[Sonnova]

I just put a low-cost high-end system together for a young friend and I am
truly impressed with the results!

Here's what I did.

Ordered a pair of Magneplanar MMG speakers directly from Magnepan - $600
Ordered a Yaqin MC 100B integrated tube amp from A Canadian Hi-Fi output on
E-Bay - ~$650.

http://tinyurl.com/yf49gzd

Ordered a Yaqin SD-32A 192KHz, 24-bit upsampling CD player from Canadian
Hi-Fi - $499

http://tinyurl.com/yauxvx4

Cables and interconnects from Monster - ~$60

Total - ~$1810.00 US.

I didn't specify cables and interconnects (everybody here knows how I feel
about the notion that they have a 'sound' anyway), so my young friend just
went to a local electronics store and bought some medium priced Monster
stuff.

I finished setting the system up last night (the amp was the last piece to
come in, It showed up yesterday.

The build quality on the amplifier is magnificent. Ceramic tube sockets,
point-to-point wiring, dual mono design with separate power supply (including
power transformer) for each channel, Nicely finished chassis, the controls
feel precise and the connectors are WBT knockoff and are very rubust and well
made. Were this a US, Japanese, or European amplifier, the cost would be
probably three or four-times the $650 selling price (less about $100
shipping).

This couple has no LP and doesn't need SACD, so I went with the gorgeous
Yaqin upsampling CD unit. Again, the build quality is first rate on this
piece They might buy a digital AM/FM (I recommended the cheap Sony unit) But
other than that and the available to connect their DVD player to the amp for
better sound than their TV can provide, they don't need any other components
(My buddy has shown interest in ripping all of their CDs to iTunes so, I've
also suggested an Apple TV box. I really like mine).

Listening:

After installing the 4-KT88s, the 4-6N8s, and the 2-12AX7s in the amp and
connecting everything together, we turned it on and played a couple Of CDs
that I had brought along (our musical tastes differ, needless to say, and he
had nothing that I could tell anything about by listening to it). I was
gobsmacked to be honest. It sounded great (and looks like a million bucks to
boot). Sure the Maggies don't have much bass to speak of below about 45 Hz
(and they won't even be that good until the Mylar diaphragms loosen-up a
little) and seem a tad soft on the top (just a little, though) but over the
most of the spectrum, the little Maggies acquitted themselves very
respectfully! This just has to be the most Hi-Fi one can get for under two
grand. I'm so impressed that even though I NEED neither, I'm tempted to buy
myself one of the Yaqin MC-100B integrated amps and one of the Yaqin SD-32A
DVD decks!

To say my friend and his wife are ecstatic over the looks of the system as
well as how it sounds, would be an understatement.

Just thought that I would show that really classy high-end audio doesn't have
to cost as much as an upscale new car to be worthy. If it were me, I think
I'd add a sub-woofer to those MMG Maggies, though!

[jwvm]

On Nov 13, 7:08=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
I just put a low-cost high-end system together for a young friend and I a=
m
truly impressed with the results!

Here's what I did.

Ordered a pair of Magneplanar MMG speakers directly from Magnepan - $600
Ordered a Yaqin MC 100B integrated tube amp from A Canadian Hi-Fi output =
on
E-Bay - ~$650.

It is not obvious that a tube amplifier is a good value if you are
trying to achieve high quality at low cost. The distortion specs on
ebay are over 1 %. A good multichannel receiver would have much better
performance and be less expensive.

Ordered a Yaqin SD-32A 192KHz, 24-bit upsampling CD player from Canadian
Hi-Fi - $499


That is also pretty expensive for a CD player. How is it better than a
lower-cost unit from a company like Sony? The DVD player that the
couple already own may not sound significantly different either.
Again, the value here is questionable.


Cables and interconnects from Monster - ~$60

Careful shopping here would also save a bit given that Monster cables
are quite overpriced. Some heavy duty zip cord from Home Depot and
some modestly priced audio cables would work as well. Like you said,
cable does not have a sound. All that is required is a solid
connection.

Total - ~$1810.00 US.

Better choices would have saved them more money. Maybe they could have
purchased a subwoofer or better speakers for the same amount.

snip

This couple has no LP and doesn't need SACD, so I went with the gorgeous
Yaqin upsampling CD unit. Again, the build quality is first rate on this
piece =A0They might buy a digital AM/FM (I recommended the cheap Sony uni=
t) But
other than that and the available to connect their DVD player to the amp =
for
better sound than their TV can provide, they don't need any other compone=
nts
(My buddy has shown interest in ripping all of their CDs to iTunes so, I'=
ve
also suggested an Apple TV box. I really like mine).

