# Just Bought A New Av Receiver - At A Steal!



## ozpowell (23/4/08)

So happy about this, just had to tell someone . Absolutely nothing to do with hb, but we all love our toys, right?

I've been looking at replacing my old AV amp/receiver for some time and the model I was lusting after was RRP $1400 (link). I had seen it around on ebay and JB HiFi etc for around the $1000 mark, but I still couldn't bring myself to do it at that price (my old one still works pretty well - just the IR reveiver seems to be busted). Even reconditioned models were around the $800 mark on ebay.... I'd pay that for a new one, but not recon.

Anyway, recently I heard that Onkyo were releasing a new model superceding this one (TX-SR606). Not too different - bit more power and an extra HDMI port. So I thought I'd just pay JB another visit to see if they were interested in running out some of their old stock. Walked into the store and saw the 605 still at $994 and thought there would be no way they'd come down to my price range. As I was leaving the AV section, the sales guy mentioned they were keen to get rid of the old model. So I asked what their best price would be. He told me that their cost price was $760 and he'd do it at that. <Michael starts getting excited> I thought I'd push just a little harder and said that if he'd do it for $700, I'd take one right now. After talking with his manager for 5 minutes he agreed!

I'm now the proud owner of a fantastic brand-new silver Onkyo TX-SR606 which I got for a whopping 50% off RRP!!!!!    

Cheers,
Michael.


----------



## lucas (23/4/08)

ozpowell said:


> So happy about this, just had to tell someone . Absolutely nothing to do with hb, but we all love our toys, right?
> 
> I've been looking at replacing my old AV amp/receiver for some time and the model I was lusting after was RRP $1400 (link). I had seen it around on ebay and JB HiFi etc for around the $1000 mark, but I still couldn't bring myself to do it at that price (my old one still works pretty well - just the IR reveiver seems to be busted). Even reconditioned models were around the $800 mark on ebay.... I'd pay that for a new one, but not recon.
> 
> ...


Ha! I had a very similar weekend and picked up it's little brother, the TX-SR575 for $440. hooray for clearance pricing


----------



## Ross (23/4/08)

Nice work guys :super: 

cheers ross


----------



## pokolbinguy (20/4/09)

Just noticed this thread after google searching the Onkyo TXSR606....now I'm jealous...but atleast I know what they are really worth


----------



## komodo (20/4/09)

If only some of these recievers had decent power ratings. Unfortunatly most AV recievers (and yes including the likes of yamaha, onkyo, marantz etc) only produce ~70% of their rated power into a static load (and I'd suggest even less into a dynamic load with impedance rise at lower frequencies). I'm looking to pro audio amps (im a power junkie and bass head at heart - I used to do a lot of large format work) and using a basic reciever as a preamp and source switching. 
At the moment I'm building a set of large book shelf speakers with a Vifa M18WO-09-08 6.5" and Vifa XT-25TG-30-04 with full solen components on the x-over. These are to mate to a Boston G5 12" sub and passive radiator powered by a 1000watt plate amp. I'm more a 2.1 stereo kid (although 3.1 and even mono are appealing prospects as well - another topic entirely) than a 5.1 theatre buff. 

That said I'll probably be happy with just a basic AV reciever powering some satelites as anything is better than my current nothing LOL. It just peeves me that most of these things are over rated - or worse some cheaper bands even state consumption power rather than output power.

Are you using true 7.1?
Are you able to bridge channels for mains for more power?

Have you had your existing reciever looked at? if its just an IR reciever it could be a cheap and easy fix? or possibly a remote fault? no fluros in the area (inc. CCFL)?


Edit : DAMN just looked at the original post date ! DOH!


----------



## MarkBastard (20/4/09)

I remember I think it was Onkyo, used to do a really nice stereo amp. No LED display or other crap, just big knobs to turn. Haven't seen it for a while but I ended up just getting the cheap dick smith one, and it works well enough.


----------



## Peteoz77 (21/4/09)

I am still 100% sold on my vintage Adcom GFA5500 that I purchased new in USA back in 1991. I had a pair of thermistors start blowing shortly after I firred it up here in AUS, but had a mate build a power delay circuit and install it, and it had been performing flawlessly for 10 years since then. It was driving a pair of Klipsch Forte2 speakers, but I sold those and hooked up a pair of Jamo 128's for a few years. I am now in the process of building a set of Klipschhorns, which I have all of the parts for, but need to build boxes.

http://www.adcom.com/prod/shopdisplayprodu...=1152&sid=3


----------



## komodo (21/4/09)

Pete look into having a local cabinet maker cut your materials using CNC. Makes the WORLD of difference.
Also if painting (which is the "current" look) get them laminated to the edges then primed and painted. You dont get the gap issue this way


----------



## Peteoz77 (21/4/09)

Yep, there are a LOT of pieces and cut at all sorts of funky angles inside these monsters. Won't paint them though, they need to look original. These speakers are still made today and sell for for a LOT of money. Not sure how much they are now, but back when I bought the components, the new speakers were over $17K AUS


----------



## kirem (21/4/09)

I built my own speakers using Jordan JX92S fullrange drivers and a MLTL design.

I had the MDF cut at a cabinet makers using a "point to point" machine. The cabinet maker got so into it he assembled them for me.

Tassie oak over MDF. They sound wonderful, plenty of new listening experiences from old albums.


----------



## PostModern (22/4/09)

Mark^Bastard said:


> I remember I think it was Onkyo, used to do a really nice stereo amp. No LED display or other crap, just big knobs to turn. Haven't seen it for a while but I ended up just getting the cheap dick smith one, and it works well enough.



Maybe you're thinking of NAD? I still have my three small dial, big volume knob NAD 3225PE from 1991. What a smooth, musical amp it still is.


----------



## komodo (22/4/09)

kirem said:


> I built my own speakers using Jordan JX92S fullrange drivers and a MLTL design.
> 
> I had the MDF cut at a cabinet makers using a "point to point" machine. The cabinet maker got so into it he assembled them for me.
> 
> Tassie oak over MDF. They sound wonderful, plenty of new listening experiences from old albums.



Man not too many people know the science behind TL speakers. Was this your own design or one sourced?



PostModern said:


> Maybe you're thinking of NAD? I still have my three small dial, big volume knob NAD 3225PE from 1991. What a smooth, musical amp it still is.



Mmmm NAD - Tasty. Onkyo - meh I'd rather yamaha.

As for your Klipschorns. I know the speakers well. Whilst not my cup of tea I can apprecate the design and efficiency of them (theoretical maximum SPL of 121dB @ 1mtr before environmental gains - plus im a massive wave guide fan). I undestand why you would want to build them to suit their original era. How ever I think I would still be tempted to go gloss black on the throte and use a nice veneer on the external surfaces. 

Im actually in the process of redesigning a set of kef kit 3's for dad (the kef kit 3's were based on the kef concerto 1's). Its interesting that the B139 is almost a spec for spec match with the vifa M26WO...


