[[email protected]]

My home system consists of:

Accuphase E-202 Integrated amp
Accuphase T-101 Tuner
Magnepan MMG Speakers
iPod, first generation, mp3's at 256kbps

The maggies are my latest addition. I felt like any serious upgrade to
this system would be very costly. If you were to pick a weak point in
my system what would it be? Or maybe I should ask, what would be the
item to upgrade out of these? Thanks for any help.

Also, after buying the maggies I wrote a short review about my system
and posted it to a forum I frequent. I'll add it to this post below as
I think some might enjoy it.

Dave Calhoun

from http://forums.macresource.com/read/1/212819/213721

When I was younger, much younger, my dad would take me to audio stores.
These were the days of mono block amplifiers, tube equipment, bi-amped
speakers etc. I learned to love names like Carver, Mcintosh and
Accuphase. Dad has Accuphase equipment and I was forbidden to touch.

When I was in high school I found an Accuphase E-202 integrated
amplifier for a few hundred dollars. It probably wasn't worth the money
but I had to have it. After a few years the amp displayed some problems
so I sent it off to the authorized repair center in California to be
rebuilt to the tune of $600. Far more than the amp was worth, except to
me.

Then I found the matching tuner that was sold with the amp, the
Accuphase T-101. I bought it for $200 non-working. Off to california
and $150 later it was also rebuilt. This was the mid 90's.

I then added a pair of Celestion 11 speakers to my system which were
very good for the money. They normally sold for $600 but I found
someone blowing them out for $200. This was Celestion's brief foray
into the low end market.

But when someone asked me what speakers I favored my answer was always
the same, Magnepan. I had heard them while on an outing with my dad and
the experience had never left me. So after twenty years of dreaming my
lovely wife bought them for me as a christmas present. Now for the
review.

The MMG model is Magnepan's lowest model speaker. They sell for $550
directly from the company and are not sold through dealerships. They
can be returned for credit towards larger versions. This is the model I
received today.

The first thing I noticed about these speakers was the weight, they are
extremely light. This makes sense as there is no box to house the
speaker. They are very easy to move around.

The next thing I noticed was that the sound was terribly terribly
wrong. Believe it or not but these speakers come as a left and right
speaker and if you reverse them they don't sound right! This is due to
the location of the "tweeter" which must be to the inside of the pair
to sound right.

Further experiments showed that placement made a tremendous difference
in the sound. To a level that I would not have believed possible. These
speakers must be spaced appropriately apart and must be two feet from
the wall to sound correct.

Ok, so how do they sound? The best description I could give them would
be to say they aren't there. There is no sense of the sound coming from
the speakers once placed correctly. The sound is not being pushed at me
from a cone as these speakers are ribons and the sound emanates evenly
both to the front and the back. For $550 I think these are the most
transparent speakers I have ever heard.

One last tidbit. I had read that to power these speakers required ALOT
of power. A minimum of 100 watts and 200 was better. In my limited
listening tonight I have not managed to use more than a few watts of
power while listening to jazz, folk, and christmas music. Perhaps pop
music with lots of bass would require more.

So I'll end this post, which is more like a diary entry than anything
else, by saying my system is very satisfying to listen to and it is
very satisfying emotionally. I have finished an audio journey which has
taken me over twenty years to complete. My system may not be a pure
audiophile junkies dream but it is my dream.

Dave

[bob]

wrote:
My home system consists of:

Accuphase E-202 Integrated amp
Accuphase T-101 Tuner
Magnepan MMG Speakers
iPod, first generation, mp3's at 256kbps

The maggies are my latest addition. I felt like any serious upgrade to
this system would be very costly. If you were to pick a weak point in
my system what would it be? Or maybe I should ask, what would be the
item to upgrade out of these? Thanks for any help.

From the rest of your post, it sounds like you're very happy with this
system. So my first advice is, don't upgrade anything.

The standard advice for upgrading is to do it in this order:
1. Speakers
2. Speakers
3. Speakers

But given how enamored you are of your Maggies, that's probably a
non-starter for you (unless you want to get better Maggies, I suppose).
Nor would an amp upgrade buy you much. Not sure why you don't have a CD
player. I'd pick up a cheap one, just so you don't have to settle for
MP3s all the time. (Of course, for most people most of the time,
256kbps MP3s are probably indistinguishable from CDs, so "settling"
might not be the right word here.)