A multichannel receiver provides extra value with their DVD player for
watching movies. The tube amp does not have any digital inputs. The
power requirements are also a concern at 280 watts. Future carbon
taxes may be expensive and warm weather operation buts an extra load
on air conditioning.



To say my friend and his wife are ecstatic over the looks of the system a=
s
well as how it sounds, would be an understatement.

For the kind of money spent here, it better look good. The sound
quality is overpriced.

snip

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:13:47 -0800, jwvm wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 13, 7:08=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
I just put a low-cost high-end system together for a young friend and I am
truly impressed with the results!

Here's what I did.

Ordered a pair of Magneplanar MMG speakers directly from Magnepan - $600
Ordered a Yaqin MC 100B integrated tube amp from A Canadian Hi-Fi output on
E-Bay - ~$650.

It is not obvious that a tube amplifier is a good value if you are
trying to achieve high quality at low cost. The distortion specs on
ebay are over 1 %. A good multichannel receiver would have much better
performance and be less expensive.

The Distortion specs are wrong. The guy I E-mailed at Canadian Hi-Fi
responded that the decimal was in the wrong place. Instead of 1.5%, it should
be 0.15%. Why they haven't changed it, I can't say.

[quoted text deleted -- deb]


To say my friend and his wife are ecstatic over the looks of the system as
well as how it sounds, would be an understatement.

For the kind of money spent here, it better look good. The sound
quality is overpriced.

It looks and sounds excellent. They are very happy with the system and so am
I. They wanted tubes and got 'em.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Nov 13, 4:08=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
I just put a low-cost high-end system together for a young friend and I a=
m
truly impressed with the results!

Here's what I did.

Ordered a pair of Magneplanar MMG speakers directly from Magnepan - $600
Ordered a Yaqin MC 100B integrated tube amp from A Canadian Hi-Fi output =
on
E-Bay - ~$650.

http://tinyurl.com/yf49gzd

Ordered a Yaqin SD-32A 192KHz, 24-bit upsampling CD player from Canadian
Hi-Fi - $499

http://tinyurl.com/yauxvx4

Cables and interconnects from Monster - ~$60

Total - ~$1810.00 US.

I didn't specify cables and interconnects (everybody here knows how I fee=
l
about the notion that they have a 'sound' anyway), so my young friend jus=
t
went to a local electronics store and bought some medium priced Monster
stuff.

I finished setting the system up last night (the amp was the last piece t=
o
come in, It showed up yesterday.

The build quality on the amplifier is magnificent. Ceramic tube sockets,
point-to-point wiring, dual mono design with separate power supply (inclu=
ding
power transformer) for each channel, Nicely finished chassis, the control=
s
feel precise and the connectors are WBT knockoff and are very rubust and =
well
made. Were this a US, Japanese, or European amplifier, the cost would be
probably three or four-times the $650 selling price (less about $100
shipping).

This couple has no LP and doesn't need SACD, so I went with the gorgeous
Yaqin upsampling CD unit. Again, the build quality is first rate on this
piece =A0They might buy a digital AM/FM (I recommended the cheap Sony uni=
t) But
other than that and the available to connect their DVD player to the amp =
for
better sound than their TV can provide, they don't need any other compone=
nts
(My buddy has shown interest in ripping all of their CDs to iTunes so, I'=
ve
also suggested an Apple TV box. I really like mine).

Listening:

After installing the 4-KT88s, the 4-6N8s, and the 2-12AX7s in the amp and
connecting everything together, we turned it on and played a couple Of CD=
s
that I had brought along (our musical tastes differ, needless to say, and=
he
had nothing that I could tell anything about by listening to it). I was
gobsmacked to be honest. It sounded great (and looks like a million bucks=
to
boot). Sure the Maggies don't have much bass to speak of below about 45 H=
z
(and they won't even be that good until the Mylar diaphragms loosen-up a
little) and seem a tad soft on the top (just a little, though) but over t=
he
most of the spectrum, the little Maggies acquitted themselves very
respectfully! This just has to be the most Hi-Fi one can get for under tw=
o
grand. I'm so impressed that even though I NEED neither, I'm tempted to b=
uy
myself one of the Yaqin MC-100B integrated amps and one of the Yaqin SD-3=
2A
DVD decks!

