What system should one buy

[vkirti]

However many people one asks, is the potential amount of different advise one gets and, within reason, the only advice I consider wrong for a newcomer is that they have to have ten times the amount of cash they actually have. Subject to a basic minimum, one can always start with what one has got.

Couldn't agree with you more ! My first personal system was a tape deck and bookshelf speaker combo bought from Delhi's bhagirath place 21 years ago, when i had just joined college, for a princely sum of rs 2000. I guess it would not be classified as lowest of the low fi also :lol:. I discovered most of the music i listen to today on that system. I outgrew it very soon but it started a love affair with music which just keeps getting stronger.

 

[sarith]

From then on i sourced most Bollywood cds from UK and hunted down the uncompressed first presses of Engish cds on ebay. These were all manufactured in 84 and 85, either in Germany or Japan.

The reason for sharing this is that as you improve your source, the limitation of your software might show up.

Well said. I would like to share my experience. There is a song 'Pramadavanam' from the movie 'His Highness Abdulla' sang by Shri K.J Yesudas. I like that song much.

The ost cd I have is manufactured by Tharangini audios (owned by Yesudas himself iirc) which has a decent sq. I came across a 'Made in England' Malayalam classical movie song collection CD which belongs to my friend's father. The first song in the cd was Pramadavanam.

The SQ of that particular CD blew me away. Even the thought of it is giving me goosebumps. Sound of Yesudas was so deep and full of body yet crisp. The Indian CD sounded a little 'malnourished'. Indian cd is resting in my almari till date. I also came across few other imported CD of malayalam ost and classical and their sq was also better than what we get in here.

I was able to bid and win a 'one 2 ka 4' CD from ebay(uk) and my friend will bring it with him. He said the sq was really good. Same goes for my other UK/Holland/German made CD. I have few rips of '24K Gold CD' and 'Original Master Recording CD' which sounds good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXYR1Go0F0Q (sq of the vdo is bad)

http://theseconddisc.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/rock-of-the-westies-gold.jpg?w=700

http://www.vinylrecords.ch/P/PI/Pink_Floyd/Dsotm_MFSL_CD/IMG_7071.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF_gHt62l2k (better sq)

 

[mowgli80]

I personally believe that most modern day digital sources provide pretty good playback. They have far greater value for money compared to amp/spakers. In other words, I expect a greater jump in quality if I move from a 20K to 50K speakers compared to a 20K to 50K DAC. So if I were to start my own hifi journey, I would spend more on amp + speakers than a digital source.

No idea of analog sources though .

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Having discovered what my ODAC sounds like with my new-to-me pre-amp, it is the last thing on my list for upgrade, and it was under 20K .

I don't have nearly as much experience with different components as many other members do, but my inclination favours speakers too.

 

[Dr.Bass]

Having discovered what my ODAC sounds like with my new-to-me pre-amp, it is the last thing on my list for upgrade, and it was under 20K .

I don't have nearly as much experience with different components as many other members do, but my inclination favours speakers too.

It is understandable since you are scouting for new speaker. On a more serious note, to be really able to justify/verify your stand you need try two different speakers which cost X and 2X, preferably from the same manufacturer (to keep the voicing same) and pair them with your ODAC and may be a ODAC "improved" and see which pairing gives you a longer term satisfaction.

Since you described your first hifi setup, I will describe mine too. My first speaker was a Dynaudio A52, costing 50k. At that time my Cd player was a entry level NAD C521. It was a setup which till date remains one of my best sounding system. The only forum member who has heard that system is "Indianears". He is a very senior audiophile and has heard some of the top systems around. At that time I probably received the best compliment from him when he said, "This is probably among the top 20% system in India". He may not remember this, but I cherished that comment a lot so it is stuck with me till this day. The system was simple, all equipments were on the floor, except the bookshelf speakers which were on the stands. Cables were all monster cables, power cords were simple computer power cords. But there was a magic to the sound, coherent, balanced, no edge, just nice.

