Best reciever & cd-player combo for $500? $1000?

[Peter Werner]

My old CD-player and receiver are pretty much shot and I want to
upgrade. I figure I'd like to spend about $500 to replace them, but
would consider going higher, especially if I found something
discounted.

So, here's my question - if you had $500 to spend on a cd-player and
receiver, about how much would you put into each? Would you spend some
of that on a graphic equlizer or some other component? Any specific
recommendations for each component in said price range?

How about if you had $1000 to spend?

Thanks in advance for any info you can provide.

Peter

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 19 Aug 2003 18:29:44 -0700, (Peter Werner)
wrote:

>My old CD-player and receiver are pretty much shot and I want to
>upgrade. I figure I'd like to spend about $500 to replace them, but
>would consider going higher, especially if I found something
>discounted.
>
>So, here's my question - if you had $500 to spend on a cd-player and
>receiver, about how much would you put into each? Would you spend some
>of that on a graphic equlizer or some other component? Any specific
>recommendations for each component in said price range?
>
>How about if you had $1000 to spend?

Are you sure you need the tuner portion of the receiver? (Some of us
do, some don't.) If you do not, a good integrated amp would be a
better use of resources than a receiver.

Kal

[George Mann]

[posted and mailed]

(Peter Werner) wrote in
om:

> My old CD-player and receiver are pretty much shot and I want to
> upgrade. I figure I'd like to spend about $500 to replace them, but
> would consider going higher, especially if I found something
> discounted.
>
> So, here's my question - if you had $500 to spend on a cd-player and
> receiver, about how much would you put into each? Would you spend some
> of that on a graphic equlizer or some other component? Any specific
> recommendations for each component in said price range?
>
> How about if you had $1000 to spend?
>
> Thanks in advance for any info you can provide.
>
> Peter

A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and cheap,
efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state system within
your budget!

[Joseph Oberlander]

Peter Werner wrote:
> My old CD-player and receiver are pretty much shot and I want to
> upgrade. I figure I'd like to spend about $500 to replace them, but
> would consider going higher, especially if I found something
> discounted.
>
> So, here's my question - if you had $500 to spend on a cd-player and
> receiver, about how much would you put into each? Would you spend some
> of that on a graphic equlizer or some other component? Any specific
> recommendations for each component in said price range?
>
> How about if you had $1000 to spend?

What are your speakers like? We need to know what the intended use
is. Afterall, if you are driving big 80's era monster towers, it's
going to be different than a surround system or a pair of planars.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George Mann wrote:

> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and cheap,
> efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state system within
> your budget!

(takes the bong from George and puts it out)

How many times do I have to tell you to stop smoking that cheap stuff?

[Arny Krueger]

"George Mann" > wrote in message
...

> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and cheap,
> efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state system within
> your budget!

And Marc Phillips can fly under his own power.

Must be some pretty good stuff you're smoking there, George!

[George Mann]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

>
> "George Mann" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and cheap,
>> efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state system within
>> your budget!
>
> And Marc Phillips can fly under his own power.
>
> Must be some pretty good stuff you're smoking there, George!
>
>

It sure SOUNDS pretty good!

[Max Holubitsky]

> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and cheap,
> efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state system within
> your budget!

A good tube amplifier can sound excellent, but I couldn't disagree more
about the cheap speakers part. Not to mention that a vintage receiver is
unlikely to be working 100% properly, and the original poster is trying to
replace worn out equipment - why replace worn out equipment with more worn
out equipment? Good speakers are the key to good sound! Personally I think
that the amp should be bought to suit the speakers, and not the other way
around.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Max Holubitxky wrote:


>> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and cheap,
>> efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state system within
>> your budget!
>
>A good tube amplifier can sound excellent, but I couldn't disagree more
>about the cheap speakers part. Not to mention that a vintage receiver is
>unlikely to be working 100% properly, and the original poster is trying to
>replace worn out equipment - why replace worn out equipment with more worn
>out equipment? Good speakers are the key to good sound! Personally I think
>that the amp should be bought to suit the speakers, and not the other way
>around.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

No question about it. After making a decision re. speakers, then, and only
then, should new decisions about receivers, amplifiers, etc. be made. Given
the wide variance in sensitivities, resistance, and for those who believe in
individual preference, tonal characteristics of various speakers, it would be
somewhat foolhardy to reverse this order of selection.