To say my friend and his wife are ecstatic over the looks of the system a=
s
well as how it sounds, would be an understatement.

Just thought that I would show that really classy high-end audio doesn't =
have
to cost as much as an upscale new car to be worthy. If it were me, I thin=
k
I'd add a sub-woofer to those MMG Maggies, though!

I have always been very impressed by the little Maggies as well as the
Vandersteen 1s. Looks like you found an amazing value in tube
electronics. Nicely done.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:41:32 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 13, 4:08=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
I just put a low-cost high-end system together for a young friend and I a=
m
truly impressed with the results!

Here's what I did.

Ordered a pair of Magneplanar MMG speakers directly from Magnepan - $600
Ordered a Yaqin MC 100B integrated tube amp from A Canadian Hi-Fi output =
on
E-Bay - ~$650.

http://tinyurl.com/yf49gzd

Ordered a Yaqin SD-32A 192KHz, 24-bit upsampling CD player from Canadian
Hi-Fi - $499

http://tinyurl.com/yauxvx4

Cables and interconnects from Monster - ~$60

Total - ~$1810.00 US.

I didn't specify cables and interconnects (everybody here knows how I fee=
l
about the notion that they have a 'sound' anyway), so my young friend jus=
t
went to a local electronics store and bought some medium priced Monster
stuff.

I finished setting the system up last night (the amp was the last piece t=
o
come in, It showed up yesterday.

The build quality on the amplifier is magnificent. Ceramic tube sockets,
point-to-point wiring, dual mono design with separate power supply (inclu=
ding
power transformer) for each channel, Nicely finished chassis, the control=
s
feel precise and the connectors are WBT knockoff and are very rubust and =
well
made. Were this a US, Japanese, or European amplifier, the cost would be
probably three or four-times the $650 selling price (less about $100
shipping).

This couple has no LP and doesn't need SACD, so I went with the gorgeous
Yaqin upsampling CD unit. Again, the build quality is first rate on this
piece =A0They might buy a digital AM/FM (I recommended the cheap Sony uni=
t) But
other than that and the available to connect their DVD player to the amp =
for
better sound than their TV can provide, they don't need any other compone=
nts
(My buddy has shown interest in ripping all of their CDs to iTunes so, I'=
ve
also suggested an Apple TV box. I really like mine).

Listening:

After installing the 4-KT88s, the 4-6N8s, and the 2-12AX7s in the amp and
connecting everything together, we turned it on and played a couple Of CD=
s
that I had brought along (our musical tastes differ, needless to say, and=
he
had nothing that I could tell anything about by listening to it). I was
gobsmacked to be honest. It sounded great (and looks like a million bucks=
to
boot). Sure the Maggies don't have much bass to speak of below about 45 H=
z
(and they won't even be that good until the Mylar diaphragms loosen-up a
little) and seem a tad soft on the top (just a little, though) but over t=
he
most of the spectrum, the little Maggies acquitted themselves very
respectfully! This just has to be the most Hi-Fi one can get for under tw=
o
grand. I'm so impressed that even though I NEED neither, I'm tempted to b=
uy
myself one of the Yaqin MC-100B integrated amps and one of the Yaqin SD-3=
2A
DVD decks!

To say my friend and his wife are ecstatic over the looks of the system a=
s
well as how it sounds, would be an understatement.

Just thought that I would show that really classy high-end audio doesn't =
have
to cost as much as an upscale new car to be worthy. If it were me, I thin=
k
I'd add a sub-woofer to those MMG Maggies, though!

I have always been very impressed by the little Maggies as well as the
Vandersteen 1s. Looks like you found an amazing value in tube
electronics. Nicely done.

Thanks. My friends seem ecstatic about their new system. The Lady of the
house loves the way the components look. She made an interesting comment. She
said that sitting in the dark at night listening to music, the amplifier
reminded here of the warm glow of a fireplace, which added to the romance of
the occasion. I was at their house yesterday and got to listen at greater
length. The system is truly musical.

The Distortion figures quoted in the E-bay ad, however, are probably correct.
I E-mailed the seller about them and someone replied that the decimal was in
the wrong place, and it should be 0.15% instead of 1.5%. upon reflection, I
don't buy it. Tube amps usually have pretty high THD at full output. In fact,
at $5500, Prima Luna seems to rate their new 70 Watts/channel tube amp at 2%
THD! Luckily, the human ear is extremely insensitive to this type of
distortion (short of actual clipping) and one will never hear it. Besides, at
average listening levels, the distortion on these ultralinear circuits is
vanishing low.

