Interesting test, seems that the speakers held back the electronics in most cases.. I think that you missed an opportunity here to try systems out where the speaker spend is 50%+ of total outlay. Starting with a £1k speaker could have delivered an very interesting comparison - what do you think?
I think the budget balance of the article is actually close to what most people would allocate in buying a system so I understand it in the context of an article which is written for general consumption & think he probably did the right thing.
In terms of how I myself would balance a digital system though, like you I think that 'mullet systems' with a disproportionate amount of money spent on the speakers are my preference.
I would go along with D and C on the importance of speakers. Having read your reviews (Alan) of the systems I think for the cost involved it only goes to reasure me that the route I took was the best. I realise that not all would be willing to take that route, however compare this. CD player Tesco's finest £24.95 - amp Tripath, buit in case with PSU about £120 - speakers Magnat ex-demo reduced to £550 from £760. So even with a 32" digital TV, and all for less than half the cost of your rewiewed systems. One other point you fail to mention if any amp is class 'D'. From my experinces it is only this class, at least in transistor amps that have the inner depth, detail and full bodied warmth that is so desirable. I wonder what your thoughts are on say class 'A' triode amplifiers and what technical reasons you may have to explain their advantages/benefits ? To my techical understanding of audio reproduction, then class 'D' should have all the same merits.
Christopher Harnett got it absolutely right. The purpose of the test was to see what real people buy in these settings (I asked for no special pleading, and got what they felt were good systems under these price circumstances). I also arrived with a budget of 'around £1,500' and was - at each juncture - successfully sold up. Which means, you listen to something, then listen to something else and go with what you (or, more accurately, the typical buyer) prefer. And these systems represent what many buyers clearly prefer, given the wealth of other equipment on offer in both stores (especially Sevenoaks, which is an Aladdin's Cave of hi-fi toys).
Could you do better with a system that placed the accent on speakers? A distinct possibility, but the systems that were demonstrated represent the systems sold in store and they stick to a system with more of a balance, or rather prefer systems that have a distinct electronics bias. To rail-road this and insist on a system that comprised a budget CD and amp with a pair of more expensive speakers would be unrepresentative of the systems sold to people who go in for in-store demonstrations.
It's not that 'mullet systems' (nice phrase, BTW... that will be used elsewhere) are intrinsically any more right or wrong than the systems presented here. But if you walk into a store to listen to such a system, this is what you are likely to walk out with. Whether that's glib selling technique or a accurate analysis of what sounds right in context, I leave for you to decide.
Finally, John, none of the amps listed were class D designs. Most amps at this price operate in either Class AB or strict Class B. And personally, the reason why valve amplifiers sound as they do is arguably nothing to do with their ability to double up as a space heater - it's because they chuck out titanic amounts of even order harmonic distortion (sometimes as much as 3% second harmonic). If that doesn't make the sound fuller and sweeter, what will?
The problem with class D is that you're looking at DIY, Ebay, private import or some very specialized high end dealers to get the good ones. The generality of mass market (Sony etc) class D aren't that good. I love the sound (and indeed own some quite high end ones) but I think Class D, despite it's exquisite sound, is having problems getting reviewed because this type of supply chain.
The Class D approach has it's own sound which is very clear, smooth with a tight bass but it can be criticised. It definitely doesn't image as well as the best valve systems or even some moderate ones and the most common criticism from people who don't like Class D is sterility. Of course these problems can be ameliorated by partnering with warm components that image well but we're still not looking at the perfect amplifier - or at least not yet.
Eventually, one of the majors will crack class D in the same way that the Silicon Valley already has and also offer some widespread Spendor/Meridian/Naim style customer support but they haven't done it yet.
Yes Alan I realise that most valve amps chuck out titanic amounts of even order order harmonic, but that sounds just great to many. What I am suggesting is that class 'D'does nothing like this, but does remove the crossover anomalies that all other ampification methods have. The one thing that class 'A' has allways had in it's favour is the lack of crossover problems. If you understood the technology of class 'D' you would realise that it also does not have any crossover problems, that is why it sounds like class 'A', from my own listening experinces I find this to be true, but it also does not have the 3% expected distortion of a 7 Watt triode amp. Some years ago I designed and built a valve amp using ECL86 valves with fixed bias, and it sounded sweet and beutiful, very similar to my Tripath class 'D' so explain that if you can !! To my mind compareing one class 'B'amp to another is like comparing one copper cable to another, they are the same technogy and therefor the same animal, but change the technology and you can resonalbly expect a change in the result. Understand that I am with you all the way, but untill you hear a competent class 'D' system you are not in a position to judge !!! John...
I think Christopher Harnett nailed it once again. The problem with Class D is two-fold. Those products that are in production:
a) Sound terrible, but are reasonably widely available. Or, b) Sound wonderful, but are effectively sidelined due to their limited availability
Worse, the wonderful-sounding ones seem to be deeply limited in terms of power output, making them an amplifier in search of a loudspeaker. This doesn't sit comfortably with manufacturers building speakers with 86dB efficiency ratings, nor with the dealers who have to sell such things. Given that since the 1960s, the trend has been for less and less efficient speakers, using weightier (but more accurate) drive units, this means good sounding class D entails a long-winded search through the brochures to find something efficient enough to give the system enough dynamic headroom.
OK on all points raised, I did have great difficulty getting the 100WPC class 'T' module and as you rightly say it became a DIY job, but coupled to the the massive Magnat 'Vintage 650' speakers, the sound is like nothing I've ever heard before. A Hi Fi friend, on hearing this, went into disbelief, and looked around for the surround sound speakers. Such was the imageing and ambience. I know we all get excited by our own latest find, but having grown up in the Hi Fi hayday of Leak, Radford, Thorens and Quad electrostatics, I feel faily confident of my hearing. I stongly beleive that class 'D' and all it's devivatives will become the mainstay of amplification over the next few years, as the technology overcomes many of the biggest problems that have hindered solid state amplification for the past 30 years, and that is crossover distortion !! No dought there are still improvements to come, EMI and difficult loads etc. but it can only get better. Up untill a year ago I would also have maintained the view that unltimatly valve was the only option for that tireless fat sound, but now I'm a convert, however there is nothing in the specs. to indicate this as measurements appear to miss the point, I think largely because they get swamped by the EMI output. I have plans for a super efficient filter system and the will conduct my own measurements to confirm this. Note also that I come to Hi Fi, not from the mags or high street shopping, on a Saturday afternoon, but from a lifetime of electronics design and development, often with hi-def video signals and top notch audio in theatre and group equipment. Trust me it's worth a listen !!
Alan, I'd disagree with your final paragraph. The Nuforce, Bel Canto and Channel Islands will do pretty much anything any of would want in terms of power. The Nuforce 9.02 that I'm running peak out at 350 watts, Channel Islands do a 400 watt monoblock, Flying Mole do a 100 watt amp and Icepower units are found doing 500watts. That allied to damping factors in the thousands really does mean that the big ones will drive almost anything. The problem is, as we've both been saying, availability of these almost pocket sized amps is limited and you don't see them on the internet in the big UK box shifters like Superfi or Hifibitz.
Talking about one that does fit your model though, I really can't understand why the Trends Audio unit hasn't found a major distribution deal yet. It's comparatively well made and it's priced as an impulse purchase.
John, I'd also disagree with you about some of those classic amps. I've got a fully restored, concourse condition Leak ST20 and it's close to the standards of the amps that we've been talking about. I think the difference between what you heard in the 60's and 70's and what can be done now with those amps is that we didn't know then what we know now about setup. Physical isolation and shielding transforms them. I've also seen the new Radford STA25 which is a formidable piece of engineering. In imaging terms, they are better than digital.
Going back to D Berkman's argument for the mullet approach; a key thing is that development of the CD player is leading them all to sound very similar. When you see the measurements for them (with a few exceptions where the response is emphasised at the top and bottom deliberately), they're ruler flat. When it comes to describing the differences between some of them, it can be difficult.
I'm quite surprised that given the strength of people's views as to whether cables sound different, that there isn't a debate about whether CD players generally sound the same. What you do see now though is a growing body of opinion that emphasises the speaker in the audio chain although this is certainly not the view of the majority yet.
One quick point in reply, let me stress again that class 'D''T' or whatever a company calls it, IS NOT DIGITAL as in 16/24 bits. The basics of class 'D' is totally analog, the information being carried as a time difference rather than a voltage, similer to analog FM radio, please read my article on this site !
Good points there Christopher, I'm surprised that dealers don't emphasise the speaker/room interaction importance (mainly cause they can't be arsed, and it requires home demos etc). But that probably accounts for 70-80% of the resultant sound quality/tonal balance/detail etc, that you will experience. After that both amps and cd will account for 10-15% each of the sound difference that one will hear. Whereas cables and other bits and bobs (and depending on whether you're a believer!?) another 0-5%... imho etc. Once you're spending £5-600+ on electronics the laws of diminishing returns kick in quite rapidly after that, where for speakers that point is more like £1500+. Which is why it's worth spending a few hundred more on speakers in a £2k system than electronics or cables etc imo..
The BelCanto, FlyMo et al are sensational products, that have singlehandedly failed to get under the dealers' radar. It is a shame, but this represents a snapshot of what people actually buy in demonstration today. At least in microcosm. Yes, people who still buy on demonstration are buying Class D amps when they can get their hands on them. But that's not a common thing at this time.
As to the concept that people are set on cables sounding different but not about CD, I respectfully disagree. Those who think cables sound different think CD players sound very different to one another, it's just that they consider that battle to have been already won. People are unlikely to change CD players every few months in a desperate OCD-like search for the ultimate, but the people who shout about cables are the same people who go to dealers to listen to five different CD players and decide one sounds better than the others.
I have also heard many ill-matched systems that, for whatever reason, sound terrible. Most of these are in some way unbalanced, perhaps with a loony expensive source component driving a cheap amp and speakers, a cheap source and speakers making a good amplifier shout and screech or a fine pair of speakers thoroughly messed up by a shoddy sounding cheap source and amp. Which is why, for general recommendations, I strongly advocate evenly balanced systems.
It is possible to create a £2,000 system using £1,500 speakers and a budget amp and CD, but whether it will sound reliably 'good' in a wide range of settings and with a broad spread of musical styles, who knows?
I wouldn't say that all CD players sound the same but I would say that above a certain level (roughly £400-ish) they start to sound similar to a far, greater degree than other components. I would also say that the measurements are telling a degree of truth (though as always, not the whole truth) which seems to match up with my perceptual experiences.
I think that as you move up the high end, towards high fidelity, components do generally start to sound more similar as they become more accurate. The point where quality creates a point of convergence with speakers is much later because they are the least perfect element in the chain.
It will be interesting to see whether this applies increasingly to amplification as we move forward and we progressively abandon the linear power supply.
IMO It's valid to use a radically unbalanced system but slightly more difficult to get it right.
D, I agree with you in your attribution of 70% to the room.
Mind you, going back to the test, one of the conclusions that has been reached, is that dealers are likely to mismatch the system 50-75% of the time, especially wrt speakers.
That's why it is important for the beginner to read up on system matching through the mags and forums etc to at least compare a couple of options reccomended against the dealers favorite systems imo.
Incidentally, here is a fascinating translation of a Spanish blind test where a mullet system went head to head with a more balanced high end system based on a Wadia etc using the same speakers.
There are some clear problems with the test - sample size, fundamental problems with blind tests in general etc etc but it's interesting all the same.
I wouldn't say the speakers were mis-matched in 50%-75% of the tests at all. And I should know, I sat in on the tests in a very direct way. These were four very different systems, relating to four very different notional customer demands.
In fact, I felt these were very well selected systems in the main. Swapping the Focal for the Rega in the two Infidelity systems for exapmle, would produce far less successful results than the systems as they stand. The same is slightly less true for the two Sevenoaks systems, because the Monitor Audio was a very tough act to follow and would sound extremely good with the Musical Fidelity kit as well as the Cyrus.
However, the purpose of the B&W iwas very specifically style-led in this context. The speakers had to sound good in situ, but they had a specific size and decorative weighting as well. A different agenda than the rest, I grant you, but no more or less valid than the others.
Fair point Alan, and mismatch was probably the wrong word to use, as they all produced an acceptable result to your ears (7/10 worse score), so it goes to show that you're not going to leave the store with a poor system by any means.
Well at least this has sparked some healthy debate and reaction, and that's mainly down to your excellent presentation.
So given your experience with the many components at your disposal, what would be your starting point and first reccomendation? Personally I would have started with the new Cambridge 740 amp and cd, and then try a few pairs of floorstanders to match/suit the room, but then that's not a one stop system....
I agree, and the initial prospect for the system involved the cheaper 640 range, possibly with Mordaunt Short stand-mounts. But this stood out as an exception and other similar systems cost many times more.
The new 740 are exceptionally good products, as are the Creek evo models. Given they come from the same place, the Creek Evo CD and amp partnered with the little Epos 12.2 stand mounts is a good starting place, too.