So, here are three other suggestions, in order of practicality:

1. Add a subwoofer.

2. Install some room treatments.

3. Go multichannel.

snip

One last tidbit. I had read that to power these speakers required ALOT
of power. A minimum of 100 watts and 200 was better.

I'm wary of this kind of advice. It generally comes from: 1) people who
sell amps; and 2) people trying to justify in their own minds the big
amps they've bought. Not that more power isn't better than less, and
some speakers really do demand a lot. But if your amp doesn't seem to
be straining, then a larger one probably won't make a difference to
you. (One caveat: I don't know about the power demands of your specific
speaker. If somebody else chimes in who does, listen to him, not me.)

bob

[[email protected]]

wrote:

My home system consists of:

Accuphase E-202 Integrated amp
Accuphase T-101 Tuner
Magnepan MMG Speakers
iPod, first generation, mp3's at 256kbps

The weak point in your system is the iPod. Better sound will come from CDs.
And I do not mean transferring your mp3's to CD.

mp

[Walt]

wrote:

My home system consists of:

Accuphase E-202 Integrated amp
Accuphase T-101 Tuner
Magnepan MMG Speakers
iPod, first generation, mp3's at 256kbps

If you were to pick a weak point in my system what would it be?

The data compressed source. Hands down. You're throwing away three out
of every four bits from the original source. Replace the mp3s with
uncompressed source.

BTW, first generation is a red herring. Once you've done the mp3
encoding, digital copies of that file are identical, so first generation
or 100th doesn't matter. Bits is bits, and you're batting .250

//Walt

[Norman M. Schwartz]

wrote in message
...
My home system consists of:

Accuphase E-202 Integrated amp
Accuphase T-101 Tuner
Magnepan MMG Speakers
iPod, first generation, mp3's at 256kbps

The maggies are my latest addition. I felt like any serious upgrade to
this system would be very costly. If you were to pick a weak point in
my system what would it be? Or maybe I should ask, what would be the
item to upgrade out of these? Thanks for any help.

Also, after buying the maggies I wrote a short review about my system
and posted it to a forum I frequent. I'll add it to this post below as
I think some might enjoy it.

Dave Calhoun

from http://forums.macresource.com/read/1/212819/213721

When I was younger, much younger, my dad would take me to audio stores.
These were the days of mono block amplifiers, tube equipment, bi-amped
speakers etc. I learned to love names like Carver, Mcintosh and
Accuphase. Dad has Accuphase equipment and I was forbidden to touch.

When I was in high school I found an Accuphase E-202 integrated
amplifier for a few hundred dollars. It probably wasn't worth the money
but I had to have it. After a few years the amp displayed some problems
so I sent it off to the authorized repair center in California to be
rebuilt to the tune of $600. Far more than the amp was worth, except to
me.

Then I found the matching tuner that was sold with the amp, the
Accuphase T-101. I bought it for $200 non-working. Off to california
and $150 later it was also rebuilt. This was the mid 90's.

I then added a pair of Celestion 11 speakers to my system which were
very good for the money. They normally sold for $600 but I found
someone blowing them out for $200. This was Celestion's brief foray
into the low end market.

But when someone asked me what speakers I favored my answer was always
the same, Magnepan. I had heard them while on an outing with my dad and
the experience had never left me. So after twenty years of dreaming my
lovely wife bought them for me as a christmas present. Now for the
review.

The MMG model is Magnepan's lowest model speaker. They sell for $550
directly from the company and are not sold through dealerships. They
can be returned for credit towards larger versions. This is the model I
received today.

The first thing I noticed about these speakers was the weight, they are
extremely light. This makes sense as there is no box to house the
speaker. They are very easy to move around.

The next thing I noticed was that the sound was terribly terribly
wrong. Believe it or not but these speakers come as a left and right
speaker and if you reverse them they don't sound right! This is due to
the location of the "tweeter" which must be to the inside of the pair
to sound right.

Nonsense. The speakers are designed to be arranged as to best benefit the
listener and accordingly can be arranged with the tweters toward the
outside. I own and use both MMGs and Tympani IVas and several other Tympanis
before those with the tweeters always on the outside. I suggest you go the
the Planar Speaker section at the Audio Asylum.com to read the thoughts of
other MMG users and post some questions of your own.

Further experiments showed that placement made a tremendous difference
in the sound. To a level that I would not have believed possible. These
speakers must be spaced appropriately apart and must be two feet from
the wall to sound correct.

Ok, so how do they sound? The best description I could give them would
be to say they aren't there. There is no sense of the sound coming from
the speakers once placed correctly. The sound is not being pushed at me
from a cone as these speakers are ribons and the sound emanates evenly
both to the front and the back. For $550 I think these are the most
transparent speakers I have ever heard.

One last tidbit. I had read that to power these speakers required ALOT
of power. A minimum of 100 watts and 200 was better. In my limited
listening tonight I have not managed to use more than a few watts of
power while listening to jazz, folk, and christmas music. Perhaps pop
music with lots of bass would require more.


The requirea lot of current. It's the current delivering capability of the
amp which is the critical consideration here. A high current 100 watt amp is
superior to a 200 watt low(er) current delivering amp. The number of concern
is the amps, not the watts.

So I'll end this post, which is more like a diary entry than anything
else, by saying my system is very satisfying to listen to and it is
very satisfying emotionally. I have finished an audio journey which has
taken me over twenty years to complete. My system may not be a pure
audiophile junkies dream but it is my dream.


Hopefully (y)our journey will not be complete too soon. There is a Maggie
20.1 out there for us.

Dave

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:
One last tidbit. I had read that to power these speakers required ALOT
of power. A minimum of 100 watts and 200 was better.

I'm wary of this kind of advice. It generally comes from: 1) people who
sell amps; and 2) people trying to justify in their own minds the big
amps they've bought. Not that more power isn't better than less, and
some speakers really do demand a lot. But if your amp doesn't seem to
be straining, then a larger one probably won't make a difference to
you. (One caveat: I don't know about the power demands of your specific
speaker. If somebody else chimes in who does, listen to him, not me.)

bob

Thanks for posting Bob. Indeed I have found the power requirements to
be far less than what I had read around the net. I'm not sure I have
put more than 5 watts into these speakers, certainly no more than 10 by
watching the meters. This may be partially due to my choice of
listening material which tends strongly towards vocals with light
instrumental. I love Norah Jones, Michael Bubble, Sue Foley, and
Michael Feinstein.

Your thoughts on the cd player vs the mp3's is very interesting to me
and I would like to hear more. I have worried that using even high
bitrate mp3's would cause me to lose sound quality. I was also worried
that the ipod might not be putting out a clean signal. If you or anyone
else has further thoughts on the matter I would love to hear them.

Thanks,

Dave

[record hunter]

wrote:
My home system consists of:

Accuphase E-202 Integrated amp
Accuphase T-101 Tuner
Magnepan MMG Speakers
iPod, first generation, mp3's at 256kbps

The maggies are my latest addition. I felt like any serious upgrade to
this system would be very costly. If you were to pick a weak point in
my system what would it be? Or maybe I should ask, what would be the
item to upgrade out of these? Thanks for any help.

How about a turntable and some records (assuming the Accuphase
integrated has a phono input)? The Rega P2 or P3 are available at
around $500 and $700, plus cartridge. Much less if you buy one used. I
bought a nearly-new P3 in the fall for $450 with a Super Elys
cartridge, and I just love listening to records, 90% of which I buy
cheaply, used.

One caveat: I've found it best to buy used records in person, rather
than on eBay. It seems most sellers' grading standards are not as high
as my own. Fortunately, there's a huge used LP store in my neighborhood.

[[email protected]]

The answers here are bringing up more questions for me. I sure do
appreciate the help. I'll try to be specific.
1. Should I avoid buying music at the itunes store? It is 128kbps AAC.
2. If I rip original cd's using apple's lossless format would the ipod
be an acceptable source?
3. If I were to consider buying a cd player what would be the critical
features to look for?
4. What about a source device like the squeezebox which pulls the audio
off the computer? If I have the original music ripped as lossless would
this be a good source?

One person mentioned adding a record player to this setup. I do have
one but did not mention it as I only use it to play older records that
are not in great shape. So when I listen to my record player I'm not
looking for perfect sound.

Thanks for any more info!
Dave

[Steven Sullivan]

Walt wrote:
wrote:

My home system consists of:

Accuphase E-202 Integrated amp
Accuphase T-101 Tuner
Magnepan MMG Speakers
iPod, first generation, mp3's at 256kbps

If you were to pick a weak point in my system what would it be?

The data compressed source. Hands down. You're throwing away three out
of every four bits from the original source. Replace the mp3s with
uncompressed source.

If the music was accurately ripped and then encoded with something like a recent LAME encoder
at constant 256kbps, it's unlikely that the mp3s are a problem, since it's unlikely he, or
anyone on average, would be able to tell them from souce, for most sources.

MP3 compression relies on actual psychoacoustic models (e.g., masking), such that 'throwing
away' data doesn't necessarily mean that the effect will be audible. THere are many variables
to consider and the amount of data discarded is just one.

If the ripping was poor, or the encoder was poor, then of course all bets are off.

BTW, first generation is a red herring. Once you've done the mp3
encoding, digital copies of that file are identical, so first generation
or 100th doesn't matter. Bits is bits, and you're batting .250

He meant 1st generation Ipod, not 1st gen mp3.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Walt]

wrote:

My home system consists of:

Accuphase E-202 Integrated amp
Accuphase T-101 Tuner
Magnepan MMG Speakers
iPod, first generation, mp3's at 256kbps

One last tidbit. I had read that to power these speakers required ALOT
of power. A minimum of 100 watts and 200 was better. In my limited
listening tonight I have not managed to use more than a few watts of
power ...


Magnepan speakers present a highly reactive load to the amplifier as
compared with "conventional" speakers (which are mostly a resitive
load). Thus, they require an amp that can handle a highly reactive load
- which is not the same thing as a high powered amp.

That said, almost any 200 watt amp will be happy pushing 2 or 3 watts
into a reactive load, where a 10 watt amp may not.

//Walt

[bob]

wrote:

Your thoughts on the cd player vs the mp3's is very interesting to me
and I would like to hear more. I have worried that using even high
bitrate mp3's would cause me to lose sound quality. I was also worried
that the ipod might not be putting out a clean signal. If you or anyone
else has further thoughts on the matter I would love to hear them.

The iPod is putting out a clean signal, but it's a clean signal of a
compressed audio file. It's that compression that causes any compromise
in sound quality. As for how significant that compromise is, well,
let's just say that's debatable. Me, I don't listen to a compressed
file if I have an uncompressed source available. But I would not bet
real money that I could hear the difference between a 256kbps MP3 and
the original CD in a fair comparison.

bob

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
The answers here are bringing up more questions for me. I sure do
appreciate the help. I'll try to be specific.
1. Should I avoid buying music at the itunes store? It is 128kbps AAC.

AAC does a very good job of 128. That's about as low as you'd probably want
to go, though, in terms of bitrates.

2. If I rip original cd's using apple's lossless format would the ipod
be an acceptable source?

Lossless should sound the same as a cd.

3. If I were to consider buying a cd player what would be the critical
features to look for?

Not sure there are many CD-only players left out there. I'd go with something
that plays DVDs too. Then even if you don't use it for surround sound now,
you still could in the future.

4. What about a source device like the squeezebox which pulls the audio
off the computer? If I have the original music ripped as lossless would
this be a good source?

Yes.

One person mentioned adding a record player to this setup. I do have
one but did not mention it as I only use it to play older records that
are not in great shape. So when I listen to my record player I'm not
looking for perfect sound.

Well, records aren't lossless either. ;

Really, the best way to 'improve your system' would be to change speakers (to ones that sound
better to you, if such exist) and treat acoustic problems in the room, by repositioning
yourself or the speakers, or by actually adding or subtracting materals to the surfaces, or by
emplying digital room correction. Speakers and room are the two 'components' that have the
biggest influence on how recorded music sounds in the home.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[bob]

wrote:
The answers here are bringing up more questions for me. I sure do
appreciate the help. I'll try to be specific.
1. Should I avoid buying music at the itunes store? It is 128kbps AAC.

Not necessarily. It won't give you the best possible sound, but you
might have other reasons for doing so--convenience, availability, etc.
I've bought a few when I just wanted a single song, for example.

2. If I rip original cd's using apple's lossless format would the ipod
be an acceptable source?

Generally as good as a CD player.

3. If I were to consider buying a cd player what would be the critical
features to look for?

These days? That it plays disks.

4. What about a source device like the squeezebox which pulls the audio
off the computer? If I have the original music ripped as lossless would
this be a good source?

It's not a "source" per se. It's more of a connection. Again, it should
be as capable as any other device playing uncompressed files.

One person mentioned adding a record player to this setup. I do have
one but did not mention it as I only use it to play older records that
are not in great shape. So when I listen to my record player I'm not
looking for perfect sound.

Ah, a realist!

bob

[[email protected]]

wrote:

The answers here are bringing up more questions for me. I sure do
appreciate the help. I'll try to be specific.
1. Should I avoid buying music at the itunes store? It is 128kbps AAC.

iTunes offers convenience. As long as you know what you are getting, and
are satisfied with it, why stop?

2. If I rip original cd's using apple's lossless format would the ipod
be an acceptable source?

probably acceptable.

3. If I were to consider buying a cd player what would be the critical
features to look for?

buy an inexpensive DVD player. Something under $200 should do the trick for
basic functionality.

4. What about a source device like the squeezebox which pulls the audio
off the computer? If I have the original music ripped as lossless would
this be a good source?

probably.

One person mentioned adding a record player to this setup. I do have
one but did not mention it as I only use it to play older records that
are not in great shape. So when I listen to my record player I'm not
looking for perfect sound.

what is the point of this, unless you have a lot of good quality records?
To start from scratch with analog seems wrongheaded, to me (and this is
coming from someone who mostly listens to records since I have so many from
so long ago).

mp

[Walt]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Walt wrote:

wrote:

My home system consists of:

Accuphase E-202 Integrated amp
Accuphase T-101 Tuner
Magnepan MMG Speakers
iPod, first generation, mp3's at 256kbps

If you were to pick a weak point in my system what would it be?

The data compressed source. Hands down. You're throwing away three out
of every four bits from the original source. Replace the mp3s with
uncompressed source.

If the music was accurately ripped and then encoded with something like a recent LAME encoder
at constant 256kbps, it's unlikely that the mp3s are a problem, since it's unlikely he, or
anyone on average, would be able to tell them from souce, for most sources.

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this point. Data
reduction algorithms are amazingly successful at reducing the bitrate
without making *much* of an audible difference. But they are definitely
audible depending on the material and if you know what to listen for.

You are right that the "average person" won't notice the difference (or
particularly care, even if it's pointed out to them), but that's not the
purpose of rahe.

//Walt

[bob]

Walt wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

If the music was accurately ripped and then encoded with something like a recent LAME encoder
at constant 256kbps, it's unlikely that the mp3s are a problem, since it's unlikely he, or
anyone on average, would be able to tell them from souce, for most sources.

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this point. Data
reduction algorithms are amazingly successful at reducing the bitrate
without making *much* of an audible difference. But they are definitely
audible depending on the material and if you know what to listen for.

Which is pretty much what Steven said. But it's highly unlikely that
you know what to listen for at that bitrate, unless you have trained
yourself carefully to listen for it. I doubt too many people reading
(or posting to) RAHE have bothered to do so.

bob

[[email protected]]

what is the point of this, unless you have a lot of good quality records?
To start from scratch with analog seems wrongheaded, to me (and this is
coming from someone who mostly listens to records since I have so many from
so long ago).

mp

I like going to goodwill and picking up music that I would normally not
purchase for $15 a cd. I can grab a few records for $1 each. That's how
I discovered Harry Belafonte who I now enjoy very much. I also
discovered Artie Shaw, David Sanborn, George Benton, and Pete Fountain
this way. Cugat, Guy Lombardo, and many other great albums. I guess the
record player gives me the freedom to play in a way I normally would
not be able to do.

Up until now I had not really considered the record player as a way to
get high fidelity music. I might reconsider that but it would probably
require me to make a further equipment investment. My dad uses two
devices to decrease noise on his lp's (he is a bit of an audiophile)
and I'm not sure I want to invest my money in that direction. I would
consider it though if someone made a good argument for it.

I want to thank everyone who has given me such good advice regarding
the mp3 issue. I am going to experiment with the lossless format and
see if my ears think it would be worthwhile over my current 256kbps
setting for mp3's. I will try to post back here once I have done that.

Dave

[Steven Sullivan]

Walt wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Walt wrote:

wrote:

My home system consists of:

Accuphase E-202 Integrated amp
Accuphase T-101 Tuner
Magnepan MMG Speakers
iPod, first generation, mp3's at 256kbps

If you were to pick a weak point in my system what would it be?

The data compressed source. Hands down. You're throwing away three out
of every four bits from the original source. Replace the mp3s with
uncompressed source.

If the music was accurately ripped and then encoded with something like a recent LAME encoder
at constant 256kbps, it's unlikely that the mp3s are a problem, since it's unlikely he, or
anyone on average, would be able to tell them from souce, for most sources.

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this point. Data
reduction algorithms are amazingly successful at reducing the bitrate
without making *much* of an audible difference. But they are definitely
audible depending on the material and if you know what to listen for.

At extremely high bitrates the artifacts of a well-made mp3 usually require training to hear,
and I can think of only one or two people who've reported credible ABX results to that effect
-- they were both LAME developers, who are highly attuned to MP3 artifacts -- which aren't
artifacts audiophiles tend to be familiar with. In my own ABX tests I (and a few others I've
tested, from audio forums) have been unable to tell 196 VBR , LAME-encoded mp3s from source,
and I consider myself a careful listener. Finally, my decades of perusing audiophile
literature has only heightened my skepticism over the *actual* discriminatory abilities of
self-claimed audiophles. As such I highly doubt a well-made high-bitrate MP3 would be a cause
of dissatisfaction with the user's setup. It's possible to produce a crummy-sounding
high-bitrate mp3, of course, and one problem with giving the OP the advice he seeks is that he
hasn't told us anything about those 256 kbps MP3s. Did he make them, or download them? If he
made them, how did he do it?

You are right that the "average person" won't notice the difference (or
particularly care, even if it's pointed out to them), but that's not the
purpose of rahe.

It's all too easy to make assumptions in audiophile-land -- I'd rather RAHE gave accurate
claims than typical ones. One accurate claim is that a well-made high-bitrate MP3 is unlikely
to be the source of an audible problem. Ditto a properly working and connected Ipod. Neither
claim rules out the possibility of MP3s, or Ipods, causing sonic problems. I'm pleased that
the OP has been informed that DVDs and lossless encoding could be a cheap 'upgrade' if he is
having MP3/Ipod anxiety ('upgrade' in quotes because without a proper, that is , *blind*,
comparison, his 'upgrade' could be imaginary).

To be honest I'm a bit puzzled about this thread. We don't even know if the OP *has* a
problem with his setup. The OP asked what he should upgrade in his system, but it's unclear
if he was actually dissatisfied with the current sound. His review makes it seems like once
he learned that speaker position makes a huge difference to sound, he was actually very
satisfied with the result. Has something changed, has he become more discriminating, or has
he simply got the common 'audiophile itch' to 'upgrade' SOMETHING in his system?

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[record hunter]

wrote:
what is the point of this, unless you have a lot of good quality records?
To start from scratch with analog seems wrongheaded, to me (and this is
coming from someone who mostly listens to records since I have so many from
so long ago).

mp

I like going to goodwill and picking up music that I would normally not
purchase for $15 a cd. I can grab a few records for $1 each. That's how
I discovered Harry Belafonte who I now enjoy very much. I also
discovered Artie Shaw, David Sanborn, George Benton, and Pete Fountain
this way. Cugat, Guy Lombardo, and many other great albums. I guess the
record player gives me the freedom to play in a way I normally would
not be able to do.

Up until now I had not really considered the record player as a way to
get high fidelity music. I might reconsider that but it would probably
require me to make a further equipment investment. My dad uses two
devices to decrease noise on his lp's (he is a bit of an audiophile)
and I'm not sure I want to invest my money in that direction. I would
consider it though if someone made a good argument for it.

I like the sound better. Especially on rock LPs. CDs don't sound real
to me, especially anything percussive. People playing drums and guitars
sound more like people playing drums and guitars.

Gotta motor if I'm gonna make it to Jerry's (used record store in my
neighborhood).

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
It's possible to produce a crummy-sounding
high-bitrate mp3, of course, and one problem with giving the OP the advice he seeks is that he
hasn't told us anything about those 256 kbps MP3s. Did he make them, or download them? If he
made them, how did he do it?

I use itunes built in mp3 encoder set to 256kbps fixed rate, seperate
stereo mode. When I started encoding with itunes I used 192kbps. The
result is that over half of my library is 192kbps or better.

The other half is from: 1) pre-itunes days when mp3's were pretty new
and I was ripping some cd's. Those could most certainly stand to be
replaced. 2) I also have about 5gb of mp3's from emusic.com from before
they put monthly limits out. 3) My wife frequently buys from the itunes
store.

I think I've got the message here though. To get good results I should
rip at the 256kbps rate, preferably with lame, or use apple's lossless
format.

To be honest I'm a bit puzzled about this thread. We don't even know if the OP *has* a
problem with his setup. The OP asked what he should upgrade in his system, but it's unclear
if he was actually dissatisfied with the current sound. His review makes it seems like once
he learned that speaker position makes a huge difference to sound, he was actually very
satisfied with the result. Has something changed, has he become more discriminating, or has
he simply got the common 'audiophile itch' to 'upgrade' SOMETHING in his system?

I am very satisfied with the result of my system but at the same time I
do tend to "tinker" with any hobby I have. So you probably hit it when
you said I might have the itch to upgrade something even if it isn't
necessary. I was also praying that someone would not say, "get rid of
that old amp." I love that old amp but I thought audiophiles might
think it outdated. Nobody said anything about it though so I'm happy.

In this case my upgrade might be as simple as ensuring my source music
is of high standards. That is where I will focus my efforts as it seems
the biggest bang for the buck.

Thanks,

Dave

[[email protected]]

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
. . . .
I think I've got the message here though. To get good results I should
rip at the 256kbps rate, preferably with lame, or use apple's lossless
format.....
Thanks,

Dave

If you must have MP3, then use LAME. BUT, you use iTunes and you have
an iPod, so why not use AAC? It's better than MP3, actually it is the
evolution of MP3. Fraunhoffer (the inventor of MP3), Apple, Dolby labs
and others got together and made a better MP3. They called it AAC.
Everyone agrees that AAC is better than MP3. And, the built-in AAC
encoder within iTunes is very good.

CD

[[email protected]]

wrote:

I like going to goodwill and picking up music that I would normally not
purchase for $15 a cd. I can grab a few records for $1 each.

If you can obtain a record library for one dollar, then it might be
worthwhile to consider. New records usually cost as much, and often much
more, than CD's. Check out the Testament Gotterdammerung recently
released. $175.00.

http://store.acousticsounds.com/brow...&section=music

I find that records sound OK over my speakers, but when I listen to
headphones the immediacy of vinyl noise is often too intrusive. And the
noise is worse with music of dynamic range. For instance, using headphones
and records, Liszt lieder is impossible; the Mahavishnu Orchestra is not as
noticeable. And I have very good records.

I spent $150 for my DVD-CD player. I believe it sounds as good as any
(although at this price point, it is very flimsy, construction-wise). A
record player you will want to own is likely going to set you back at least
$500. A decent cartridge will set you back another $200 or so (I am
speaking generally, but the prices are typical). So, unless there is some
overriding reason to go the analog route, I think it is better just to
spend the money on music, or save it.

mp

[Chung]

wrote:
The answers here are bringing up more questions for me. I sure do
appreciate the help. I'll try to be specific.
1. Should I avoid buying music at the itunes store? It is 128kbps AAC.

Well, I have found differences between originals and their 128 Kps AAC
versions. But it sure is convenient to buy music from iTunes. I
generally would rather buy the CD's, unless there is only one or two
tracks I like. And even then, there are better sources of compressed
music than iTunes, if sonic quality is your top priority.

The first generation iPods do not sound as good as the recent iPods,
IMO. And those early ones have very small capacities. I would recommend
that you upgrade to a new iPod, like the 80G model, especially if that
is your primary source of music. Assuming that you have a CD drive in
your computer that you can use to rip music with, that is. If not, then
get that first, and also get a standalone CD/DVD player.

2. If I rip original cd's using apple's lossless format would the ipod
be an acceptable source?

Not sure about the 1st generation, but the current generation is
excellent. You are limited by the quality of the compression you use,
not by the DAC's inside the iPods.

3. If I were to consider buying a cd player what would be the critical
features to look for?

Perhaps you should get a DVD player instead. You'll be spending less and
getting a lot more features. Get a universal one if you want to try
DVD-Audio and SACD.

4. What about a source device like the squeezebox which pulls the audio
off the computer? If I have the original music ripped as lossless would
this be a good source?


Yes. But there are other good choices, too.

This might not be the best audience for such a recommendation, but the
Xbox 360, a game console, can be used as a streaming audio player if you
have a networked PC/notebook. You can find great deals for the premium
Xbox 360 for around $300 in the USA.

OK, maybe this is the right audience. You can buy the $200 HD DVD add-on
for the Xbox 360. That allows you to play the new HD DVD's. I find
concert HD DVD's to be superb, both in audio and in video quality. They
are a significant improvement over standard DVD's. Right now that add-on
is bundled with a HD DVD (King Kong) and a remote control. A very good
deal, IMO.

One person mentioned adding a record player to this setup. I do have
one but did not mention it as I only use it to play older records that
are not in great shape. So when I listen to my record player I'm not
looking for perfect sound.

Thanks for any more info!
Dave

[Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro]

wrote:
I have worried that using even high
bitrate mp3's would cause me to lose sound quality.

Then don't worry unless if you have hearing damage.

Real tests (double blind, of course) done some years ago by c't, the
german computer magazine, found that people with normal hearing can't
distinguish 256 Kb/s MP3 from the original file.

http://www.geocities.com/altbinaries...l/mp3test.html

"Summing Up

In plain language, this means that our musically trained test listeners
could reliably distinguish the poorer quality MP3s at 128 kbps quite
accurately from either of the other higher-quality samples. But when
deciding between 256 kbps encoded MP3s and the original CD, no difference
could be determined, on average, for all the pieces. The testers took
the 256 kbps samples for the CD just as often as they took the original
CD samples themselves."

OTOH, if you have hearing damage, you might be able to better distinguish
mp3s from the original. The winner of that test was a person that:

"Since an accident involving an explosion I can hear on my left-side
only up to 8 kHz, and on the right side I had a stubborn ringing until
recently. However, I can catch the typical flanging effects of the
MP3 filters and maybe do that better than my competitors because of my
hearing impairment."

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

[Walt]

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:

wrote:

I have worried that using even high
bitrate mp3's would cause me to lose sound quality.

Real tests (double blind, of course) done some years ago by c't, the
german computer magazine, found that people with normal hearing can't
distinguish 256 Kb/s MP3 from the original file.

http://www.geocities.com/altbinaries...l/mp3test.html


That is a poor summary of that survey.

The test played three versions of a musical selection, one at 128k, one
at 256k and one uncompressed. Then they asked the subjects to identify
which is which. In short, this is poor methodology The proper question
to ask is "is there a difference" not "which is the CD and which is the
MP3."

IOW, this is not science. In the words of one subject: "It seemed to me
almost as if some of the 256 kbps samples sounded somewhat rounder and
more pleasing than the originals from the CD" . So while he heard a
difference, he was often wrong as to which is which.

I will agree that it is an interesting anecdote, and supports the claim
that 256k MP3 is pretty good approximation of uncomressed audio. For
many if not most purposes it's "good enough".

//Walt

[Rob Tweed]

4. What about a source device like the squeezebox which pulls the audio
off the computer? If I have the original music ripped as lossless would
this be a good source?

With hard disks becoming bigger and cheaper by the month (Hitachi have
just announced the first 1Tb hard drive, and in the UK at least, 320Gb
USB drives are currently the best value - I got one for less than 60
UK pounds a couple of weeks ago), I personally don't bother
compressing ripped files, saving them and playing them back in their
full WAV format (using iTunes as the user interface).

20 days worth of uncompressed music will fit onto a 320GB drive
costing about the same as 3 or 4 full-price CDs! It's ridiculous
really

Obviously if you're downloading music and/or using an MP3 player or
iPod then you'll want to use some form of compression, but for home
all-digital set-ups I can't see the point any more - and you'll never
have to worry whether those compressed files are causing any sonic
degradation, imaginary or otherwise!

---
Rob Tweed
M/Gateway Developments Ltd

The Pursuit of Productivity : http://www.mgateway.com

[Tom A.]

Accuphase E-202 Integrated amp
Accuphase T-101 Tuner
Magnepan MMG Speakers
iPod, first generation, mp3's at 256kbps

The maggies are my latest addition. I felt like any serious upgrade to
this system would be very costly. If you were to pick a weak point in
my system what would it be? Or maybe I should ask, what would be the
item to upgrade out of these? Thanks for any help.

The ipod, though not bad in itself is the weaker point. 256kbps is
already a "good" mp3, you will need to listen closely to hear the
difference, and I expect it to sound a bit more "flat" than the source.
Also keep in mind that the DA convertor in the ipod is ok for such a
device but not the highest quality.
What I'd do (and in fact it is something I am investigating for myself)
is first, to encode all you cds in a lossless format. iTunes can do
that. these days hard disks are not so expensive anymore, and on a
500Gb drive you will get some 1000 cds.
Then connect your mac via USB or firewire to a good quality D/A
convertor. These exist in all price ranges, but already something from
say M-audio should be better than the computer or ipod D/A.
Later, you may think of adding a decent subwoofer to assist your
maggies when playing rock music.

cheers, Tom

ps Personally, I also prefer using itunes as a jukebox instead of
handling physical cds (sooo 20th century), but that's another story.

pps elsewhere you wonder if you should continue to buy AAC songs at the
itunes store. Well, why not, if there are only one or two songs you
like on a disc then it doesn't make sense to buy the physical disc even
if it sounds better. However if you intend to buy the full album then I
would pay the surplus for the physical CD.