I'm still amazed by the build quality of these Chinese components. They are
first rate. Inside they look like 'Fifties Mil-Spec tube gear and component
quality looks high. Certainly the metal work, ceramic tube sockets, and
interconnects/speaker posts bespeak of very high quality indeed. Impressive
products, and for the money, simply amazing!

[Walt]

Sonnova wrote:

Thanks. My friends seem ecstatic about their new system. The Lady of the
house loves the way the components look. She made an interesting comment. She
said that sitting in the dark at night listening to music, the amplifier
reminded here of the warm glow of a fireplace, which added to the romance of
the occasion.

Couldn't you have just bought her a lava lamp and an ordinary receiver?
That would have saved a lot of money and sounded the same.

//Walt

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:15:00 -0800, Walt wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

Thanks. My friends seem ecstatic about their new system. The Lady of the
house loves the way the components look. She made an interesting comment.
She
said that sitting in the dark at night listening to music, the amplifier
reminded here of the warm glow of a fireplace, which added to the romance
of
the occasion.

Couldn't you have just bought her a lava lamp and an ordinary receiver?
That would have saved a lot of money and sounded the same.

//Walt


I didn't "buy" them anything. I just recommended those components because
they seemed like quality items - and of course, are tubes which which most
receivers aren't (It's what they wanted).

[Walt]

Sonnova wrote:

I didn't "buy" them anything. I just recommended those components because
they seemed like quality items - and of course, are tubes which which most
receivers aren't (It's what they wanted).

Just out of curiosity, when they decided that they wanted tubes, did you
ask them why? Did you present a pro/con arguments or did you just
accept their decision as a given?

I'm still scratching my head over what a $500 CD player is doing in a
"budget" system. The expensive receiver makes some sense if they're
wedded to tubes, but that sounds like more of a visual criteria than a
sound or hi-fi thing. I look at a shopping list like that and think :
cut the budget for the electronics and spend the savings on speakers.

I'm not sure you did them any favors here.

//Walt

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 16, 11:28=A0am, Walt wrote:

I'm not sure you did them any favors here.

Oh, I dunno. The Maggies are a great start and will always be so. Even
if they upgrade in the future those speakers will remain excellent for
a secondary system.

Generally, I do not suggest tubes to anyone not intimate with their
care-and-feeding. Tubes are not a user-friendly option and the
potential for smoky disaster always exists even with (relatively) well-
behaved equipment.

But if that is what people want - de gustibus non est disputandum.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Scott[_6_]]

On Nov 16, 8:28=A0am, Walt wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
I didn't "buy" them anything. I just recommended those components becau=
se
they seemed like quality items - and of course, are tubes which which m=
ost
receivers aren't (It's what they wanted).

Just out of curiosity, when they decided that they wanted tubes, did you
ask them why? =A0Did you present a pro/con arguments or did you just
accept their decision as a given?

I'm still scratching my head over what a $500 CD player is doing in a
"budget" system. =A0The expensive receiver makes some sense if they're
wedded to tubes, but that sounds like more of a visual criteria than a
sound or hi-fi thing. =A0I look at a shopping list like that and think :
cut the budget for the electronics and spend the savings on speakers.

I'm not sure you did them any favors here.

//Walt

Of course he did them a big favor. He helped them get what they
wanted. why is it so upsetting that these folks wanted what they
wanted and got it and are happy with it? since when is satisfaction
such a wrong thing? Do you really think they would be happier if
Sonova would have brow beaten then about what they wanted?

[Arny Krueger]

"jwvm" wrote in message


On Nov 13, 7:08 pm, Sonnova
wrote:
I just put a low-cost high-end system together for a
young friend and I am truly impressed with the results!

Here's what I did.

Ordered a pair of Magneplanar MMG speakers directly from
Magnepan - $600 Ordered a Yaqin MC 100B integrated tube
amp from A Canadian Hi-Fi output on E-Bay - ~$650.

It is not obvious that a tube amplifier is a good value
if you are trying to achieve high quality at low cost.

To say the least!

The distortion specs on ebay are over 1 %.

