|
|
|
|
"Competent design"
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Wylie Williams wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" asked
For what exact purpose? I mean if you're trying to build a little
headphone amplifier yourself it's a bit different than, say, buying
an A/V receiver.
Generally, though, the sad fact remains that our ears are pathetic
compared to most of the rest of the mammals out there and technology
has had no problem with exceeding its limitations in the last
20+ years.
Ok, point well taken. I want to decide wheteher my stereo system
components
are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume
there
is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend
more
and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid speakers.
Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.
Sound quality(sans speakers) of your system at your level is better than
you can likely hear differences in. What spending more money really buys
you is durability and headroom for tough music/parties, and build quality.
Actually, IME this is simply not true. The MORE you spend the LESS LIKELY
you'll have a trouble-free component.
If 20 year old components exceed my hearing then I could use the criteria
to select vintage gear, which might be a nice saving. Or I could buy an AV
receiver to use for stereo to get in lower cost bi amping. Who knows?
In theory, yes. OTOH, components in the vintage gear degrade like
anything in life, so you'd have to spend some money overhauling it
to get that level of sound.
Sure and the expensive components sound exactly like the cheaper stuff AND tend
to be less reliable.
It's usually less expensive to just get
a used Bryston or simmilar quality amp a few years old.
I own 4 Bryston amplifiers and they have been the MOST unreliable of the dozen
in my stable.
|