chowkwan%priam.usc.edu@usc.edu (Raymond Chowkwanyun) (01/09/91)
Recently Dave (?) posted an article arguing the philosophy of "Expensive Speakers, Cheap Amps". This is an argument for the opposite viewpoint: "Cheap Speakers, Expensive Amps". I have a pair of GNP 210's. A generic sort of 3-way dynamic speaker. When I switched from an NAD receiver to the VTL 90/90 the improvement was not to be believed. It was like getting a new pair of speakers. True, the VTL was 3 times the power of the NAD but it wasn't just more muscle. The entire quality of the music changed. Tonal quality became more true to life. Singers and instruments sounded more as if they were really in the room with you. Violins sounded more like violins, pianos like pianos. I am not a bass freak but I began getting more bass out of this speaker than I would have believed possible. And it was tight controlled bass - not flab. For those interested in such things, the imaging also improved so that individual instruments stood out and remained rock steady. Moral: a good amp can raise the performance level of your speakers. Question: can a good speaker raise the performance level of your amp? I think the answer is "NO", based on the "Garbage In Garbage Out" principle. (OK, some of you disagree but let's keep the discussion civil.) Heavens forfend, as long as I'm getting philosophical let's let it all hang out: 1. I believe the amp has more influence on system sound than the speakers. Consider that the amp has to take an input signal on the order of millivolts and boost it a thousand fold before feeding it to the speakers. Perhaps ten thousand fold if you're using a moving coil cartridge. How can anything that has to perform so delicate a task not have a powerful influence on the final sound? 2. Without in any way denigrating anyone on the net, I would characterize the idea of "Cheap Amp, Expensive Speaker" as the Stereo Review philosophy. This goes something like "all amps measure the same, so all amps must sound the same, so the speaker must have more impact on the sound than the amp". Stereo Review is so locked into the belief that only measurable differences can be discerned that they keep spreading this insiduous belief that all amps sound the same. 3. Driver technology has made tremendous strides in the past few years. Perhaps some technologist could tell us why this is so? It couldn't be because of computer analysis of cone behaviour could it? (e.g. KEF) Consequently, you can build a better speaker for fewer bucks than you could even a few years ago. Case in point: Spendor S100. The most astonishingly *tonally* accurate speaker I've heard. Unfavourable exchange rates have pushed the price from $2.1K to $2.7K but it's still a bargain. For those who prefer sharper imaging and a more forward presentation, consider the Vieta. Spanish made, with internal Van Den Hul wiring. At less than $1K, this is the poor man's WATT. I don't perceive amplifier technology as advancing at quite the same rate. Therefore you can afford to spend less on your speaker and still get comparable quality levels between speaker and amp. OK, let's try and help this poor guy with his problem of how to power his K-Horns. (All he wanted was some advice and he gets this diatribe instead) Have you considered the VTL Tiny Triode? Puts out 25 watts of pure Class A triode power (I think the triode is more important than the Class A). You get a pair of monoblocks for $1K. Need more power? How about the VTL 120 with 45 watts of triode power? Again, a monoblock design. Unfortunately, it costs $3K. Also unfortunately, it has lethal voltages at the anode cap. Not for households with small children and/or pets. -- ray
archer%elysium.esd.sgi.com@SGI.COM (Archer Sully) (01/10/91)
In <8769@uwm.edu> chowkwan%priam.usc.edu@usc.edu (Raymond Chowkwanyun) writes:
*Recently Dave (?) posted an article arguing the
*philosophy of "Expensive Speakers, Cheap Amps".
*
*This is an argument for the opposite viewpoint:
*"Cheap Speakers, Expensive Amps".
*
*I have a pair of GNP 210's. A generic sort of 3-way
*dynamic speaker. When I switched from an NAD receiver to
*the VTL 90/90 the improvement was not to be believed.
*It was like getting a new pair of speakers.
*
GNP 210's are anything but a 'cheap' speaker. They are old,
but the internal bracing of the cabinets, combined with the
advanced (for the time) materials of the drivers made for a
very good sounding speaker indeed, especially when well placed
in a room. I think what you are seeing here is that you finally
got an amp which was a better match for your speakers rather than
a major improvement in amplifier sound.
Now, if you had been using Radio Shack speakers and heard this
difference (especially in a blind comparison) I >would< be impressed.