While the THD performance of tubed amps is often not exactly SOTA even among
budget equipment, IMO it is not the prime reason to avoid them. The poor
price performance. The reliability and bias adjustment issues. The lack of
local service people who are familiar with the basic technology.

Just to add insult to injury, there are reports of a serious safety issue
related to exposed metal with lethal voltage at with a substantial current
punch, on Yaqin MC 100B electrolytic capacitor cases poking *above* the
chassis.

A good
multichannel receiver would have much better performance
and be less expensive.

To say the least. The classic Sherwood 105 wpc stereo receiver widely sold
for less than $100 comes to mind.

Ordered a Yaqin SD-32A 192KHz, 24-bit upsampling CD
player from Canadian Hi-Fi - $499

No need to reiterate the same basic comments as above, minus the lethal
voltage on exposed metal parts.

That is also pretty expensive for a CD player. How is it
better than a lower-cost unit from a company like Sony?

For example I'm currently using a Pioneer DV-310 that cost less than $80.
Sounds great on both CDs and DVDs. It also plays a number of alternative
formats including USB flash drive. One nifty human engineering feature is
front panel transport and navigation controls for playing either CDs or DVDs
along with a legible display. The Yaquin lets you trip out on the spinning
disc, but does not tell you what's going on with the media.

The DVD player that the couple already own may not sound
significantly different either. Again, the value here is
questionable.

Agreed.

Cables and interconnects from Monster - ~$60

Probably the least costly questionable aspect of the purchase, unless we
calculate the cost multiple as compared to good commodity parts. Remember,
the cables and interconnects are composed of one pair of speaker cables and
one stereo RCA cord.

Careful shopping here would also save a bit given that
Monster cables are quite overpriced. Some heavy duty zip
cord from Home Depot and some modestly priced audio
cables would work as well. Like you said, cable does not
have a sound. All that is required is a solid connection.

Total - ~$1810.00 US.

Right. I agree with the choice of speakers, but the rest is wildly
overpriced and excessively troublesome to own over the long haul, not to
mention the potential lethality of the power amp.;

Better choices would have saved them more money. Maybe
they could have purchased a subwoofer or better speakers
for the same amount.

Agreed again.

I'm using a 12" Paradigm subwoofer with my main home system - the potential
savings on the electronics would more than pay for it. Or for the money,
full-range speakers with far more extended response and better dynamic range
are readily available.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:28:10 -0800, Walt wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

I didn't "buy" them anything. I just recommended those components because
they seemed like quality items - and of course, are tubes which which most
receivers aren't (It's what they wanted).

Just out of curiosity, when they decided that they wanted tubes, did you
ask them why? Did you present a pro/con arguments or did you just
accept their decision as a given?

They've always admired my VTL monoblocks and liked the way they sound (so do
I). When we started talking about this, they asked if there was a way that
we could do tubes for their system. I asked them how much they could spend
and they said about $2500 dollars.

I'm still scratching my head over what a $500 CD player is doing in a
"budget" system.

I was impressed with its oversampling capability: 192 KHz/24-bit. I showed
them pictures of it and they liked it's looks. I also suggested the new
Marantz CD-5003, but they wanted the Yaqin. So, the Yaqin it was.

The expensive receiver makes some sense if they're
wedded to tubes, but that sounds like more of a visual criteria than a
sound or hi-fi thing.

Only if you're anti-tube gear. The amp actually sounds very good. It's
extremely musical and seems to have flat frequency response with good bass
(the Maggies don't go much below 45) and smooth, silken highs. As for it
being expensive, If you think US$650 is expensive for a 60 Watt/channel dual
mono amplifier with separate powers supplies (including power transformer)
for each channel and a built-in line stage with 4 sets of WBT-like inputs,
then I'd suspect that you don't get around much! 8^)

I look at a shopping list like that and think :
cut the budget for the electronics and spend the savings on speakers.

I'm not sure you did them any favors here.

Have you ever heard the Maggie MMGs? There is nothing for less than about
$1600/pair, that, in my estimation, comes anywhere close to them as far as
overall performance is concerned. Yesterday, we sat down and made up a list
of replacement tubes for the equipment and he ordered an extra set of KT-88s,
some 6N8s and some 12AX7s. Luckily, the amp has user adjustable bias, so
output tubes don't need to be matched pairs.

I did them a great favor with this system and they really appreciate it.
Unlike most solid-state receivers, this amp will be easily repaired for
decades to come. It can last them a lifetime.