----------



## kirem (22/4/09)

Komodo said:


> Man not too many people know the science behind TL speakers. Was this your own design or one sourced?



Sourced design. In a past career I worked as an RF tech, I would have thought that TL theory is pretty fundamental stuff for anyone wanting to get into speaker design. There are so many software tools nowdays, for this sort of thing, that all the hard work has already been done.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (22/4/09)

I have 2 sets of B&W bookshelf speakers...the 601's for clarity are nearly unbeatable...listening to Jazz or Pink Floyd is pure majik.....but you need some power behind them...they sound crap with small power amps...


One day I will build a valve amp with KT88's from scratch, as I already have the proper high silicon transfromer cores 

Yamaha are my preffered Amps for the daily grind


Kirem...I to was an RF tech......Motorola R2000 was the best test set, but the Marconi's where pretty tuff in the field

Rhode & swartz where to exy


----------



## Doogiechap (23/4/09)

I picked up some B&W speakers off Freecycle a few months back 
Woo Hoo !! 27 years old but in excellent working order 
My NAD Amp drives some JV30 Jaycar/ Vifa Kits in the house and I have a discreet component power amp driving the B&W's in the shed


----------



## komodo (23/4/09)

kirem said:


> Sourced design. In a past career I worked as an RF tech, I would have thought that TL theory is pretty fundamental stuff for anyone wanting to get into speaker design. There are so many software tools nowdays, for this sort of thing, that all the hard work has already been done.



Not really - Transmission line speakers are almost a black art. Most of the good designs are almost stumbled across. Because the Theile/Small paremeters have little effect on TL designs its hard to calculate what effects the actual driver will have on the transmission line. We know the theory behind TL lines and quater waves - what we dont fully understand is how they are affected by - and affect the TS specs. 

Remembering that calculated speaker design has really only been around since the 70's when the brittish were the front runners in loud speaker design (remember the Kef LS3/5a BBC monitors) after the publishing of the Australian Neville Theile's papers in the mid 60's. 
Actually loudspeaker design in some ways has gone back to guess and cut type design - only done with aid from programs. Baffle gains are almost ignored - particularly in the sat and sub systems with amplitude output preffered over "nice" +/- 1.5dB response

With many solid state amplifiers capable of 80+ watts @ 8 ohm speaker design has been given a back seat with engineers concentrating on amplifier power, equalisation and "effects" being concentrated on and about the only real development as far as speaker cabinet design is concerned is cosmetic. Obviously this is painting a picture with a broad brush but when you see the likes of Focal/JMLab and Kef bringing out systems like the sib and cub and the "egg" you know we went wrong somewhere (from a "pureists" POV - obviously there are ecconomic reasons behind their decisions to produce such systems - and there is no doubting that the JMLab Sib and Cub system sounds miles better than your $399 pioneer DVD and 5.1 special from the local JB hifi).

Also when looking into TL line designs there are also areas such as the design of the throte on tapers designs - partictularly on flaired tapers which there is very little information on and even less thats credible.

So no, I would have to say that I dissagree on your comments that TL designs are fairly fundimental stuff.
They do how ever give a really good "english" sound when they work and I guess thats why we all have a "need" to build a transmission line at some point in our speaker building "career".


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/4/09)

One day...when the kids are big, and I am rich


----------



## pokolbinguy (23/4/09)

I dont suppose anyone knows much about the Onkyo TX-SR605....I might be able to get my hands on one second hand at a good price...if I can bargain the right price that is...any idea how much they are worth? (under $500 SH?)

Other wise I am contemplating the following:

- Sony 3400ES - $900
- Onkyo 606 - $998
- Yamaha 1800 - $990

Only real down fall I can see with the 605 is it only has 2 HDMI inputs.


----------



## Jase71 (23/4/09)

While on the topic of audio, can anyone suggest where/how I might get some new cones fitted on a pair of vintage "Acoustic Research" AR-4x speaker cabs, and what sort of price I would be looking at ? I would like to maintain the vintage crossovers if that's practical, but want to get these baby's singing to replace the very average twin-speaker towers that I'm presently running. 

This is strictly for audio, to clarify. We don't live in an AV household, don't have a television or DVD player set up (nor do we plan to), but are big fans of vibes. My current living area amplifier is a 90's Denon PMA-880R (which contains a shielded toriodal transformer) that I picked up a couple of years ago because, well, because I just don't like the way many modern multi-purpose amplifiers handle audio frequencies in the range of music I like to listen to. The amp is coupled to a broadcast quality CD deck and the MP3 audio (when I dont want to put an album on) runs through a home-recording-studio box that makes compressed music sound just that little bit sweeter. 

Anyway, so I would like to get the Acoustic Research cabinets rolling in a few months, and wonder if there are any reputable suggestions for suppliers (I used to be handy with an iron) or rebuilders.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/4/09)

eeewww compression :icon_vomit:


----------



## Jase71 (23/4/09)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> eeewww compression :icon_vomit:



Oh c'mon, you can't tell me that MP3 format is as rich as the equivalent from album source ? 

Maybe those silly HR Geiger speakers you have you eye on are the trick - to divert one's attention away from the richness of the actual music :beerbang:


----------



## komodo (23/4/09)

pokolbinguy said:


> I dont suppose anyone knows much about the Onkyo TX-SR605....I might be able to get my hands on one second hand at a good price...if I can bargain the right price that is...any idea how much they are worth? (under $500 SH?)
> 
> Other wise I am contemplating the following:
> 
> ...



I really wouldnt worry about the fact that it only has two HDMI inputs as long as your display has enough as you can always use optical or coax out - its still digital and HDMI is no better or worse at carrying the signals than optical or coax - hdmi is just a more simple connection. You can always do your switching via a decent programable remote (I like the logitechs as they are cheap, easy to use and most importantly - they work).

You need to sit down decide what you need to connect. I dont see too many people requiring more than 2 hdmi inputs any way. Even so you can do external HDMI switching should you need more than say 2 on your TV and 2 on your AV reciver. IMO going straight into the TV and then out via optical is more flexible anyway. Just my 2c

Sony I dont like. I know sony has some awesome gear in the profield but imo their consumer products are over priced let downs and IO most certainly dont like their amplifiers - so IMO unless your using it purely as a preamp I wouldnt bother. 

IMO the 605 is a good reciever and if you can get one under $500 jump on it! 

The Yamaha would be my pick of the bunch but thats a personal bias towards yamaha products.

Jase as for your AR-4x's I probably would just scout the hard rubbish days - they were a common speaker and their pretty ordinary at best. The cross overs were crude - the box design was poor and the speaker drivers have no mechanical control particularly now as most examples will have coroded surrounds and sagging spiders. Many will have been poled out due to the lack of mechanical suspension. Not meaning to rain on your parade but unfortunately a perfect example with renovated crossovers will be worth about $80 They simply arent a very desirable speaker. 
How ever if you have your heart set on repairing them you could see if you could find the specs for the bass driver and I'll see if I can recomend a suitable replacement. The other option is to give me the internal dimensions and I can use a bit of harris tech software to recomend a replacement - though this will most likely result in your cross overs needing to be rebuilt (unless you can get me the component values also).