Now, the turning point!! The day I upgraded my 50k speaker to a 120k speaker (Dynaudio Contour 1.3SE) it was a different story. Yes it was a better speaker, more neutral, more extended, more revealing, more of everything with the same voicing. But soon I realized that the bass (which now goes deeper) has a muddiness in the lower bass region, the mids have a grainy feeling to it and the highs which though now feels a little more sophisticated also has some grain and glare which were all previously hidden in a smooth well balanced manner. While the bass and mids quality was purely from the Cd player, the glare in the highs was also because of my bare walls. The 50k speaker revealed less of my room, less of my CD player also, less of my cables, but overall gave me a sound that if I think today I would have still be using it (at least as a bedroom setup) if I would have just upgraded my source instead of the speaker. After that I have made many more upgrades and have learnt from them, but to be honest the learning has come the harder way. Speakers are like a television set, source is the signal coming in. A full HD TV will not look more spectacular than a CRT TV if the signal is coming in from a old analogue Doordarshan antenna. The big screen may look impressive for the first 30 mins but after that the flaws take over.

There is another point to note, CD players and DACs are two different games. It is possible to have a decent DAC for 20-25k these days but not exactly a CD player because it also has a critical transport mechanism. I am yet to hear a good Cd player which has an average transport. Even a basic philips transport costs $150 (to the CDP manufacturer). By the time a full CDP comes out of the factory, the cost of design, R&D and manufacture per CDP is close to $500 (considering there is nothing exotic inside). The MRP of such a CDP is easily $1500. So you can imagine, a CDP which actually retails for $300, what has gone into it.

 

[mowgli80]

Speakers are like a television set, source is the signal coming in. A full HD TV will not look more spectacular than a CRT TV if the signal is coming in from a old analogue Doordarshan antenna. The big screen may look better for the first 30 mins but after that the flaws take over.

Conversely, if you feed a CRT TV with HD signal (if possible), it would not show extra clarity either as the limitations of the target (TV) with limit the viewers experience. The same holds true for audio as well. The overall sound will be limited by weakest link in the chain. To attain maximum benefits, the overall chain should be balanced in terms of quality. A very good source will still be limited by average speakers and vice versa.

 

[Dr.Bass]

Conversely, if you feed a CRT TV with HD signal (if possible), it would not show extra clarity either as the limitations of the target (TV) with limit the viewers experience. The same holds true for audio as well. The overall sound will be limited by weakest link in the chain. To attain maximum benefits, the overall chain should be balanced in terms of quality. A very good source will still be limited by average speakers and vice versa.

Yes very true. But there will not be a decrease in quality of enjoyment when you have a better source. The sound will keep improving till you hit a threshold, after which you know that the speakers are not showing up much, then changing the speakers would again take leap in the over all quality, since the source is already upto the task. It is in this order that you always ensure quality music in your listening room in the increasing order. Not the other way round.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

It is understandable since you are scouting for new speaker. On a more serious note, to be really able to justify/verify your stand you need try two different speakers which cost X and 2X, preferably from the same manufacturer (to keep the voicing same) and pair them with your ODAC and may be a ODAC "improved" and see which pairing gives you a longer term satisfaction.

Since you described your first hifi setup, I will describe mine too. My first speaker was a Dynaudio A52, costing 50k.

Actually, my first hifi was almost-all Sony, and bought with almost-all ignorance too . The amplifier was later "upgraded" to a [I think] Sherwood (after the event, I have doubts that that was such an "upgrade"). I was then shopping around for a new amp, and, one day, bought the demo speakers instead of the amp! That was my Castle speakers, which I still have. Nice, but I don't claim they are in your league, even though the list price, at that time, would be around Rs60,000 today.

I enjoyed my new speakers. I knew they were capable of better, and it was confirmed when I bought my Cyrus 3i, my real hifi ahaa! moment, and, possibly my introduction to real hifi. I decided that what I had been listening to before was distortion!

The castles don't now, have the opportunity to show if they would show off even better source/amplification.

If, for instance, I had the opportunity to buy and use speakers like your Tannoys, I would gladly do so. It might be a mistake for poor equipment, but I think they would make anything from mid-level upwards sound good, whilst having plenty of capacity for showing off almost any upgrade.

But, whichever end of the chain a person decides to weight, doing so is just upgrade space in the rest. So long as one does not choose equipment that just plays badly together, really good equipment is to going to be a waste.

Much of this, I have to admit, I have not done in any planned way, but by buying as and when deals came my way. Half-price speakers, half-price amplifier, etc...

(By the way, my Sony amplifier and speakers were a lot better than one might think that name would imply these days! I actually wish I still had the amp for possible repair by Mr Sayeed, and had not given away the speakers before leaving London. They were more than good enough for a second system)

 

[Dr.Bass]

Actually, my first hifi was almost-all Sony, and bought with almost-all ignorance too . The amplifier was later "upgraded" to a [I think] Sherwood (after the event, I have doubts that that was such an "upgrade"). I was then shopping around for a new amp, and, one day, bought the demo speakers instead of the amp! That was my Castle speakers, which I still have. Nice, but I don't claim they are in your league, even though the list price, at that time, would be around Rs60,000 today.