--
"Very scientific. Very Stupid." -- Mary Woronov
<archer@sgi.com> Archer Sully jhess@orion.oac.uci.edu (James Hess) (01/10/91)
The argument is not that there haven't been some improvements in speaker components and system design, or that there aren't some fine-sounding budget speakers. The amplification of the signal in an amplifier is simple compared to transforming energy from one form (electrical) to another (mechanical) which then must propagate in an environment which is much more variable than that seen by the amplifier. The transfer function of a speaker gets much more complex than an amps. Klipsch used to say "what this country needs is a good 5 watt amp", but $500 for 25 watts? I hope that sucker is gold-plated, because if it isn't, someone saw you coming from a long way off! :-)
chowkwan@priam.usc.edu (Raymond Chowkwanyun) (01/14/91)
In article <8805@uwm.edu> archer%elysium.esd.sgi.com@SGI.COM (Archer Sully) writes: >GNP 210's are anything but a 'cheap' speaker. They are old, >but the internal bracing of the cabinets, combined with the >advanced (for the time) materials of the drivers made for a >very good sounding speaker indeed, especially when well placed >in a room. I think what you are seeing here is that you finally >got an amp which was a better match for your speakers rather than >a major improvement in amplifier sound. > >Now, if you had been using Radio Shack speakers and heard this >difference (especially in a blind comparison) I >would< be impressed. > >-- > >"Very scientific. Very Stupid." -- Mary Woronov > ><archer@sgi.com> Archer Sully Before I hooked up the 90/90 to the 210, I had tried B+K and Forte 1a, both highly regarded amps. While I felt improvements in certain respects over the NAD, I also felt that in other areas I preferred the NAD sound. It was only when I hooked up the 90/90 that I experienced a wholesale across the board improvement. The music just came alive in an exciting way that the other 3 amps never came close to achieving. I agree fully about matching speaker to amp. I'm just saying that the correct match more often than not means paying more for the amp than the speaker. In this particular case, 3 times more. -- ray
cam@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) (01/14/91)
In article <8769@uwm.edu> chowkwan%priam.usc.edu@usc.edu (Raymond Chowkwanyun) writes: >Recently Dave (?) posted an article arguing the >philosophy of "Expensive Speakers, Cheap Amps". >This is an argument for the opposite viewpoint: >"Cheap Speakers, Expensive Amps". >I have a pair of GNP 210's. A generic sort of 3-way >dynamic speaker. When I switched from an NAD receiver to >the VTL 90/90 the improvement was not to be believed. >It was like getting a new pair of speakers. Ears are wonderful things. Since the kind of distortion that amps typically produce differs from the kind of distortion that speakers produce, you can hear (some of) the difference between amps thru poor speakers. And vice versa. And the same goes for other components of the system. It is even possible to hear that a broadcast recording is of exceptional quality thru a hand-held transistor radio. Sometimes in my workshop I'll be casually listening to music on the tranny. I'll prick up my ears at a certain recording "wow, that sounds very good!", dash through to the music room, power up the stacked electrostatics (only kidding!), and whaddya know: it is in fact a very high quality recording. If you happen to have both a seriously excellent amplifier, and some just-measures-well amplifier, try listening to them both through a naked elliptical speaker saved from some TV set in next-door's trash can. You'll hear the difference between the amps all right. But it doesn't mean that amps matter more than speakers. And I sometimes plug my hand-held tranny radio's stereo headphone output into my rather efficient Lowther horns. Sounds wonderful, better than some friends' "midi" systems. But that doesn't mean that speakers are more important than amps either. -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.aipna +44 31 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
bill@vrdxhq.verdix.com (William Spencer) (01/14/91)
in article <8769@uwm.edu>, chowkwan%priam.usc.edu@usc.edu (Raymond Chowkwanyun) says: > This is an argument for the opposite viewpoint: > "Cheap Speakers, Expensive Amps". > you can build a better speaker for fewer bucks than you could > even a few years ago. Case in point: Spendor S100. The most > astonishingly *tonally* accurate speaker I've heard. Unfavourable > exchange rates have pushed the price from $2.1K to $2.7K but it's > still a bargain. It occurs to me an explaination of these differing viewpoints. Those calling for "Cheap" speakers, aren't. Their budget is higher. This doesn't explain every case. Some of the recommendations for $500 Spicas are exactly that, recommendations by non-owners or reviewers who get to hear a lot of other speakers now and then. Cheap speakers can be pretty good. So can amps. Speakers tend to be linear in nature, and everything else about them tends towards trade offs. Also more opinions and approaches to them as a result. The problem with amps (as I see it) is that there are a lot of shoddy designs out there. Wack together a design and apply negative feedback, the result is usually not but so bad. Those who care more about sound usually do less sales volume, resulting in higher cost. (Re: Carver ads saying the main expense of amps is the power supply, this is more true of high powered designs like he offers.) > 3. Driver technology has made tremendous strides in the > past few years. Perhaps some technologist could tell us > why this is so? It couldn't be because of computer analysis > of cone behaviour could it? Partially, but don't forget about the use of materials such as aluminum and Kevlar. bill S.
david@agora.rain.com (David Robinson) (01/21/91)
My experience has been much the same as yours, Ray: Better to put the "dollar emphasis" on the electronics, rather than the speakers. I have a good friend who finally (!) sold his modified Hafler, vintage c. 1975, in favor of Adcom 565 preamp and 555 amp. He now drives his Rogers LS3/5As with this combination, and was "absolutely stunned" at the improvement. It was so good that he has disconnected his old subwoofer system, so that he can enjoy the clarity of the Rogers with his new gear. I have not skimped on my speakers at all (TDL Reference Standards--Bob Harley was wrong; these are "Class A" my friends), but if I *had* to make a choice, I wouldn't hesitate to downgrade my expenditures on speakers in order to keep my Classe' DR-5 preamp and 2 Classe' DR-9 amps. Or any equivalent combination in relative terms.... david@agora.rain.com -- My opinions belong to me...and vice versa. They're not copyrighted; third party thinkers should feel free to clone them at will. david@agora.rain.com davidr@glacier.UUCP