Other wise take a look at a WES components catalogue or browse the partsexpress.com website and see if there is a driver on there that takes you fancy - you'll want high efficiency, low x-max and low power handelling as a rough guide. Its still going to be a punt but might be a "cheaper" option.


----------



## komodo (23/4/09)

Compression is horrible - but the simple fact of the matter is very few people can pic a high bitrate MP3 from the original unless they are doing back to back critical listening


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/4/09)

Jase71 said:


> Oh c'mon, you can't tell me that MP3 format is as rich as the equivalent from album source ?
> 
> Maybe those silly HR Geiger speakers you have you eye on are the trick - to divert one's attention away from the richness of the actual music :beerbang:




HR Geiger speakers..never heard of them

I have my eye on B&W Nautilus... :icon_cheers:


----------



## Jase71 (23/4/09)

I've never ran them, and only heard a heavily refurbished pair once in the past and they were in a studio setting against a control set of powered monitors - and came through splendidly by comparison, albiet running through commercial equipment. It would be a shame to throw away a good couple of _real _wooden boxes though. 

I thought they were a pretty reputable set back in the '70's as an 'entry-level' audiophile range. 

What do you mean by 'mechanical control'? There's a variable pot at the back of the cabs which I beleive controls the top or mid range to customise room depth on these ones. 

anyway, if they're not worth spending the money on, I won't bother. But it seems a shame to throw a pair of solid boxes away.


----------



## Jase71 (23/4/09)

Komodo said:


> Compression is horrible - but the simple fact of the matter is very few people can pic a high bitrate MP3 from the original unless they are doing back to back critical listening



It's a good point, but when one's ears are tuned to nuances, even a 320k compression is obvious. Of course there's the arguement of comparison (or back to back critical listening). It;s a shame that so much music is heard these days in an inferior format, or via inferior amplification. I'm not professing to be an audiophile, but there's _minimum standards_ that I like to consider. Someone downloading an album as an MP3, listening to it through some tinny 'active speaker' setup (even with a woofer box) via their PC's sound output (if it's not audio specific) is a whole lot different than plugging the same compressed audio through a dedicated audio output and into a Hi-Fi amplifier, and delivered via soundwaves with attention to frequencies via a chosen speaker lineup. It's not even about being anal, it's just physics, really.


----------



## komodo (23/4/09)

Jase I dont believe there is a direct driver replacement
I think something like this http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.c...tnumber=264-330 "might" be a reasonable drop in replacement. 
Its been a while since I've heard AR speakers so I might be barking up the wrong tree. If memory serves me right they had a typical east coast sound as such something from the likes selenium or eminence sould produce a "similar" sound. 
Obviously there are a great deal of variables.

Look just cause I dont like them doesnt mean they arent worth renovating. I dont know where you would go in sydney - ive used the services of total recoil (melbourne) in the past with varied success. They seem to have a great following with enthusiasts but my thoughts are that there are far better speakers around and "I" wouldnt bother.

Are you sure the cabinets are solid wood? solid wood generally isnt a good material for making speaker cabinets out of. Birch ply, MDF and chipboard are generally the preffered options.


----------



## bum (23/4/09)

Some of you guys (possibly all) are using the term "compression" incorrectly. Compression of audio relates to dynamic range (compression of the actual peaks and troughs (so to speak) of the soundwaves). When you're talking about compression and MP3s all you are talking about is data compression - this cannot be heard. The faults in MP3s are to do with the format's inability to reproduce higher frequencies (upper level dependant on sampling rate but none go as high as that which can be reproduced).


----------



## Jase71 (23/4/09)

Komodo, are you either an American or at least familiar with 60's & 70's rock ? The "East Coast Sound" comment has me intrigued! :icon_cheers: 

Anyway, it's all good food for thought. WHile I'm not entirely happy with the way my present combo represents the sounds I like to hear, I do feel there's some muddiness that can be overcome. But I should reconsider a refurbishment of the vintage AR's and perhaps look at a 'ready to rock' pair of speakers when my budget allows. 



bum said:


> Some of you guys (possibly all) are using the term "compression" incorrectly. Compression of audio relates to dynamic range (compression of the actual peaks and troughs (so to speak) of the soundwaves). When you're talking about compression and MP3s all you are talking about is data compression - this cannot be heard. The faults in MP3s are to do with the format's inability to reproduce higher frequencies (upper level dependant on sampling rate but none go as high as that which can be reproduced).



Bum, I could argue/discuss this better face-to-face, because my limited basic technical terminology does not extend to the written word. But I equally agree & disagree with you. Let's take a step back from the end-album production. If you were to analyse the sound inputs when recording music in an analogue studio, you will indeed find that the waveforms round out nicely, whereas (early) digital recording equivalents are seen to have an 'upper ceiling' in the waveform where the wave is 'clipped' at the upper & lower ranges. So this is the dynamic range, right ? 

As far as data compression is concered, I have not performed spectrum analysis testing to establish the 'why', but when put to my shonky organic equivalent (that is, my ears & my evaluative mind), find that the specifics within a peice of mucis aren't allowed to shine, and every element is fighting to rise to the top of the mix, in most cases with disasterous results. I've done my own comparative tests, taking a CD form an artist that I consider to have a good grasp of the recording process in the modern age, then ripping it to the highest bit-rate as MP3, then transferring that to a CD, so I can compare the official release to the burned copy. And for my ears, it typically falls short for atmosphere. 

This alll could be irrelevant, depending on who is listening, and what you are listening to. But I've done the tests in environmnents of 'Home Hi-Fi" and at a mate's place with "Vintage Studio" and in just about all cases, the data-compression track in a back-to-back test can be determined in a blind test.


----------



## bum (23/4/09)

What you are saying is essentially correct but it has nothing to do with compression.

Out of interest, can you describe how you have the lexicon hooked up to the bits on either end of it?


----------



## Jase71 (23/4/09)

bum said:


> What you are saying is essentially correct but it has nothing to do with compression.
> 
> Out of interest, can you describe how you have the lexicon hooked up to the bits on either end of it?



Yea, good query. I can already see the t_heoretical _downfall, because it's not firewire. And FFS this is an issue with latency when I try and record instruments through it. Anyway, pick it apart, it still sounds better than straight up.... 

For MP3 Audio Playback: PC > USB > Lexicon > TRS L/R > RCA L/R >Amp IN


----------



## bum (23/4/09)

So you're not using the pre-amps on the Lexicon? So basically your set up's advantage is that you're using the Lexicon for D/A conversion instead of a (presumably) shitty soundcard. Cool.


