My first post (newbie)

[degarmo]

Hi all,

In the past I have used Rotel and paradigm and then upgraded to B&W
keeping the rotel. I am in the process of researching what to buy to
build a new system as I sold my former system. For the past few weeks
I have been researching various hifi companies and their gear to try
to determine the best bang for the buck. Obviously, one is limited by
how much one can afford to spend. My question to you is, what is the
best bang for the buck in terms of sound quality? To give you some
idea of the level of gear I can afford, I am looking and comparing the
following brands: Rotel, Arcam, Parasound, NAD, Adcom & Marantz. From
your own knowledge and experience, are there other comparable brands
out there that I should also be including in my search for the best
sound for the money, and if so, which ones?

Also, it should be mentioned that I prefer an integrated to an amp/
preamp setup. Please let me know what your top three picks are (brand-
wise) in terms of best sound for the money.

Thanks and I look forward to reading your suggestions.

Michael

[Jenn]

In article
>,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> degarmo > wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In the past I have used Rotel and paradigm and then upgraded to B&W
> > keeping the rotel. I am in the process of researching what to buy to
> > build a new system as I sold my former system. For the past few weeks
> > I have been researching various hifi companies and their gear to try
> > to determine the best bang for the buck. Obviously, one is limited by
> > how much one can afford to spend. My question to you is, what is the
> > best bang for the buck in terms of sound quality? To give you some
> > idea of the level of gear I can afford, I am looking and comparing the
> > following brands: Rotel, Arcam, Parasound, NAD, Adcom & Marantz. From
> > your own knowledge and experience, are there other comparable brands
> > out there that I should also be including in my search for the best
> > sound for the money, and if so, which ones?
> >
> > Also, it should be mentioned that I prefer an integrated to an amp/
> > preamp setup. Please let me know what your top three picks are (brand-
> > wise) in terms of best sound for the money.
> >
> > Thanks and I look forward to reading your suggestions.
>
> I'll second what George has to say, but if you want a specific
> recommendation that doesn't take into account your speakers, room and
> listening habits, you could do worse than an Arcam 9 cd player and an
> NAD 340 integrated amp.
>
> Stephen

I like the Arcam 9, and I am also very fond of the Rotel 1072.

[degarmo]

I appreciate all your replies. I am a big fan of paradigm speakers. Do
you feel that Paradigm is a good match for NAD amps? If not why?

What are some of your personal favorite speaker brands other than
paradigm? I have also owned B&W's and like them very much also.

Also, could someone please explain the whole 4 ohms versus 8 ohms
issue and why it's important to consider when deciding what system to
build?

Thanks,

Michael

[George M. Middius]

degarmo said:

> I appreciate all your replies. I am a big fan of paradigm speakers. Do
> you feel that Paradigm is a good match for NAD amps? If not why?

Paradigm speakers are mass-market. They're not difficult to drive. You can
pair them with any amp or receiver that has sufficient power. (BTW, the
WPC ratings given by manufacturers aren't always realistic, but that's
another discussion.)

> What are some of your personal favorite speaker brands other than
> paradigm? I have also owned B&W's and like them very much also.

Some B&Ws are fussier than Paradigms.

> Also, could someone please explain the whole 4 ohms versus 8 ohms
> issue and why it's important to consider when deciding what system to
> build?

That's the "impedance" rating. You can use it to determine compatibility
between speaker and amp. The lower the impedance, the more demanding the
speakers are for the amplifier to drive. Most speakers "present" a load of
8 ohms (usually called "8 ohms nominal"). Some audiophile speakers are
rated at 4 ohms impedance; for those, you usually need an amplifier that's
designed to handle a 4-ohm load. (The exception is a highly "sensitive"
speaker that is also "efficient".)

Don't rely on anything offered by nitwit dittoheads from San Diego. Just
put a few of those terms into a search engine.

One last thing: The impedance rating of the speakers and the power rating
of the amplifier are a broad way of determining compatibility. However,
the interaction between the amp and the loudspeaker is affected by several
variables. The designers make choices that are tradeoffs between cost,
loudness, accuracy, and other things. Unless you're very knowledgeable in
electronics, the only way to determine which amp makes the speakers sound
better is to try them out.

