp. Purely because they look so fucking cool.