----------



## komodo (23/4/09)

Two different forms of compression thats correct - but its still compression. 
And it can definately be heard no matter what the experts tell you in your latest PC magazine. Most people are just ignorant to it and are happy to accept compressed tracks to play on their iPods and department store stereo "hifi" systems

Compression of dynamics is a totally different kettle of fish and is done at mix down and mastering stages. Its actually "limiting" and expanding to reduce the dynamic range to increase the perceived volume - well no thats not entirely true. Its used to "regulate" the amplitude. Theres more to it than that but I'll have to sit back and think how to explain it.

Compression of *.wav files to MP3 limits dynamic range as well as frequency range. If you actually analyse a compressed format even lossless formats are only mathmatically lossless and they contain virtually no information for frequncies over 12kHz which to some might seem like no big deal because there are virtually no fundementals over about 7kHz - but there is a great deal of harmonics and for instruments like triangles and cymbals with no real fundimental frequency theres a lot of information up this high. Then when you get to the bottom end and you lose all the bottom end information you loose a great deal of the life and power of "big" sounds. This is a massive issue you notice if your used to a GOOD system with a subwoofer capable of getting down to at least 25Hz.
Also compressing audio introduces artifacts into the compressed track which arent present on the original.

I've been playing with audio since I was about 8 or 9. I've never been good at playing an instrument so ive focused my attention to sound reinforcement and reproduction. As such I've worked in large format live sound reinforcement and become a hobbiest in speaker designing and building. I've also judged a national car audio sound quality format as well as having the opportunity to listen to some top level IASCA competitors vehicles. I can honestly say in my experiance there is big differences between MP3 (or what ever compressed formats) and CD audio


----------



## komodo (23/4/09)

No Jase not an american but the east coast, west coast and english sounds are well documented. Most people who like 60-70's rock preffer the english and east coast sounds. I preffer the english sound.
West coast sound is also often called the "american" sound. They are just terms to descibe tonal similarities between certain speakers. Obviously certain tonal characteristics were more prevailent in certain regional areas.

Using a decent DAC makes a big difference.


----------



## barclayton (23/4/09)

wow, with that sort of amp. you better be running monster cables.


----------



## Jase71 (23/4/09)

Dude, the lexicon _is_ an active pre-amp, when it's powered and inline. To the point that I can plug end-mixing inserts into it if I wanted to (or, um, had any LOL). Do you know the Lambda ? You know it's *not* of the 'studio' ilk of the earlier Lexicon 'rack' range, but a little box that costs a few hundred bucks, yea ? 

I'm not arguing the greatness of the Lambda, I simply outlined what I was running when I listen to music that's not on album, ie MP3. But if I tapped into the little headphone plug from my PC's onboard soundcard and into the amp, it's very clearly a different quality. In fact I can do it, and toggle between inputs, and the latter is shithouse by comparison.


----------



## bum (23/4/09)

Komodo said:


> Two different forms of compression thats correct - but its still compression.



It is also compression when I squeeze my fermenter and the airlock bubbles - it does not mean it is the same thing. You are compressing different things therefore it is different compression.



Komodo said:


> And it can definately be heard no matter what the experts tell you in your latest PC magazine.



Or how about my latest degree from RMIT in Sound Design, you condescending arsehole?



Komodo said:


> Most people are just ignorant



Point proven, well and truly.



Komodo said:


> Compression of dynamics is a totally different kettle of fish and is done at mix down and mastering stages.



And recording. And even prior to the mic in many instances.



Komodo said:


> Its actually "limiting" and expanding to reduce the dynamic range to increase the perceived volume - well no thats not entirely true.



I'd go further than that - I'd say it isn't _even_ true. "Limiting" is what may be referred to as infinite compression through using the highest ratio (although it is more practical to think of it as maximum compression). Expanding is the _opposite_ of compression - it broadens dynamic range.



Komodo said:


> Its used to "regulate" the amplitude. Theres more to it than that but I'll have to sit back and think how to explain it.



I don't think that will be required but I'd quite like to read it none the less.



Komodo said:


> Compression of *.wav files to MP3 limits dynamic range as well as frequency range.



No, the format limits dynamic range and frequency. This _data_ (as opposed to audio) compression does introduce artifacts but it is a different issue completely.



Komodo said:


> I've been playing with audio since I was about 8 or 9. I've never been good at playing an instrument so ive focused my attention to sound reinforcement and reproduction. As such I've worked in large format live sound reinforcement and become a hobbiest in speaker designing and building. I've also judged a national car audio sound quality format as well as having the opportunity to listen to some top level IASCA competitors vehicles.



Since cars are the ABSOLUTE WORST environment for critical audio reproduction I'm not sure how much bragging rights that garners. But good for you. I'm sure it's great but it doesn't mean shit in an arguement about sound quality.




Komodo said:


> I can honestly say in my experiance there is big differences between MP3 (or what ever compressed formats) and CD audio



Who said there wasn't?


----------



## Jase71 (23/4/09)

barclayton said:


> wow, with that sort of amp. you better be running monster cables.



Screw you, man. 

Komodo, I can relate to a point, but I find characteristics to be misleading. Let me see if I follow: 

Crosby, Stills & Nash - West Coast
Velvet Underground - East Coast
The Kinks - English Sound

yea, I know it's a bad generalisation, look at Zeppelin, they had a lot of 'West Coast' sound, perhaps the Stones - maybe southern US. And my fave band, being the early Jethro Tull from 67 to 75, who pioretted between styles. 

I do know what you mean, especially with "West Coast" sound though. But I like a lot of English Progressive  Kinda defies genre.


----------



## bum (23/4/09)

Jase71 said:


> Dude, the lexicon _is_ an active pre-amp, when it's powered and inline. To the point that I can plug end-mixing inserts into it if I wanted to (or, um, had any LOL). Do you know the Lambda ? You know it's *not* of the 'studio' ilk of the earlier Lexicon 'rack' range, but a little box that costs a few hundred bucks, yea ?



I'm pretty sure you'll find the pre-amp is actually for the mic ins. A pre-amp doesn't know what to do with the ones and zeros from the USB. Once the DA converter has done it's job it is already at line level and ready to go to the line out. Do the gain pots do anything to your sound, or just the level pots?



Jase71 said:


> I'm not arguing the greatness of the Lambda, I simply outlined what I was running when I listen to music that's not on album, ie MP3. But if I tapped into the little headphone plug from my PC's onboard soundcard and into the amp, it's very clearly a different quality. In fact I can do it, and toggle between inputs, and the latter is shithouse by comparison.



I'm not having a go at it. Lexicon make GREAT A/D-D/A converters.


----------



## komodo (24/4/09)

Jase71 said:


> Komodo, I can relate to a point, but I find characteristics to be misleading.



Yeah I get where you coming from - but it actually relates more to the characteristics of the speakers - not really anything to do with the music.