Also given a fixed budget, I would suggest that the majority, %age-wise, be
spent on speakers, not on electronics. Speaker quality will have a lot more to
do with the ultimate sound of your system than the "bells and whistles" or
power rating of your amplifier, for example, in most cases.

As for the used equipment issue, while I agree that there are risks involved in
terms of durability, a lot of people (myself included) have been able to get
more quality for a given amount of dollars by purchasing used equipment. As
always, caveat emptor, but the risks can be mnimized by, for example, buying
from a reputable dealer who may have trade-ins, demos, etc. that he is willing
to guarantee. Also venues such as eBay and/or Audiogon, to name a few, can
often be sources for some very good deals, provided the prospective purchaser
does a prudent investigation of what he(she) is buying.



Bruce J. Richman

[George Mann]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in
. ca:

>> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and
>> cheap, efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state
>> system within your budget!
>
> A good tube amplifier can sound excellent, but I couldn't disagree
> more about the cheap speakers part. Not to mention that a vintage
> receiver is unlikely to be working 100% properly, and the original
> poster is trying to replace worn out equipment - why replace worn out
> equipment with more worn out equipment? Good speakers are the key to
> good sound! Personally I think that the amp should be bought to suit
> the speakers, and not the other way around.
>
>

Get a clue!

[Arny Krueger]

"George Mann" > wrote in message

> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in
> . ca:
>
>>> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and
>>> cheap, efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state
>>> system within your budget!
>>
>> A good tube amplifier can sound excellent, but I couldn't disagree
>> more about the cheap speakers part. Not to mention that a vintage
>> receiver is unlikely to be working 100% properly, and the original
>> poster is trying to replace worn out equipment - why replace worn out
>> equipment with more worn out equipment? Good speakers are the key to
>> good sound! Personally I think that the amp should be bought to suit
>> the speakers, and not the other way around.

> Get a clue!

If anybody does that Mann, they won't buy your bogus tube propaganda for
sure.

You might do better if you try recommending that people get lobotomies so
that they can better enjoy tubes.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:08:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"George Mann" > wrote in message

>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "George Mann" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "George Mann" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and
>>>>>> cheap, efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state
>>>>>> system within your budget!
>>>
>>>>> Must be some pretty good stuff you're smoking there, George!
>>>
>>>> It sure SOUNDS pretty good!
>>>
>>> OK, so you're deaf, Mann.
>
>> Arny is a nutcase that does his listening thru measurements with his PC.
>
>We're going to have to add illiteracy to your list of faults, Mann given my
>other posts very recent posts about listening to Beethoven.

As if you said anything meaningful about such "listening". Heck, you
wouldn't even have to have listened to them to make the sort of
statements that you made...

[George Mann]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

> "George Mann" > wrote in message
>
>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in
>> . ca:
>>
>>>> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and
>>>> cheap, efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state
>>>> system within your budget!
>>>
>>> A good tube amplifier can sound excellent, but I couldn't disagree
>>> more about the cheap speakers part. Not to mention that a vintage
>>> receiver is unlikely to be working 100% properly, and the original
>>> poster is trying to replace worn out equipment - why replace worn out
>>> equipment with more worn out equipment? Good speakers are the key to
>>> good sound! Personally I think that the amp should be bought to suit
>>> the speakers, and not the other way around.
>
>> Get a clue!
>
> If anybody does that Mann, they won't buy your bogus tube propaganda for
> sure.
>
> You might do better if you try recommending that people get lobotomies so
> that they can better enjoy tubes.
>
>
>

Did the snotborg say something, or is this troll just rambling on?

[George Mann]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

> "George Mann" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "George Mann" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "George Mann" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and
>>>>>> cheap, efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state
>>>>>> system within your budget!
>>>
>>>>> Must be some pretty good stuff you're smoking there, George!
>>>
>>>> It sure SOUNDS pretty good!
>>>
>>> OK, so you're deaf, Mann.
>
>> Arny is a nutcase that does his listening thru measurements with his
PC.
>
> We're going to have to add illiteracy to your list of faults, Mann given
my
> other posts very recent posts about listening to Beethoven.
>
>>Please don't feed this troll!
>
> That's what "tubes uber alles" posts are - trolls!
>
>

Back in your cage troll!