[Walt]

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:28:10 -0800, Walt wrote

I'm still scratching my head over what a $500 CD player is doing in a
"budget" system.

I was impressed with its oversampling capability: 192 KHz/24-bit. I showed
them pictures of it and they liked it's looks.

I see. Thanks. You've now made the selection criteria quite clear.

I hope they enjoy looking at their stereo system for years to come.


//Walt

[Thomas]

On Nov 17, 6:55=A0am, Walt wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:28:10 -0800, Walt wrote
I'm still scratching my head over what a $500 CD player is doing in a
"budget" system.

I was impressed with its oversampling capability: 192 KHz/24-bit. I sho=
wed
them pictures of it and they liked it's looks.

I see. =A0Thanks. =A0You've now made the selection criteria quite clear.

I hope they enjoy looking at their stereo system for years to come.

//Walt

Damn, you guys are harsh.

When I started this group 20 years ago (yes, it really was 20 years
ago), one of the purposes was to discuss high-end as getting the best
sound you can without spending way too much money. Seems to me that
this is what happened here.

As for looks, everyone cares how it looks. Some people more than
others. But it's a rare person who doesn't.

Ease up.

By the way, it costs more to make good digital than it does to make
good analog. For good analog, the most expensive part (for tube amps,
anyways) are output transformers. The rest is pretty cheap.

Tom

[Peter Wieck]

On Dec 2, 11:32=A0pm, Thomas wrote:

Damn, you guys are harsh.

When I started this group 20 years ago (yes, it really was 20 years
ago), one of the purposes was to discuss high-end as getting the best
sound you can without spending way too much money. Seems to me that
this is what happened here.

As for looks, everyone cares how it looks. Some people more than
others. But it's a rare person who doesn't.

Ease up.

By the way, it costs more to make good digital than it does to make
good analog. For good analog, the most expensive part (for tube amps,
anyways) are output transformers. The rest is pretty cheap.

Not really harsh as much as realistic. Personally, I really don't
care much for looks - put another way, I can pretty much justify any
sort of look if the sound satisfies, even to the point of convincing
my wife to permit whatever it is wherever it must go. But that has
mostly to do with the speakers. In both cases where a stereo is in a
public area (livingroom and library), the electronics are out of the
way such that their looks are not relevant to either decoration or
operation.

As to the cost differential between Analog and Digital - chips are
awfully cheap these days such that everything necessary for say.... a
CD player may be captured in perhaps 80 cubic inches or less, and sold
over-the-counter for less than $50. Perhaps that unit's longevity may
be questionable and it may be awkward in many ways but it will
translate the digits on the disc to analog signal for the amp
accurately enough - all that is required at the most basic level.

The tubes alone necessary for a 40-watt stereo power amp will cost
substantially more both at the production level and the retail level
than the entire brown-bag of parts for the finest of all DAC units -
not counting mark-up and actual retail price paid. Much less the iron.
That one pays an outrageous price for a given item does not make that
price a fair representation of what it actually cost to design and
produce. And in many cases such prices are driven by a perceived
scarcity as much as anything else.

What it gets down to is the level of eyewash involved and what the
market will bear. A (pick your poison here/Krell/Levinson/Quad/
whatever) power amp if weighed by the pound will not cost
substantially different for the parts inside between any given
manufacturers (COST, not SELL FOR). Sure, one may use a bit more
silver than another - but a capacitor is a capacitor whether it is a
Nichicon or an Auricap. And after basic QC goals are met there is no
difference, substantial or ephemeral one-from-another as far as the
signal passing by/through them is concerned. Personally, I believe
that many of the practices of the industry along these lines are
actually criminal, and many more just short of it. But that is just
me.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[jwvm]

On Dec 2, 11:32=A0pm, Thomas wrote:

snip


By the way, it costs more to make good digital than it does to make
good analog. For good analog, the most expensive part (for tube amps,
anyways) are output transformers. The rest is pretty cheap.

Tom

Can you please explain why you think "good digital" is more expensive?
Most here seem to indicate that high-quality optical players need not
be very expensive. High-quality hardware for playing LPs is likely to
cost much more.

[Thomas]

On Dec 3, 5:53=A0pm, jwvm wrote:
On Dec 2, 11:32=A0pm, Thomas wrote:

snip



By the way, it costs more to make good digital than it does to make
good analog. For good analog, the most expensive part (for tube amps,
anyways) are output transformers. The rest is pretty cheap.