Dude all I can say to you is chill the heck out.
Whilst I may not have a piece of paper that says I know any thing (hell I dropped out of school in yr 11 - schools not my thing). I did work in the industry for a number of years. Throwing around the fact that you have a degree in the pro sound arena wont win you many freinds. Most of the guys I've worked with bumping in rigs have no formal schooling what so ever. I'm not saying theres anything wrong with having schooling - all im saying is that you shouldnt use it as a "one up" on other people. Heck I still get calls from a mate who did the RMIT course asking me questions when he's stuck - why? cause I have the hands on experience. Just like I call him when I have a problem I'm not sure of - our skills and areas of knowledge allow us to compliment one another. I'm sure in time the balance will weigh more in his favour as he will have the theoretical knowledge and will gain the real world experiance. Plus I've since basically stepped out of the industry to earn real money and a decent living without the sucky hours. 

As for your comments about the automotive environment - your right. The automotive environment is one of the worst environments any one will come across for reproducing quality music - hence the attraction to the challenge. I guess thats why many respected audio brands such as Kef, Focal, Morel, Peerless, JL, Cerwin Vega, JBL, Crown and Harmon Kardon etc invest large sums of money into the car audio arena for enthusiast. Many guys I know of from the car audio scene have far better systems in their car than their home because they spend 2-3 hour travelling every day and they never get that type of opportunity to spend that type of time at home listening to their favorite albums. Probably why many of these guys spend $20-30k on a sound system in their vehicles. I cant list too many people that I know who have invested that sort of money into home hifi. Obviously there are people who do I just dont know many of them. 

By the way I'd suggest in future you dont quote people out of context - it wont win you any freinds. 

Plus I'm a little confused as to WTF we're arguing. I actually thought we were agreeing? Other than you dont agree with my interpretation of what a compressor does. Which I have to be honest doesnt bother me. What I'm saying and how im writting it and then you are reading and interperating it - it may very well be getting lost in translation due to my poor explaination. Though I hardly see that as a reason to take to me like you did in your previous post. 

Re the lexicon unit I can see where both of you are coming from. I would assume the lexicon is being used for volume control - ie a passive pre-"amp" which both you and I understand that gain control is a seperate entity to volume or level control we surely can agree that it is easy for someone with out proper understanding to get the two terms confused (no offence Jase)

Now I hope we're all cool and can shake hands, kiss and make up cause that seemed to get heated for no reason what so ever. 

Cheers,
Komodo


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

Komodo said:


> Dude all I can say to you is chill the heck out.
> Whilst I may not have a piece of paper that says I know any thing (hell I dropped out of school in yr 11 - schools not my thing). I did work in the industry for a number of years. Throwing around the fact that you have a degree in the pro sound arena wont win you many freinds.



But you trying to undermine what I have said by implying that my knowledge is inaccurate and ill-gained will (reC mag reference)? I raised it because it is relevant to the slur you made against me. And for what it is worth, you're still being a condescending arsehole.



Komodo said:


> Most of the guys I've worked with bumping in rigs have no formal schooling what so ever.



I never said formal schooling is the best way to learn about pro-audio. The only reason I brought it up was as explained above. 



Komodo said:


> I'm not saying theres anything wrong with having schooling - all im saying is that you shouldnt use it as a "one up" on other people. Heck I still get calls from a mate who did the RMIT course asking me questions when he's stuck - why? cause I have the hands on experience.



I'm clearly not using it to one-up anyone. It is a single reference - if it made you feel belittled I am sorry.



Komodo said:


> Just like I call him when I have a problem I'm not sure of - our skills and areas of knowledge allow us to compliment one another. I'm sure in time the balance will weigh more in his favour as he will have the theoretical knowledge and will gain the real world experiance.



Then I suggest you do that now because you're really wrong and you're trying to "educate" others with halfarsed rubbish.



Komodo said:


> Plus I've since basically stepped out of the industry to earn real money and a decent living without the sucky hours.



Throwing around the fact that you make great money wont win you many friends.



Komodo said:


> By the way I'd suggest in future you dont quote people out of context - it wont win you any freinds.



I quoted NOTHING out of context. In fact, I barely even deleted anything. If you feel I've presented what you posted in a manner that makes you look foolish perhaps it is because you look foolish.



Komodo said:


> Plus I'm a little confused as to WTF we're arguing. I actually thought we were agreeing? Other than you dont agree with my interpretation of what a compressor does. Which I have to be honest doesnt bother me. What I'm saying and how im writting it and then you are reading and interperating it - it may very well be getting lost in translation due to my poor explaination. Though I hardly see that as a reason to take to me like you did in your previous post.



Here's what we're arguing:
I pointed out that there's two different types of compression and their terms are not interchangeable in the way a few people had been doing in this thread. Then you go on to first admit I'm right, secondly insult my intelligence and assume I have no experience (which you continue to do, just so you know), third you post incorrect info about the other kind of compression (i.e. not the one that is being questioned in the first place - further proving that you do not understand the difference), finally you go on to drop in your experience in a manner like it proves a great deal (as you've accused me of doing with the RMIT thing).



Komodo said:


> Re the lexicon unit I can see where both of you are coming from. I would assume the lexicon is being used for volume control - ie a passive pre-"amp" which both you and I understand that gain control is a seperate entity to volume or level control we surely can agree that it is easy for someone with out proper understanding to get the two terms confused (no offence Jase)



I've gone on, in private, to explain to Jase that I'm not so sure the Lex is adding much but more that it is just a hell of a lot better than his soundcard. I raised it in the first place because he was suggesting that it makes his MP3s sound better - it is more a case of it not making them sound worse. He knows I think it is a decent set-up. I was just curious as to how he has it set up because I know guys who'd actually run it through the pre-amps thinking it'd make it sound better.



Komodo said:


> Now I hope we're all cool and can shake hands, kiss and make up cause that seemed to get heated for no reason what so ever.



It seems unlikely on this one issue. But what happens in this thread stays in this thread and I'm sure I'll read something you say about brewing with interest and learn something valuable.

(edit: typos)


----------



## 3G (24/4/09)

Any suggestions for a single cd player. Around 1 to 2K. NAD maybe looks best value, the more i look into it there are some beautiful English players around


----------



## komodo (24/4/09)

3G - NAD make great CD players. Even better if your using them purely as a transport and using an external DAC.
In that price range I would recomend Denon or NAD or Cambridge Audio, there are many others out there but these I have had experiance with and liked. Though I think I would stick with the Denon or the NAD. There are plenty of others in that price range and at the end of the day a lot of its going to come down to asthetics, brand loyalty or awareness and price. They are all great, they all benefit from an external DAC and they all have slightly different characteristics. I would suggest if you can get along to a decent hifi store to have a listen to whats on offer in your price range.