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:08:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "George Mann" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> "George Mann" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "George Mann" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player
>>>>>>> and cheap, efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid
>>>>>>> state system within your budget!
>>>>
>>>>>> Must be some pretty good stuff you're smoking there, George!
>>>>
>>>>> It sure SOUNDS pretty good!
>>>>
>>>> OK, so you're deaf, Mann.
>>
>>> Arny is a nutcase that does his listening thru measurements with
>>> his PC.
>>
>> We're going to have to add illiteracy to your list of faults, Mann
>> given my other posts very recent posts about listening to Beethoven.

> As if you said anything meaningful about such "listening".

As if you *ever* say anything meaningful, Weil.

> Heck, you
> wouldn't even have to have listened to them to make the sort of
> statements that you made...

Letsee here, somehow I'm under the gun to come up with an Weil-approved
comment after listening to the music of my choice?

What an obsessive, overbearing, objectivist demand!

LOL!

[dave weil]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:18:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>> We're going to have to add illiteracy to your list of faults, Mann
>>> given my other posts very recent posts about listening to Beethoven.
>
>> As if you said anything meaningful about such "listening".
>
>As if you *ever* say anything meaningful, Weil.

Already did...

>> Heck, you
>> wouldn't even have to have listened to them to make the sort of
>> statements that you made...
>
>Letsee here, somehow I'm under the gun to come up with an Weil-approved
>comment after listening to the music of my choice?

You're the one who was bragging about your empty comments about music.
I'm just pointing out that one wouldn't have to have even listened to
the music (and Stephen pointed that out in his own way as well).

>What an obsessive, overbearing, objectivist demand!

Yes, this describes your behavior perfectly...

....thanks.

[Max Holubitsky]

George Mann wrote:

> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in
> . ca:
>
> >> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and
> >> cheap, efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state
> >> system within your budget!
> >
> > A good tube amplifier can sound excellent, but I couldn't disagree
> > more about the cheap speakers part. Not to mention that a vintage
> > receiver is unlikely to be working 100% properly, and the original
> > poster is trying to replace worn out equipment - why replace worn out
> > equipment with more worn out equipment? Good speakers are the key to
> > good sound! Personally I think that the amp should be bought to suit
> > the speakers, and not the other way around.
> >
> >
>
> Get a clue!

Why don't you give me one, and tell me what "cheap speakers", paired with a
reciever with leaky caps and worn out EL84's, will sound anywhere close to
as good as a pair of $500 decent quality speakers paired with, say, an
entry level Yamaha receiver.

An old receiver, unless it is a top notch Mac or Fisher, or Sansui or the
like won't even have decent enough output transformers to give good bass
response. Add to the cost of the receiver new tubes, new capacitors, and
the time it takes a tech to work on it, and I bet you have already passed
the $1000 mark before even considering the other stuff. You could tell me
that the tubes will be fine, but there is no way that I would use 30 year
old used output tubes of questionable origin in my main stereo system!

Then there's the problem of noisy and unavailable potentiometers, non
defeatable tone controls, possibly very expensive tubes (anything with
7591A's), etc etc.

Never mind the fact that cheap speakers will never have flat frequency
response, good bass response, or really any other characteristic that is
desierable for high fidelity sound.

[Max Holubitsky]

> As for the used equipment issue, while I agree that there are risks involved in
> terms of durability, a lot of people (myself included) have been able to get
> more quality for a given amount of dollars by purchasing used equipment.

I am talking specifically about used vacuum tube receivers. These are so old by
now, that they are living on borrowed time, unless they have had a thorough once
over by a competent tech. Finding a competent tech is a total gamble. Recommending
one of these to a non enthusiast is like recommending a '69 Fiat to someone who is
looking at buying a brand new Toyota.

[George M. Middius]

Max Holubitsky said:

> I am talking specifically about used vacuum tube receivers. These are so old by
> now, that they are living on borrowed time, unless they have had a thorough once
> over by a competent tech. Finding a competent tech is a total gamble. Recommending
> one of these to a non enthusiast is like recommending a '69 Fiat to someone who is
> looking at buying a brand new Toyota.

Good point of reference. How about this: Is it more like
recommending a $12,000 post-hole digger to a guy who needs to sink
some stakes for his tomato plants in the back yard, or more like
recommending a great-sounding pair of speakers to Arnii Kroodork?