Tom

Can you please explain why you think "good digital" is more expensive?
Most here seem to indicate that high-quality optical players need not
be very expensive. High-quality hardware for playing LPs is likely to
cost much more.

I dunno. Am I really that far out of date? Is "high end" really an $80
DVD player to get 96k audio shoved into a digital receiver and any old
crapola speaker? Do we really believe Mr Wieck and "a capacitor is a
capacitor"? (No, it's not. Never was. Must not be an engineer or even
a technician, like I was.)

Like I said, when I started the list in '87 and the group in '89, what
I considered "high end" was not necessarily taking whatever was off
the shelf, regardless of expense, and calling it excellent. Anyone can
take $100,000 and pretend it sounds good. Does it? I don't know.

I admit I had some obscure fancy stuff years ago. One of the best
preamps I ever had was an ADC B-100 designed by Mark Deneen. The
design was stellar. ADC cheaped out on the circuit boards and power
supply transistors.

Maybe no one builds their own interconnects any more. Maybe this group
is just a moderated version of the same old rants we've had for the
past 30 years.

Was nice to see Dick Pierce is still alive. :-) All I need is JJ and
life is complete!

Here's a question. Can you find any enthusiasm any more? Can you get
any satisfaction from taking a Dynaco ST-70 and making it work better?
Can you actually design a preamp circuit using FETs? Do you know why
people get all excited about silver-plated wire with teflon
insulation?

One last question. How many of you have gone to your friend's houses,
moved the speakers a half inch, and have them look at you like you
were a wizard?

If none of this makes any sense to you... then I guess you might not
understand the spirit of high-end.

Tom

[Arny Krueger]

"Thomas" wrote in message

On Dec 3, 5:53=A0pm, jwvm wrote:

Can you please explain why you think "good digital" is
more expensive? Most here seem to indicate that
high-quality optical players need not be very expensive.
High-quality hardware for playing LPs is likely to cost
much more.

I dunno. Am I really that far out of date? Is "high end"
really an $80 DVD player to get 96k audio shoved into a
digital receiver and any old crapola speaker?

I object to the change of topic from "good digital" to "high end". This
amounts to backtracking on the original claim being challenged.

The comments about DVD players and the receiver are relevant, because they
at least have digital functioning. However, there are no true digital
speakers, so the comment about cheap speakers is irrelevant. This is good
because speakers are the largest determiners of sound quality of anything on
your list.

Do we really believe Mr Wieck and "a capacitor is a capacitor"?

I've been following Mr. Weick's posts for a number of years and I'm sure
that he does *not* believe that there is no difference between say a mylar
capacitor and an electrolytic. Both he and I appreciate that the various
types of capacitors exist for a reason, and that reason is to meet different
needs. However, we are aware of the kind of hysteria that makes people
obsess over whether the leads on a capacitor have any ferrous metals in
them.

What Mr. Weik did say is:

"but a capacitor is a capacitor whether it is a Nichicon or an Auricap."

Mr. Weick was making a far narrower comparison than the one that is
presented in this post. The irony is that many so-called high end capacitor
vendors are not manufacturers, but rather put their own brand on parts made
by someone elease. There's a real possibility that an Auricap might even be
a Nichicon under the wrapper. And, Nichicon is a first-tier high quality
supplier of capacitors.

(No, it's not. Never was. Must not be an engineer or even
a technician, like I was.)

Seems like someone is making a negative personal comment based on an obvious
misunderstanding of what Mr. Weick said.

Like I said, when I started the list in '87 and the group
in '89, what I considered "high end" was not necessarily
taking whatever was off the shelf, regardless of expense,
and calling it excellent.

That seems like a straw man argument. There are high end products such as
certain loudspeakers, whose pricing represents reasonble costs and high
performance.

Anyone can take $100,000 and
pretend it sounds good. Does it? I don't know.

There seems to be a lot of pretending going on in audio's high end.

[Peter Wieck]

YIKES!

Please note the interpolations.

On Dec 4, 7:10=A0am, Thomas wrote:
On Dec 3, 5:53=3DA0pm, jwvm wrote:





On Dec 2, 11:32=3DA0pm, Thomas wrote:

snip

By the way, it costs more to make good digital than it does to make
good analog. For good analog, the most expensive part (for tube amps,
anyways) are output transformers. The rest is pretty cheap.