[xxxxxx]

speaker
why buy a small paradigm
when you can get this pair for $550??
http://www.theaudioinsider.com/product_info.php?cPath=21_30&products_id=47&osCsid=e6736db3fd9bfd0415d28f98c30133d6

have you thought about powered monitors
and doing away with amplication entirely?
there is lot of new stuff there (and old like ADS and BRAUN and M & K)




"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> degarmo said:
>
>> I appreciate all your replies. I am a big fan of paradigm speakers. Do
>> you feel that Paradigm is a good match for NAD amps? If not why?
>
> Paradigm speakers are mass-market. They're not difficult to drive. You can
> pair them with any amp or receiver that has sufficient power. (BTW, the
> WPC ratings given by manufacturers aren't always realistic, but that's
> another discussion.)
>
>> What are some of your personal favorite speaker brands other than
>> paradigm? I have also owned B&W's and like them very much also.
>
> Some B&Ws are fussier than Paradigms.
>
>> Also, could someone please explain the whole 4 ohms versus 8 ohms
>> issue and why it's important to consider when deciding what system to
>> build?
>
> That's the "impedance" rating. You can use it to determine compatibility
> between speaker and amp. The lower the impedance, the more demanding the
> speakers are for the amplifier to drive. Most speakers "present" a load of
> 8 ohms (usually called "8 ohms nominal"). Some audiophile speakers are
> rated at 4 ohms impedance; for those, you usually need an amplifier that's
> designed to handle a 4-ohm load. (The exception is a highly "sensitive"
> speaker that is also "efficient".)
>
> Don't rely on anything offered by nitwit dittoheads from San Diego. Just
> put a few of those terms into a search engine.
>
> One last thing: The impedance rating of the speakers and the power rating
> of the amplifier are a broad way of determining compatibility. However,
> the interaction between the amp and the loudspeaker is affected by several
> variables. The designers make choices that are tradeoffs between cost,
> loudness, accuracy, and other things. Unless you're very knowledgeable in
> electronics, the only way to determine which amp makes the speakers sound
> better is to try them out.
>
>
>

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

xxxxxx > wrote:
: speaker
: why buy a small paradigm
: when you can get this pair for $550??
: http://www.theaudioinsider.com/product_info.php?cPath=21_30&products_id=47&osCsid=e6736db3fd9bfd0415d28f98c30133d6


Well, small paradigms put out very good sound -- why buy a floorsanding speaker if you don't
need one?


But mainly, because Paradigm is legendary for excellent speakers for the price.
I never heard of Swan, and the one review I saw was in a daily newspaper.

Are they any good, is my question.

-- Andy Barss

[degarmo]

Hi,

Curious what specifically you like about the NAD 340. When reviewing
the current version of that amp on the NAD web-site, I came across
these specs: # 2 x 50W Minimum Continuous Power into 4 / 8 ohms
# 110W, 160W, 210W, IHF Dynamic power into 8, 4
and 2 ohms, respectively

I'm not sure what IHF Dynamic power is. What is the true wattage of
this amp, say, with some standard paradigms.

Thanks.

[dizzy]

xxxxxx wrote:

>speaker
>why buy a small paradigm
>when you can get this pair for $550??
>http://www.theaudioinsider.com/product_info.php?cPath=21_30&products_id=47&osCsid=e6736db3fd9bfd0415d28f98c30133d6

Just a guess, but because they're crappy Chinese speakers that don't
sound as good as Paradigms?

[dizzy]

joe cipale wrote:

>Ohhhhhh... now those are sweet looking!

Oh course they are. What you do think is needed to sell Brand X,
unheard speakers on the Internet?

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Ian, 08:51, dizzy > wrote:
> joe cipale wrote:
> >Ohhhhhh... now those are sweet looking!
>
> Oh course they are. *What you do think is needed to sell Brand X,
> unheard speakers on the Internet?

isn't the internet great, you don't even need to own a white van!

[xxxxxx]

speaker
why buy a small paradigm
when you can get this pair for $550??
http://www.theaudioinsider.com/product_info.php?cPath=21_30&products_id=47&osCsid=e6736db3fd9bfd0415d28f98c30133d6

have you thought about powered monitors
and doing away with amplication entirely?
there is lot of new stuff there (and old like ADS and BRAUN and M & K)



xxxxxx

"degarmo" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all,
>
> In the past I have used Rotel and paradigm and then upgraded to B&W
> keeping the rotel. I am in the process of researching what to buy to
> build a new system as I sold my former system. For the past few weeks
> I have been researching various hifi companies and their gear to try
> to determine the best bang for the buck. Obviously, one is limited by
> how much one can afford to spend. My question to you is, what is the
> best bang for the buck in terms of sound quality? To give you some
> idea of the level of gear I can afford, I am looking and comparing the
> following brands: Rotel, Arcam, Parasound, NAD, Adcom & Marantz. From
> your own knowledge and experience, are there other comparable brands
> out there that I should also be including in my search for the best
> sound for the money, and if so, which ones?
>
> Also, it should be mentioned that I prefer an integrated to an amp/
> preamp setup. Please let me know what your top three picks are (brand-
> wise) in terms of best sound for the money.
>
> Thanks and I look forward to reading your suggestions.
>
> Michael