[George Mann]

George M. Middius > wrote in
:

>
>
> Max Holubitsky said:
>
>> I am talking specifically about used vacuum tube receivers. These are
>> so old by now, that they are living on borrowed time, unless they
>> have had a thorough once over by a competent tech. Finding a
>> competent tech is a total gamble. Recommending one of these to a non
>> enthusiast is like recommending a '69 Fiat to someone who is looking
>> at buying a brand new Toyota.
>
> Good point of reference. How about this: Is it more like
> recommending a $12,000 post-hole digger to a guy who needs to sink
> some stakes for his tomato plants in the back yard, or more like
> recommending a great-sounding pair of speakers to Arnii Kroodork?
>
>
>
>

You guy's really are blowing this out of proportion. Ofcourse he/she is
going to want to look for a tubed unit in good operating condition.

My reference to cheap speakers are suitable speakers that can be
purchased "cheaply" in the used market, and new as well.

I am currently into low powered SET's. To my ears, they are the best
sounding amps available. I am waiting for a 4wpc Philips AG9016
integrate to be delivered as we speak. I can't get enough!

Nope, no more hard, flat, bright, fake, fatiguing sound of Stoic-Scrape
for me (dont even bother,Arny)!

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:18:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>>> We're going to have to add illiteracy to your list of faults, Mann
>>>> given my other posts very recent posts about listening to
>>>> Beethoven.
>>
>>> As if you said anything meaningful about such "listening".
>>
>> As if you *ever* say anything meaningful, Weil.

> Already did...

You're delusional, Weil.

>>> Heck, you
>>> wouldn't even have to have listened to them to make the sort of
>>> statements that you made...

>> Letsee here, somehow I'm under the gun to come up with an
>> Weil-approved comment after listening to the music of my choice?

> You're the one who was bragging about your empty comments about music.

Letsee here, somehow I'm under the gun to come up with an Weil-approved
comment after listening to the music of my choice?

LOL!

> I'm just pointing out that one wouldn't have to have even listened to
> the music (and Stephen pointed that out in his own way as well).

Why do I have to prove anything about listening to music for enjoyment?

>> What an obsessive, overbearing, objectivist demand!

> Yes, this describes your behavior perfectly...

Very lame, Weil.

Lame, squared.

[Max Holubitsky]

> Everything is a gamble!
>

Fair enough, but the odds are not always the same - and let's face it, you
have to be pretty into audio to even consider a tube amp. A good SS amp will
last for decades without any service at all - this has not been my
experience with tube equipment, and anything vintage will almost certainly
need attention of some sort.

> >>
> >> My reference to cheap speakers are suitable speakers that can be
> >> purchased "cheaply" in the used market, and new as well.
> >>
> >
> > Which speakers do you have in mind exactly? Maybe my definition of
> > expensive is the same as your definition of cheap?
> >
>
> My definition of cheap is exactly that.

Make, model? Most cheap speakers I've heard, especially sensitive ones,
sound terrible.

>
> I have both heard and owned some of the very best SS amps out there.

It's been 10 years since I used a SS amp for more than a few days in my
main system, so I am basing my opinion on other people's systems I've heard.

>
> > In my opinion the biggest sleepers out there, if you want a good deal,
> > are the 1970s Yamaha CR series receivers. I honestly was blown away by
> > the sound quality a CR-800 produced, when I hooked it up to my Tannoy
> > Saturn S6's. It was smooth, deep bass, plenty of power. I was
> > questioning why I had all this tube equipment heating up my room,
> > until I hooked it back up, and noticed a subtle improvement.
> >
>
> I bought a CR2020 in 1979-80,and used it for 3 years before someone
> stole it. While I agree that these receivers are good performers, they
> are no match for SET's, nor are the Accuphase amps that I have owned.

Nice - that must have been an awesome receiver. I can't see a casual
listener ever wanting more than one of those amps will deliver.

I am going to have to try the SET thing before I totally discount it,
because my experience with tubes is completely based on PP amps. I really
want to see what all the fuss is about - it can't be *all* hype, but I
listen to a lot of loud music, and I don't know if under 10 watts would do
it for me.

[George Mann]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in
. ca:

> > Everything is a gamble!
>>
>
> Fair enough, but the odds are not always the same - and let's face it,
> you have to be pretty into audio to even consider a tube amp. A good
> SS amp will last for decades without any service at all - this has not
> been my experience with tube equipment, and anything vintage will
> almost certainly need attention of some sort.
>
>> >>
>> >> My reference to cheap speakers are suitable speakers that can be
>> >> purchased "cheaply" in the used market, and new as well.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Which speakers do you have in mind exactly? Maybe my definition of
>> > expensive is the same as your definition of cheap?
>> >
>>
>> My definition of cheap is exactly that.
>
> Make, model? Most cheap speakers I've heard, especially sensitive
> ones, sound terrible.
>
>>

Everything from speakers built using Fostex drivers to Polk monitor
series bookshelf's, most of which can be purchased/built for under $100.
Many of the coaxials from the golden years also perform quite well with
SET's.

>> I have both heard and owned some of the very best SS amps out there.
>
> It's been 10 years since I used a SS amp for more than a few days in
> my main system, so I am basing my opinion on other people's systems
> I've heard.
>
>>
>> > In my opinion the biggest sleepers out there, if you want a good
>> > deal, are the 1970s Yamaha CR series receivers. I honestly was
>> > blown away by the sound quality a CR-800 produced, when I hooked it
>> > up to my Tannoy Saturn S6's. It was smooth, deep bass, plenty of
>> > power. I was questioning why I had all this tube equipment heating
>> > up my room, until I hooked it back up, and noticed a subtle
>> > improvement.
>> >
>>
>> I bought a CR2020 in 1979-80,and used it for 3 years before someone
>> stole it. While I agree that these receivers are good performers,
>> they are no match for SET's, nor are the Accuphase amps that I have
>> owned.
>
> Nice - that must have been an awesome receiver. I can't see a casual
> listener ever wanting more than one of those amps will deliver.
>
> I am going to have to try the SET thing before I totally discount it,
> because my experience with tubes is completely based on PP amps. I
> really want to see what all the fuss is about - it can't be *all*
> hype, but I listen to a lot of loud music, and I don't know if under
> 10 watts would do it for me.
>
>
>
>

If you can afford them, I suggest that you start with the higher powered
SET's.

Are you familiar with OTL's and electrostatics?

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Werner" > wrote in message
om

> My old CD-player and receiver are pretty much shot and I want to
> upgrade.

Please expand on "pretty much shot".

>I figure I'd like to spend about $500 to replace them, but
> would consider going higher, especially if I found something
> discounted.

Bizarre logic - you spend more if offered a discount?

> So, here's my question - if you had $500 to spend on a cd-player and
> receiver, about how much would you put into each?

Why don't you lay out your requirements a little more clearly. Stereo?
Multichannel?

>Would you spend some of that on a graphic equalizer or some other
component?

Please tell us about your existing speakers and room.

[Arny Krueger]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
. ca


>George Mann" > wrote in message


>> A good vintage tube receiver/integrate with a cheap cd player and
>> cheap, efficient speakers will readily outperform any solid state
>> system within your budget!

> A good tube amplifier can sound excellent, but I couldn't disagree
> more about the cheap speakers part.

Good point number one.

> Not to mention that a vintage
> receiver is unlikely to be working 100% properly, and the original
> poster is trying to replace worn out equipment - why replace worn out
> equipment with more worn out equipment?

Good point number two.

However, there is a third point, and that is that many relatively good
vintage tube receiver/integrated pieces were actually weak-sister
representatives of tube technology when they were new. It was no secret that
tubed receivers were very problematical because of heat and weight issues.
When you bought a tubed receiver you didn't get a Marantz-like power amp
with a tuner. You didn't even get a Dyna-like power amp with a tuner. You
got a down-sized tubes, lightened output and power transformers, and a
crowded chassis that exacerbated natural heat problems.

>Good speakers are the key to
> good sound! Personally I think that the amp should be bought to suit
> the speakers, and not the other way around.

Since just about all speakers made in the last 30 years were designed to be
used with SS amplifiers...

[Grant Sellek]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote ...
> "Peter Werner" > wrote
>
> >I figure I'd like to spend about $500 to replace them, but
> > would consider going higher, especially if I found something
> > discounted.
>
> Bizarre logic - you spend more if offered a discount?

I think he means going from $500 speakers to $600 speakers won't buy
enough improvement to be worth exceeding his comfortable budget, but
if he could get $1000 speakers for $600, the improvement might be
worth the financial discomfort.

Grant

[Grant Sellek]

George Mann > wrote ...
>
> Nope, no more hard, flat, bright, fake, fatiguing sound of Stoic-Scrape
> for me!

George, I think you may have just described your own opinion of your speakers!

I'm pleased you found an amp that neutralises them... :)

Grant

[Arny Krueger]

"Grant Sellek" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote ...
>> "Peter Werner" > wrote
>>
>>> I figure I'd like to spend about $500 to replace them, but
>>> would consider going higher, especially if I found something
>>> discounted.
>>
>> Bizarre logic - you spend more if offered a discount?
>
> I think he means going from $500 speakers to $600 speakers won't buy
> enough improvement to be worth exceeding his comfortable budget, but
> if he could get $1000 speakers for $600, the improvement might be
> worth the financial discomfort.

I presumed that thinking of that sort might be involved, but it still isn't
good logic.

When all is said and done speakers need to be evaluated based on their cost
and their benefits at the point of sale. The fact that speakers might have
their price jacked up to $1,000, and then subsequently discounted to $500
shows up as $500 worth of cost, not $500 worth of benefit.

To me and I think most purchasers, the benefits of a speaker are primarily
sound quality and appearance.

One might argue that the $1,000 speakers have $1,000 worth of some
intangible such as "panache", but they also might have $500 worth of some
other intangible such as "mark them down LOTS because they ain't worth the
current asking price".

The existence of really broad auction markets like eBay eliminates much of
the "one-time, only" justification for making a big-ticket purchase.
Experience shows that if some kind of thing goes up for sale on eBay once,
another one like it is probably going to go up shortly. If someone goes
crazy for one auction and bids prices up unreasonably, just wait for the
next auction of the same kind of auction.

I think that the ghost of eBay stalks every mid and large ticket purchase
these days, especially those that are in some sense discretionary.

[George Mann]

(Grant Sellek) wrote in
om:

> George Mann > wrote ...
>>
>> Nope, no more hard, flat, bright, fake, fatiguing sound of
>> Stoic-Scrape for me!
>
> George, I think you may have just described your own opinion of your
> speakers!
>
> I'm pleased you found an amp that neutralises them... :)
>
> Grant
>

The problem with you is you presume too much and know too little!

Welcome to Krooborgs club!

[Max Holubitsky]

> However, there is a third point, and that is that many relatively good
> vintage tube receiver/integrated pieces were actually weak-sister
> representatives of tube technology when they were new. It was no secret
that
> tubed receivers were very problematical because of heat and weight issues.
> When you bought a tubed receiver you didn't get a Marantz-like power amp
> with a tuner. You didn't even get a Dyna-like power amp with a tuner. You
> got a down-sized tubes, lightened output and power transformers, and a
> crowded chassis that exacerbated natural heat problems.
>

Some of the Fisher receivers, Mac receivers, and Sansui receivers are known
to have good quality power sections, with "real" output iron. Conversely,
some separates were not high quality. I generally agree with you though.

> >Good speakers are the key to
> > good sound! Personally I think that the amp should be bought to suit
> > the speakers, and not the other way around.
>
> Since just about all speakers made in the last 30 years were designed to
be
> used with SS amplifiers...
>
>

Replace SS amplifiers with amplifiers having a low output impedance. What
difference does it make, from the speakers perspective, if the amplifier is
tube or solid state, provided it has a decent damping factor, and adequate
power?

[Arny Krueger]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message


>> However, there is a third point, and that is that many relatively
>> good vintage tube receiver/integrated pieces were actually
>> weak-sister representatives of tube technology when they were new.
>> It was no secret that tubed receivers were very problematical
>> because of heat and weight issues. When you bought a tubed receiver
>> you didn't get a Marantz-like power amp with a tuner. You didn't
>> even get a Dyna-like power amp with a tuner. You got a down-sized
>> tubes, lightened output and power transformers, and a crowded
>> chassis that exacerbated natural heat problems.

> Some of the Fisher receivers, Mac receivers, and Sansui receivers are
> known to have good quality power sections, with "real" output iron.

Could you be more vague?

> Conversely, some separates were not high quality. I generally agree
> with you though.

As a rule and this includes Fisher and Sansui receivers, tubed receivers had
critical components, particularly transformers, that were small and light
compared to even mediocre separates.

>>> Good speakers are the key to
>>> good sound! Personally I think that the amp should be bought to suit
>>> the speakers, and not the other way around.

>> Since just about all speakers made in the last 30 years were
>> designed to be used with SS amplifiers...

> Replace SS amplifiers with amplifiers having a low output impedance.

Rare, expensive birds.

> What difference does it make, from the speakers perspective, if the
> amplifier is tube or solid state, provided it has a decent damping
> factor, and adequate power?

The difference is that SS amps with low output impedances are essentially
the rule, and tubed power amps with comparably low output impedances were
the exception. Name even one tubed receiver that had a damping factor of 100
at 20 Hz. How many SS amps do that or better? 100's!