Tom

Can you please explain why you think "good digital" is more expensive?
Most here seem to indicate that high-quality optical players need not
be very expensive. High-quality hardware for playing LPs is likely to
cost much more.

I dunno. Am I really that far out of date? Is "high end" really an $80
DVD player to get 96k audio shoved into a digital receiver and any old
crapola speaker? Do we really believe Mr Wieck and "a capacitor is a
capacitor"? (No, it's not. Never was. Must not be an engineer or even
a technician, like I was.)

OK - on capacitors: There are quite a few different types of caps. And
there are quite a few different applications for caps. Some are
suitable for some applications and not suitable for others. Some
circuits are sensitive to precise values and some are not.

So, let's take a basic example - the Power Supply. A standard
electrolytic cap is usually specifed at -20%/+100% from face-value.
They may be made to more precise tolerances but that is the industry
standard. Now, let's compare a Nichicon 22uF @ 450V electrolytic cap
with copper-coated steel leads to an Auricap 22uF @ 450V electrolytic
cap with all the eyewash in a typical power-supply. Do you _really_
think it is going to make a difference at what is heard at the other
end? Not hardly. What is the goal of the power-supply? Smooth DC. No
more. No less.

Let's take a tone circuit. Back in the day, very often small-value
electrolytic caps were used in such circuits. Today, they are mostly
polyprops. Given it is a tone circuit, one can readily understand why
a polyprop with a 1% tolerance would be more desirable than an
electrolytic. But one 1% polyprop over another? Get real.

Point being within the basic design and QC parameters of the circuit,
there will be no audible difference between the Nichicon or the
Auricap - other than the cost. That is my point.

Like I said, when I started the list in '87 and the group in '89, what
I considered "high end" was not necessarily taking whatever was off
the shelf, regardless of expense, and calling it excellent. Anyone can
take $100,000 and pretend it sounds good. Does it? I don't know.

I admit I had some obscure fancy stuff years ago. One of the best
preamps I ever had was an ADC B-100 designed by Mark Deneen. The
design was stellar. ADC cheaped out on the circuit boards and power
supply transistors.

Maybe no one builds their own interconnects any more. Maybe this group
is just a moderated version of the same old rants we've had for the
past 30 years.

Building Inteconnects: Do it all the time so I can make the wires the
correct length for the purpose and nothing slops around. I use off-the-
shelf connectors (which will be clean-and-tight) and off-the-shelf
wire - a couple of steps up from basic in recognition that we have
kids, cats and dogs running about - the issue is ruggedness.

Was nice to see Dick Pierce is still alive. :-) All I need is JJ and
life is complete!

Here's a question. Can you find any enthusiasm any more? Can you get
any satisfaction from taking a Dynaco ST-70 and making it work better?
Can you actually design a preamp circuit using FETs? Do you know why
people get all excited about silver-plated wire with teflon
insulation?

All the time on taking vintage stuff and rebuilding into something
reliable and pleasurable. Dynaco, Scott, AR, Fisher - Tube, Solid-
State - what have you. All of the above have crossed my bench in the
last few months, and I am working over a Scott Tube amp from end-to-
end, testing on one channel to get what I want before doing both. No,
I cannot design a pre-amp circuit using FETs. Not so sure that I want
to work at that level - interesting but more than I have time for
right now. As to silver-plated wire with teflon insulation - no, I do
not understand why people would get excited about it. It seems
unnecessary and extraordinary for the distances, voltages and
frequencies that exist within audio equipment and the environments
that equipment lives in. We are not discussing space-craft intended to
orbit Saturn where such measures are taken for reasons entirely other
than 'fidelity'.

One last question. How many of you have gone to your friend's houses,
moved the speakers a half inch, and have them look at you like you
were a wizard?

Not quite every day - but at least twice within the last year alone.

If none of this makes any sense to you... then I guess you might not
understand the spirit of high-end.

High end is about the sound that comes out - not the cost of the items
that produce it. Although there are some correlations between cost and
sound - most especially (and generally correctly) with speakers - they
are not mutually dependent. And in my opinion, considerable fraud has
been practiced upon the Audiophile Community by unscrupulous producers
aided and abetted by amoral media selling eyewash, hogwash and fantasy
that has little or nothing to do with actual sound.

I have been nosing around the hobby for now 40 years. With a soldering
iron in my hand for over 35 of those. Just to give you an idea of my
perspective.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA