Need something for the home office, a former garage. I only play XM
radio, Internet radio and MP3s and the ocassional CD. Largely real jazz

and classical music. I haven't bought a stereo in 10-15 years.
Currently have some Bose speakers and an old Onkyo receiver. Would like

to upgrade, obviously. NOt go over 2k. Something that reflects the
digital nature of my listening habits. COuld do without the CD. Maybe
something that stores MP3s, processes XM well and makes Internet radio
sound as good as it can. Thoughts? NickRavo

In article .com,
"nickravo" wrote:

Need something for the home office, a former garage. I only play XM
radio, Internet radio and MP3s and the ocassional CD.

So, this sounds like lo-fi listening.

and classical music. I haven't bought a stereo in 10-15 years.
Currently have some Bose speakers and an old Onkyo receiver.

And the current system is lo-fi too.

Would like
to upgrade, obviously. NOt go over 2k. Something that reflects the
digital nature of my listening habits. COuld do without the CD. Maybe
something that stores MP3s, processes XM well and makes Internet radio
sound as good as it can.

How about a $69 boom box? Seriously, MP3's suck, XM is devoid
of most of the original musical quality, and internet radio
is just poor quality mp3. You can fix what isn't there, and
there is no sense in buying something expensive to reproduce
low quality input.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

Why $69, you can get a very good sony boombox for just 220 euro.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitriïs
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï "John A. Weeks III" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
In article .com,
"nickravo" wrote:

Need something for the home office, a former garage. I only play XM
radio, Internet radio and MP3s and the ocassional CD.

So, this sounds like lo-fi listening.

and classical music. I haven't bought a stereo in 10-15 years.
Currently have some Bose speakers and an old Onkyo receiver.

And the current system is lo-fi too.

Would like
to upgrade, obviously. NOt go over 2k. Something that reflects the
digital nature of my listening habits. COuld do without the CD. Maybe
something that stores MP3s, processes XM well and makes Internet radio
sound as good as it can.

How about a $69 boom box? Seriously, MP3's suck, XM is devoid
of most of the original musical quality, and internet radio
is just poor quality mp3. You can fix what isn't there, and
there is no sense in buying something expensive to reproduce
low quality input.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

Get on Ebay and find you a good used NAD power amp with a preamp. You
should be able to get both for under $500. Be advised that NAD watts
are different from other manufacturers' watts; a 35 watt NAD amp is
plenty for most people. Avoid buying receivers as almost all are junk
compared to NAD separates.

Then, again on Ebay, buy a pair of Klipsch Heresys. You should be able
to find a pair in great shape for $500. Then, add a good subwoofer;
I'm partial to Klipsch, but there are plenty to choose from for a
couple hundred dollars. Add your XM Sky Fi & MP 3 player.

There's your system. No frills, just great sound. Well under a couple
thousand dollars.

In article ,
"Dimitrios Tzortzakakis" wrote:

Why $69, you can get a very good sony boombox for just 220 euro.

69 US is a lot less than 220 euro, and there will be 0%
difference in sound quality when playing low resolution
inputs like MP3 or Internet streaming audio. Anything
more is a waste.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article .com,
"nickravo" wrote:

Need something for the home office, a former garage. I only play XM
radio, Internet radio and MP3s and the ocassional CD.

So, this sounds like lo-fi listening.

and classical music. I haven't bought a stereo in 10-15 years.
Currently have some Bose speakers and an old Onkyo receiver.

And the current system is lo-fi too.


Since he didn't specify which Onkyo receiver or Bose
speakers, I interpret this as saying there aren't *any*
Onkyo receivers or Bose speakers that are up to your standards?

Would like
to upgrade, obviously. NOt go over 2k. Something that reflects the
digital nature of my listening habits. COuld do without the CD.
Maybe
something that stores MP3s, processes XM well and makes Internet
radio
sound as good as it can.

How about a $69 boom box? Seriously, MP3's suck, XM is devoid
of most of the original musical quality, and internet radio
is just poor quality mp3. You can fix what isn't there, and
there is no sense in buying something expensive to reproduce
low quality input.


Hey, why waste time trying to answer the guy's question when
it's so much more fun to a ridicule him for asking it?

Go ahead, tell him that only posers listen to digital music.
Real men still buy *turntables* - preferably with vacuum bell jars
to keep the dust off the records. And of course, nothing beats
the sound of separate single channel tube amps, because, you know,
tubes give the music a "warm sound". It goes without saying
that it's all a waste without $1/ft low-phosphorus cable - or
better yet X-band waveguide, becuase nothing is a better measure
of audio performance than GHz impedance. And you can't call
yourself a true audiophile unless you have your house jacked up
and mounted on vibration-isolating pillars to get around that
little earthquake problem.

-jc

-john-

--

================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708

Newave Communications
http://www.johnweeks.com

================================================== ====================

nickravo wrote:
Need something for the home office, a former garage. I only play XM
radio, Internet radio and MP3s and the ocassional CD. Largely real
jazz

and classical music. I haven't bought a stereo in 10-15 years.
Currently have some Bose speakers and an old Onkyo receiver. Would
like

to upgrade, obviously. NOt go over 2k. Something that reflects the
digital nature of my listening habits. COuld do without the CD. Maybe
something that stores MP3s, processes XM well and makes Internet
radio
sound as good as it can. Thoughts? NickRavo

There are a number of solutions to integrating digital content with
home stereo, but IMHO it's a technology that's not *quite* there,
and a lot of the emphasis has gone into dealing with video content,
which sounds like it's not an issue for you.

From your description, it sounds like you might want run the system
straight out of a computer. Depending on your office, you could either

do this from your main computer or spring for a very low end
standalone computer, a decent sound card and maybe a big hard drive
and use that as your digital, CD, and inet radio server. You could do
this
part for under $500 if you shop carefully.

As for the amplifier and speakers, my advice would be to trust your
own ears over anyone's opinion. Go and listen until you find something
you like. There's no reason to spend a fortune. There are plenty of
very good receivers for under $300 and how much you want to spend on
speakers depends a lot on you.

Your XM receiver could either be patched through the computer or
into one of the other receiver inputs, depending on your layout.

-jc

In article .com,
wrote:

Since he didn't specify which Onkyo receiver or Bose
speakers, I interpret this as saying there aren't *any*
Onkyo receivers or Bose speakers that are up to your standards?

I don't have a problem with Onkyo. Bose, however, is not a
hi-fidelity device.

How about a $69 boom box? Seriously, MP3's suck, XM is devoid
of most of the original musical quality, and internet radio
is just poor quality mp3. You can fix what isn't there, and
there is no sense in buying something expensive to reproduce
low quality input.


Hey, why waste time trying to answer the guy's question when
it's so much more fun to a ridicule him for asking it?

I didn't ridicule him. I stated facts. If you start with
tuna-fish, you are not going to end up with lobster bisque.
Dittos for MP3 and streaming audio--they are lo-fidelity
formats, and any dime store boom box will make it be all
it can be.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Since he didn't specify which Onkyo receiver or Bose
speakers, I interpret this as saying there aren't *any*
Onkyo receivers or Bose speakers that are up to your standards?

I don't have a problem with Onkyo. Bose, however, is not a
hi-fidelity device.

How about a $69 boom box? Seriously, MP3's suck, XM is devoid
of most of the original musical quality, and internet radio
is just poor quality mp3. You can fix what isn't there, and
there is no sense in buying something expensive to reproduce
low quality input.


Hey, why waste time trying to answer the guy's question when
it's so much more fun to a ridicule him for asking it?

I didn't ridicule him. I stated facts. If you start with
tuna-fish, you are not going to end up with lobster bisque.
Dittos for MP3 and streaming audio--they are lo-fidelity
formats, and any dime store boom box will make it be all
it can be.


If you can't tell the difference between "a $69 boombox" and
a better stereo for MP3's, then I suggest the problem is with
your hearing or your ego, rather than the format. I, for example,
hear a great deal of difference between my boombox and
my stereo, and that boombox cost $100. Given your handicap, I
hope you haven't wasted a lot of money on *your* stereo.

Yes, there are limits to the MP3 format, and it would be reasonable
to advise someone not to spend a fortune on a perfect fidelity system.
On the other hand, if you're over the age of 20 or so, the
limits of MP3 are probably well matched to the limits of your
hearing anyway.

The fact is that in double blind tests, the majority
of people can't tell the difference between 128 kbs MP3's
and the original and those that can only do so when the two
are played side by side.
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/artic...23,pg,2,00.asp
Now I would guess that you would amuse yourself by sitting at
home and flipping back and forth between an MP3 and a CD to
convince yourself you could hear the difference, but most sane
people don't do that.

You've heard of double-blind tests? You know, the only tests
that really mean anything? In this case, the ones where you
don't get to see the price and brand of things before deciding
how good it sounds.

-jc





-john-

--

================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708

Newave Communications
http://www.johnweeks.com

================================================== ====================