Bum honestly if you think im being condesending I suggest you swallow some concrete and harden the **** up champ. I'm hardly insulting your intellegence meerly discussing a topic. My comments regarding the PC mag weren't directed at you. They were meerly a passing comment meaning that it doesnt matter how many of these guys keep telling us that MP3 are as good to our ears as CD or vinyl we know that they are wrong. If you missed my point and missunderstood me I appologise - not my intention. 
My comments regarding money weren't intended to suggest I make a great deal of money (which I don't) all I was saying is that its bloody hard yakka to make good money out side of sales in the pro-audio field and that it involves long hard hours. I'm sure if you've done much large format work youve experianced the joys of working 50 hours in 3 days for a weekend racket - its not a great deal of fun after a few years and unfortunately its not finacially rewarded like it (IMO) should be.



bum said:


> Some of you guys (possibly all) are using the term "compression" incorrectly. Compression of audio relates to dynamic range (compression of the actual peaks and troughs (so to speak) of the soundwaves). When you're talking about compression and MP3s all you are talking about is data compression - this cannot be heard. The faults in MP3s are to do with the format's inability to reproduce higher frequencies (upper level dependant on sampling rate but none go as high as that which can be reproduced).


This is where you lost me. Not once was dynamic range compression talked about until you brought it up. As such no one was using the terms interchageably. You then went on to suggest that "data" compression of MP3 files cant be heard. Which I disagreed with because I dont think you explained propperly that you were meaning that we cant hear data compression only the side effects. Honestly I dont know enough about the subject so I'm naturally not gunna go slinging poo as to weather compression itself can be heard. As such all I did was suggest that yes we can hear the "effects" of audio file compression. Which it turns out we both agree - just that you have a further knowledge of the topic. I do still stand by the fact that MP3's do have a compressed dynamic range also (along with a limited frequency range), you only need to look up the red book specs for CDs and compare against the dynamic range of an MP3.

As for my comments regarding dynamics compression - an expander is simply a reverce compressor. Hence why what they do is also called upwards compression. Sure its a contradiction in terms - but its a term often used. So again your right - so once again we are agreeing just using different terms. Essentially a compressor is a limiter, ok so its not a finite limit like a true limiter, but its still limiting or restricting the ampliture past the threshold. Where as a limiter is more a "brickwall compressor". Now tell me how my information I've posted that a compressor (in its most common use) is used to regulate [dynamic] amplitude is incorrect? I'm happy to be proven wrong but so far all you've done is call me a liar and a condesending asshole without properly then going on to explain why im incorrect.


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

We can look look at the Red Book specs if you like. Let's, shall we! There is NO mention of dynamics in the Red Book Code because it is the bit rate that sets the dynamic range (beyond what is set by the program material). It is the same deal with MP3s - the reason the dynamics are effected is due to the limitations of the format - NOT the data compression. You cannot hear errorless (in layman's terms - there's pretty much no such thing as errorless MP3 decoders, but that is beside the point) data compression (not referring to lossless).

Here, I'll try to better illustrate what I'm saying about not being able to hear data compression: ok, you accept that there is no such thing as audible digital audio, right? By this I mean that audio cannot be reproduced digitally. So, we have an analogue source which we have turned into ones and zeros - but this file is very, very large. It is impractical at this size. What can we do to it to make it more practical? What we can do is treat the ones and zeros (it is not music at this point, it is just a bunch of on or off, yes or no options - no different from any other information on a computer) like the numbers that they are and create an equation that can be applied to these ones and zeros to reduce the number of them but still have their value be the same (not entirely dissimilar to converting 4/16 into 1/4 to make it more manageable). So we now have a smaller file but in order to use it we must apply the formula in reverse to make it the same as it was in the beginning (in this instance music recording). You cannot hear this. CAN NOT. What you can hear is the limitations of the format which are present BEFORE the compression occurs. When we turn these ones and zeros back into music we find there is a difference between a "natural" sound source and the digitally reproduced signal - this occurs with CD too (your chosen reference point), the only difference is that one format faces more limitations than the other. You cannot hear data compression like you keep asserting. Yes, you can hear a difference between CD and MP3 - that is because there is a difference between CD and MP3.

All the above is, of course, not taking bad compression codecs into account - but you don't say that CDs are awful because one guy used a bad microphone one time, do you?

I did not call you a liar, I said you were wrong - I'm sure you believe it completely. And will continue to no matter what. 



> Bum honestly if you think im being condesending I suggest you swallow some concrete and harden the **** up champ.



This is pretty hilarious. I'm sure you do not know why.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/4/09)

_because it is the bit rate that sets the dynamic range_

WRONG....WRONG...WRONG


Bite rate ( sample rate ) will determine your ultimate freq range...ie how high ypu can go

Dynamic range ( the difference between the loudest sound point and the softest ) is determined by the word length of the DAC PCM 

IE if you have a 44.1khz sample rate with an 8 bit PCM you get less dynamic range than if you used a 16 or 32bit PCM word

[email protected] gives you 352.8k/bit stream
[email protected] gives a 705.6k/bit stream ( this is the current CD standard)
[email protected] gives a 1411.2k/bit stream

The sample rate has to be double the highets frequency that you wish to convert

If you increases the sample rate , you top end ( treble ) would become clearer and if you increased the PCM bit rate you would have greater levels between loud and soft



















In telephony , they use 8khz sample rate with 8 bit word, giving you a bandwidth of 64K/b...the minimum required for high quality speech transmission ( 300hz to 3.4Khz )....hence forth, you cant run VOIP on dialup, and this is also why basic ISDN services are 64kb


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

Slow down with the caps there, fella. Sample rate and bit rate (also bit depth) are different. Not subtly different. They are completely different axis on the graph representing the audio. While this doesn't make them opposites it might as well. Wordlength is set by bit rate, pretty much. Otherwise, what you say is correct but has nothing to do with what I'm saying (edit - except that it does explain why MP3 sounds worse than CD, which I haven't really gone into).


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/4/09)

Wordlength is set by bit rate, pretty much


WHAT.....

Wordlength is set, your sample rate can change, but not the PCM wordlength


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

Wordlength is not set. You can have 8-bit, 16-bit, 24-bit, etc. The wordlength of PCM is set but that is because it is a standard. MP3 is not PCM.

Again, make sure you're right if you're gonna start with the caps.


----------



## bonj (24/4/09)

But the wordlength in any particular stream is set. Yes different streams can have different word lengths, but it is not dynamically changable within the stream.


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

Actually I take that back - wordlength is variable in PCM too.

Apologies to all.


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

Bonj said:


> But the wordlength in any particular stream is set. Yes different streams can have different word lengths, but it is not dynamically changable within the stream.



Then what is a VBR Mp3?

Besides, I don't think anyone is talking about that. If it looks like I am point me to it so I can clarify my intent.


----------



## bonj (24/4/09)

bum said:


> Then what is a VBR Mp3?



Yes you may be right there...


----------



## bonj (24/4/09)

Either way, my untrained ears simply cannot detect artifacts at 320Kbps, 128 is a different story, but even at 192 I don't detect many. I'm already a beer snob, I don't want to be a snob in all areas of my life h34r:


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

I'm gonna agree with you there (although I'm not a beer snob - but I am working on it!). None of my MP3s even go up 320kb/s - I only listen to them on earbuds. What's the point?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/4/09)

Bum...are you changing this debate to MP3 now....which is a bit different to when you started..

Bonj is right, wordlength cannot be dynamically changed. When I say the wordlength does not change, I do mean that you can have different wordlengths depending on your application, but once you choose it, it cant be changed..

Agree MP3 is different to PCM...as MP# is a way of removing information from the orriginal recording to allow the song to be squeezed into an MP3 player..

Hence forth MP3 is lossy where as PCM ( and FLAC ) provides and ( almost ) exact replica of the original music


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

I'm pretty sure we were all talking about MP3s in the beginning of this exchange. And I hope that maybe someone else will notice how hard I'm trying not to get bogged down in the details of MP3. There are so many instance earlier where I would have been able to drop such information into earlier posts. We're at this point now because of your screaming, remember?

PCM is a very, very long way from being an exact replica. But yes most people can't tell the difference and even the few who can accept it is probably good enough. (_please_ no one bring vinyl into this!)


----------



## bonj (24/4/09)

bum said:


> PCM is a very, very long way from being an exact replica. But yes most people can't tell the difference and even the few who can accept it is probably good enough. (_please_ no one bring vinyl into this!)


But you'd have to admit that PCM can be very close to an exact replica. It all just depends on your sample rate and word-length... a long enough word to enable close to the full dynamic range, and the sample rate high enough to very closely approximate the original wave... at that quality, it may as well be exact. I personally can't tell the difference between CD quality 44.1KHz and DVD 48KHz samples. It's only down at around 32KHz that I can start to notice a difference.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/4/09)

Vinyl with a nice tube amp always sounds nice and soft..

Much better pure digital recordings with Harsh transistor amps..

MMm...shall we step into why a valve ( and MOSFET ) amps sound softer that Silicon transisto amps..


I was not screaming...but you have pointed out that I was right in some respects ..


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

Typing in caps is screaming on the internet. It implies high volume and anger. I am not making this up.

I'm pretty sure I also pointed out that the things you were right about had pretty much nothing to do with the discussion.



Bonj said:


> But you'd have to admit that PCM can be very close to an exact replica. It all just depends on your sample rate and word-length...
> a long enough word to enable close to the full dynamic range, and the sample rate high enough to very closely approximate the original wave... at that quality, it may as well be exact.



Sure, it is possible, but I guess I'm talking about commerically available comsumer stuff here - even high-end stuff. CD quality is not the same. Having said that, I think CDs are fine. Was just making a point.




Bonj said:


> I personally can't tell the difference between CD quality 44.1KHz and DVD 48KHz samples. It's only down at around 32KHz that I can start to notice a difference.



Yeah, I'd be the same on the stuff in my loungeroom. In fact I definitely am the same on the stuff in my loungeroom because I don't bother having good shit in it. Why spend thousands colouring the stuff I want to listen to? If anyone wants to, cool, I genuinely hope they enjoy it. As for DVD sounds (movies, not DVD-Audio (are they even still produced?)) I just watch them through the TV speakers - they're basically MP3s for christ's sake.


----------



## pokolbinguy (24/4/09)

bum said:


> As for DVD sounds (movies, not DVD-Audio (are they even still produced?)) I just watch them through the TV speakers - they're basically MP3s for christ's sake.



I don't really understand all the stuff that has been floating around in this thread but if you are only watching dvds utilising the stereo speakers of your tv you are missing out big time...nothing quite like a movie in DTS or in the new DTS master or what ever it is called...mmmm movies


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

I know a lot of people enjoy all that - I'm just not one of them.

I've never heard a properly balanced surround system in someone's house. Christ, I don't recall being in a cinema where it didn't shit me to tears.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/4/09)

bum said:


> Typing in caps is screaming on the internet. It implies high volume and anger. I am not making this up.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I also pointed out that the things you were right about had pretty much nothing to do with the discussion.



OOhhh I dont know about that...seems very relavent to me....and some others..

Maybe you should state EXACTLY where you are coming from...instead of saying yeah, but no , but yeah, your right , but thats not what its about...

Maybe you need some vinyl in your life and a set of cheap paper come speakers..or maybe a Xtall radio set


----------



## komodo (24/4/09)

LMAO ^ Agreed with bum.
Actually I think people get it more "right" in their lounge room come home theatre than the cinemas these days in terms of both SQ and PQ. Though movies are another one where dynamic compression is abused.


----------



## komodo (24/4/09)

Paper cone speakers are the bomb. Many audiophiles agree that paper cone speakers simply sound better than the exotic materials used in some of todays speakers.
As for valves and vinyl- ahhh bliss. There is just something "romantic" about the warm glow of valves and the slight crackle of vinyl. Then again we could go back to monoaural sound and erradicate the issues with stereophonic. But then were going back to speaker and source design - heck if we keep going we might get back on topic about AV recievers.


----------



## bonj (24/4/09)

ooh xtal set. now you're talking.... an old RCA or Stromberg Carlson headset...


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

No argument there, Komodo. I can't listen to that squashy shit.

And, ducatiboy, I have more records than anyone I know has CDs.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/4/09)

Gramaphone anyone.....

My dad has one in perfect condition....sounds awsome...but getting 2 of them sync'd together for stereo is a real PITA


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

Komodo said:


> But then were going back to speaker and source design - heck if we keep going we might get back on topic about AV recievers.



Wouldn't staying on topic in an forum called "Off Topic" be breaking the rules?

I agree with the joys that can be found in paper cones but I do not - ever - use "audiopholies" as my benchmark. Audiophiles are those guys who think they can hear their cables, right? Yeah, I'd totally listen to those guys.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/4/09)

WHAT...you mean you cant hear the electrons bumping into each other causing distortion and fragmentation of the electrical wave that is only audible in selected rooms of your house, and only when the moon is full....

Whatever you do....dont let the smoke out of your amp...its a real bastard to get it all back in..


----------



## komodo (24/4/09)

Audiophiles come in all shapes and sizes. Some people believe that cables can make a difference - I'm one of them. Some take this thinking to an extreme stating that cables need to be 'x' feet long weigh 'y' have 'z' number of conductors etc.
I on the other hand want just want big cables with a high strand count of thin strands because electrons travel faster around the perimeter of the strands - this is more important in my opinion for interconnects - for speakers who cares. I couldnt give a damn about what its insulated with how long it is etc how much it costs (actually the cheaper the better IMO). I dont think that having smaller cables for tweeters really makes a difference - but horses for courses. I know I can hear things that some of my peers can't hear (particularly noise) and then theres other things my peers swear they can hear that makes me think they are seeing fairys and smoking a crack pipe.

Most audiophiles arent extremist & I know of at least 3 people on this site I would class as audiophiles who havent once made a comment in this thread. Most just simply love music and want to hear the best possible reproduction of their favorite artists. 
I'd be careful putting all audiophiles into a box marked "cable tossers".

Audiophiles have differing opinions on nearly every thing to do with the reproduction of music. from cables to box design to room design to source selection to power filters to driver selection to active vs passive, closed vs vented vs IB etc. The quest for the best possible sound is what makes them "audiophiles". 

And LOL at Ducatiboy stu's comments about the magic smoke. Its harder to get back into your speakers


----------



## bum (24/4/09)

Komodo said:


> I'd be careful putting all audiophiles into a box marked "cable tossers".



Yeah, that was uncalled for and I retract it.

I maintain the theme though - which is that audiophiles generally are more interested in colour than transparency (regardless of what they say). I have no time for audiophilia (even between consenting adults).


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/4/09)

Of coures big fat cables are going to be better than skinny ones, this is obvious from an electrical POV, but I just dont get it when they ramble on about OFC specially twisted cable....

One could go to the extreme of using fixed, measured lenght cable that take into account the wavelenght of the frequencies that you are dealing with ( much like you would with RF )


But it doesnt really make much difference when the guys next door a fighting and playing Doof music at level 10, and old matey is pulling a burn-out in his Corrolla


----------



## komodo (24/4/09)

You'd be supprised Stu. Many audiophiles claim that using smaller diameter cables for tweeters makes a difference and avoids "skinning" pfft - that IMO is a load of wank.
Just chucking big cables isnt the answer either because a large diamter cable with a low conductor count but larger conductors isnt as efficient. Though this really is negligable at the end of the day. I do believe that twisted pair interconnects makes a difference also. But to be honest its a completely different conversation and one thats not relevant and not something that I think should be dumped on people unless they wish to discus it. For all I know the effect could be purely psychoacoustic - but it makes me happy and thats all that matters as far as im concerned.


----------



## komodo (24/4/09)

bum said:


> I maintain the theme though - which is that audiophiles generally are more interested in colour than transparency



This I agree with to a point - more so the eccentric type audiophiles are like this. They also seem to be the ones that get most vocal about things thus discrediting a lot of what the more cluey audiophiles have to say.
I love valves and vinyl - I dont beleive that valves are a good source of acurate amplification because of the way they colour the sound. Same with vinyl but to a lesser degree and for different reasons. Thats not to say they dont sound good and I dont enjoy listening using these mediums I just dont think they are the most acurate way of reproducing sound. Kinda like wearing sunglasses to an art exhibition - things might look good - but they are different to the way the artist intended.


----------



## pokolbinguy (24/4/09)

pokolbinguy said:


> I dont suppose anyone knows much about the Onkyo TX-SR605....I might be able to get my hands on one second hand at a good price...if I can bargain the right price that is...any idea how much they are worth? (under $500 SH?)




So the guy got back to me, he wants $600 for the 605. 

Havent made a lower offer yet, thinking I might offer $400 and see what he says.

I think if its going to be $600 then I am sort of worth keeping my dough and spending the extra on a new one...but if I can score it for $500.....

Anyone got any ideas?

Cheers, Pok


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/4/09)

pokolbinguy said:


> So the guy got back to me, he wants $600 for the 605.
> 
> Havent made a lower offer yet, thinking I might offer $400 and see what he says.
> 
> ...



Go for $500

but offer the $400 first...then $450

Do the haggle...


----------



## pokolbinguy (24/4/09)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Go for $500
> 
> but offer the $400 first...then $450
> 
> Do the haggle...



Thats what I was thinking


----------



## pokolbinguy (29/4/09)

I ended up going with all new gear

So I did the deal today, slightly more than what I was planning to spend at the outset ($1500...ok so nearly double...)...but I will have a system that should last me a good decade if they are treated correctly.

Dali Concept 6's, Dali Concept 1's, Dali concept Centre, Dali Concept sub, Onkyo 606

Grand total of $2700..

Pretty darn happy with that

Cheers, Pok


----------



## MVZOOM (29/4/09)

Audio on AHB... wonders don't cease! I have a couple of low end JMLabs fronts, running 2 channel via a Plinius 8200MkII. I love my gear, it's nice and scales well. When the JMLabs run out of puff, the lows are taken care of via a Richtor Krackatoa sub. It's all good. 

I use a Sony 790 AV Receiver as a pre-amp. I hate Sony SQ - those two words are almost an oxymoron. I'm very glad I never comitted to buy some of their ES gear. 

Also have some components together to make my second pair of speakers. T/L boxes blow my hair back, was thinking of trying to make some 40cm Tube speakers.... I have some Vifa midrange drivers and tweeters, but lack any crossovers (suggestions to buy some are welcome!).


Cheers - Mike


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (30/4/09)

Make the crossovers yourself....not hard

Just source good quality capacitors


----------



## MVZOOM (2/5/09)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Make the crossovers yourself....not hard
> 
> Just source good quality capacitors



I don't really know where to start? I guess I'd want to figure out at which freq I want to cross and then spec cap's accordingly? Are there any good kits out there that don't break the bank? I've done a bit of searching around and can only find high end stuff.

Cheers - ike


----------



## schooey (2/5/09)

I got an old bakelite radio in me brewshed, has a coathanger fashioned into a pretty fancy lookin' ariel. I can get the footy on 2HD without too many scratchy noises.... Hmm, maybe that's what artifacts are


----------



## kirem (4/5/09)

Komodo said:


> Not really - Transmission line speakers are almost a black art. Most of the good designs are almost stumbled across. Because the Theile/Small paremeters have little effect on TL designs its hard to calculate what effects the actual driver will have on the transmission line. We know the theory behind TL lines and quater waves - what we dont fully understand is how they are affected by - and affect the TS specs.



for those interested this is a good web site to get started.

http://www.quarter-wave.com/


----------



## komodo (6/5/09)

MVZOOM said:


> I don't really know where to start? I guess I'd want to figure out at which freq I want to cross and then spec cap's accordingly? Are there any good kits out there that don't break the bank? I've done a bit of searching around and can only find high end stuff.
> 
> Cheers - ike



LEAP is basically the best program (that I know of) for x-over design.
I use crossover pro by harris technology. If you want for a one off design if you give me the drivers model numbers I'd happily model them for you.

Jaycar have cheap and reasonably good components for crossovers - you can even get predrilled mounting boards. I've always used Solen inductors and either Solen or Mundorf caps and Mills resistors. Though on my latest set of 2 ways im just using match pairs of jaycar 10w ceramic core resistors with extremely good results. 

Components in my current 2 ways are as follows Vifa M18W0 midbass, Vifa XT25 tweeters, Solen 0.51mH inductors, Solen 0.39mH inductors, Solen 10F cap. Box is 16mm MDF 17L with a slot port tuned to about 55hz. Cross overs are LP 3000hz 6dB and HP 2500hz 12dB. Theres a fairly large over lap which actually works well with these components (normally underlap) and I achived a good graph response by adding an 11 - 12dB L-pad consisting of 3.3 ohm and 2.2 ohm resistors. Probably could change that L-pad to 1ohm and 2.2ohm which would give more like 8 - 9dB attn. 
Not too shabby for my first ground up build (previously I've only ever tweaked crossovers and built speakers from tried and tested designs)


----------



## Renegade (6/5/09)

QUOTE I got an old bakelite radio in me brewshed

I love some of those old things, and also the ones that followed bakelite, made from lumber.


----------