I enjoyed my new speakers. I knew they were capable of better, and it was confirmed when I bought my Cyrus 3i, my real hifi ahaa! moment, and, possibly my introduction to real hifi. I decided that what I had been listening to before was distortion!

The castles don't now, have the opportunity to show if they would show off even better source/amplification.

If, for instance, I had the opportunity to buy and use speakers like your Tannoys, I would gladly do so. It might be a mistake for poor equipment, but I think they would make anything from mid-level upwards sound good, whilst having plenty of capacity for showing off almost any upgrade.

But, whichever end of the chain a person decides to weight, doing so is just upgrade space in the rest. So long as one does not choose equipment that just plays badly together, really good equipment is to going to be a waste.

Much of this, I have to admit, I have not done in any planned way, but by buying as and when deals came my way. Half-price speakers, half-price amplifier, etc...

(By the way, my Sony amplifier and speakers were a lot better than one might think that name would imply these days! I actually wish I still had the amp for possible repair by Mr Sayeed, and had not given away the speakers before leaving London. They were more than good enough for a second system)

Tannoys are exceptions, tell me another speaker

 

[prem]

To me the choice of a speaker is largely dependent on what you value most. If macro dynamics and scale, then horns. If tight controlled bass then dynamic speakers, if coherence and speed then single drivers, if transparency then electro stats. Choosing a source is more straightforward. Ideally the most neutral in your budget is the way to go. Amp and speaker choice can get you the voicing you want

 

[Asit]

Beautifully written, Abhi (Dr. Bass).

I understand fully why people like you, Prem and Arjun are putting the most attention to the importance of a good source, because if the input to the chain is poor, no matter what one does later in the chain, the outcome will remain poor.

By the same argument, the reverse is also true. Given the input is of a very high quality, if the downstream components (amp and speakers) are poor, the output will not reflect the investment made in the source.

Hence, the natural conclusion is that every component in the chain is equally important. I find it nearly impossible to use every component in a way that would optimize its use in company with the other components (upstream and downstream) in the chain.

One possible solution may be conceived in a different way, I think. And that is balancing the components with their sonic signature to produce the ideal tonality. Whenever I add a new component to my system, this is the aspect I pay the maximum attention to, since I consider tonality as the single-most important characteristics of a music system. I try even to achieve sonic balance between pre and power tubes in my tube amp.

Dynamic range is another important characteristics of a system, but no matching of components is required here except that all the components should be able to handle similar dynamic range.

Whenever I have made upgrades of any component, among other changes I have always noticed the improvements in the following two areas: 1) music became generally more tuneful (rich in harmonics). In the context of Indian classical music, this means not only the vocals or main instruments, but even the rhythm instrument (Tabla/Pakhwaj/Mridangam) became more in tune, 2) all sources of sound (instruments/vocals) became better separated.

The reason I have written above paragraph is that, in case of upgrading a component, it is better to know the expectations, in what areas the sound will improve.

Now a point on longevity of components - how long each component may last. The amplifiers and the speakers if built well can last you a long time. Amplifiers generally need a bit of recapping etc after 10-15 years. On the other hand, source components do not last that long, at least that has been my experience.
I do not know about money distribution, but feel that amp+speaker should be bought well and with compatibility in mind. In addition, the source media change quite fast with time, and with them the source component (from vinyl to cassettes to CDs to SACDs to lossless soft media). As I said in the beginning, I do know the importance of the source, but spending the most on the source or paying the most attention to source at the time of the initial purchase hence appears slightly hard to justify, from a practical point of view.

Regards.

 

[mowgli80]

@DrBass - I could apply the same logic the other way round as well. If there is a quality gap between either ends of the chain, the same needs to be identified and fixed to improve the performance. The point I am trying to make (in my earlier post) is that getting a good digital source is relatively cheaper and if distribute my budget as some FMs have suggested i.e. same amount for DAC and speakers, say 50K each, overall quality will be inferior to a combo with 70K speakers and 30K DAC.

All this assumes that expensive DACs are better than cheaper ones. This has however not always been the experience. Somebody in Hyderabad sold his MF M1 DAC woth 35K as it was inferior to ODAC worth 5K .

 

[arj]

All this assumes that expensive DACs are better than cheaper ones. This has however not always been the experience. Somebody in Hyderabad sold his MF M1 DAC woth 35K as it was inferior to ODAC worth 5K .

it is very difficult to co-relate cost to sound quality. I agree with you there. thats why in the first few posts the cost breakup is somewhat equitable .
Ths issue here is about emphasis.

IN the end the system will always be as bad as the weakest in the chain, which in some cases could even be the power. So if one is looking at an upgrade the identification/change of that component is the key

if you look at the 3 Main components

1. Speaker- its interaction with the Room and its interaction with the Amp can change its perception of quality. so more important that the speaker itself it in with the synergy in the above order. in order to simplify it you get a speaker for the room

2. Amplification- its synergy with the speaker is more important than the amp itself and hence its perception of quality is dependent on the speaker. hence now that the Room/Speaker option is done you start to choose an Amp- this is a very difficult synergy to get right and the common point of failure in most systems

3.Source- the only thing affecting this is the component itself and no synergy and its ability to present- some may crave for details, some for warmth etc etc. but this is the only component which must be as neutral and "true to the source"

If you get the source wrong, you hear the wrong presentation through your Amp+Speaker+room and will never guess where the root of the problem is. As was alluded to by Dr Bass, the lispy HF is usually blamed on a Bright speaker but is very very often the Source ! and you will 95% of the time miss it

Thats the reason i would be very very careful choosing the source first and understand it inside out . and that would be the last component I would want to change (Ideally)

So i would again not talk about it as the price. it is just a guideline and a way to fix your budget, but the focus on quality is what is important. if you find a source at a lower price Fantastic !

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

These things also depend on one's attitude to the whole hifi thing. Is a person buying with the intention of getting into the hifi upgrade game, taking constant interest in available kit, buying as and when finance and availability allows? Or would they rather feel that they are going to be content for, at least several years ahead?

Quite often, the latter wish to take advice from the former, as the former have the greater experience.

 

[Dr.Bass]

These things also depend on one's attitude to the whole hifi thing. Is a person buying with the intention of getting into the hifi upgrade game, taking constant interest in available kit, buying as and when finance and availability allows? Or would they rather feel that they are going to be content for, at least several years ahead?

Quite often, the latter wish to take advice from the former, as the former have the greater experience.

No one really wants or plans to upgrade (spend more money), it just so happens because of various reasons, many a times it is to resolve a weakness in the system. Some care, some do not. If one doesnt care, any of the approaches would do, if one does then all this discussion would probably help.

 

[Dr.Bass]

@DrBass - I could apply the same logic the other way round as well. If there is a quality gap between either ends of the chain, the same needs to be identified and fixed to improve the performance. The point I am trying to make (in my earlier post) is that getting a good digital source is relatively cheaper and if distribute my budget as some FMs have suggested i.e. same amount for DAC and speakers, say 50K each, overall quality will be inferior to a combo with 70K speakers and 30K DAC.

All this assumes that expensive DACs are better than cheaper ones. This has however not always been the experience. Somebody in Hyderabad sold his MF M1 DAC woth 35K as it was inferior to ODAC worth 5K .

As Arj has mentioned, cost is just an indicator, it is about emphasis. Emphasis on source is what we are stressing upon.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

... Some care, some do not. If one doesnt care, any of the approaches would do, if one does then all this discussion would probably help.

Very True!

 

[square_wave]

I would go for a balanced approach.

Maximum emphasis on good source and speaker / room balance is the key. Once you have achieved this, look for a good amp.

Source have become slightly cheaper from the old days. The expensive mechanical transport is pretty much out of the equation if you are willing to try out file playback systems. Also chip technology has grown by leaps and bounds. Dacs with good implementation are not super costly any more.

Good vinyl playback is still a bit expensive due to the mechanical challenges.

Matching cables is what you need to have instead of blindly buying expensive ones or cheap ones.

 

[mpw]

knowing which source you want is key.

i see no point in first trying out a dac or a cdp and deciding on the direction you want to take.

The digital world is full of options - in fact there are millions of dacs floating around ( okay... thousands.. ) and i find the CD playback to be simpler - choice wise.- as compared to computer playback.

maybe i am not too technically inclined in this direction.

of course.. to each his own..

mpw

 

[prem]

The way i see it is for budget less than 3 lakhs, pretty much equal spends on source and speakers might be the way to go. However for budgets in excess of 10 lakhs, disproportionate spends is fine. For budgets in between 3 and 10 lakhs, its a personal call.