Slashdot Mirror

Good sound quality is still out there and still being improved. Companies like NAD are still in business and still developing amazing gear.

Yes, I have NAD320BEE amp. It's plain looking outside but good quality inside.

Good sound quality is still out there and still being improved. Companies like NAD are still in business and still developing amazing gear.

Even if the turntable were fitted with a decent cartridge, needle and tone arm, there's no way that USB can be made into a good connection. You don't have to (and shouldn't, unless you enjoy being gullible) pay hundreds of dollars for your cables, but even the crappy lamp cables you get from Radio Shack would be better.

It's perfectly possible to get quite a good setup at a pretty much budget price. My setup is a Pro-Ject Debut III with a Nad PP-2 pre-amp plugged into the back of an Audigy 2 ZS soundcard. If you shop around, you could probably get this for about $300 all up. I didn't pay much more, and I went to a bricks-and-mortar shop. Obviously, there are lots of ways to improve on this outfit, but the usual law of diminishing returns applies.

Also, a note for those unused to vinyl: because it's essentially a mechanical component, a new cartridge will give a somewhat thin sound, as it needs "running in" for some time to develop its full responsiveness.

MP3newswire.net also offers an older, but nicely explained article on how this technology works using only two headphones to replace six speakers.

Um, no. The article doesn't explain how to "replace six speakers" with two. It describes a WinAmp plugin for "virtual speaker placement", whatever that is.

Personally, I've found that all these "virtual" thingies are market-droid speak, snake oil at their very best. If your recording has two channels (assuming no multichannel encoding), a correctly configured stereo pair is the best option.

Real multichannel records may give you true 3D sound, if you have the decoder, amp, and speakers to do it. However, the linked article describes an "improvement" to a system that's ill-suited for high fidelity playback in the first place.

Why anybody would want to distort the sound even further from what it is after MP3/Ogg encoding, since you can get better results with a decent amp (budget models from NAD are very nice), and a pair of high quality speakers.

Due to the SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) circuitry that is a requirement on consumer-based CD-Recorders, a duplicate cannot be made of a copy that is digital. The CDR 2 will automatically switch to an analog deck-to-deck dub when it detects that the source is a digital copy. However, if you can make only one copy at a time, and you need multiple copies from a particular CD, there seems no logical reason why you shouldn't make all copies from the original.

If that doesn't make it sound like an ideal machine for those who like to keep their copying options open, it will even simplify the copying of material encoded with the Serial Copyright Management System -- for example first-generation CD/R-CD/RW copies. Load one of these and copying system just switches from its default digital operation to copying in the analogue domain, running the output from the playback deck through the DAC and then back through the ADC in the CD-R/RW section.

I'm a big dork and intensely research any potential electronics purchase. Instead of impulse-buying, I wait until the unit I want--usually the expensive one--goes on sale.

As an example, I bought a Harman/Kardon receiver a few years ago as the model line was being end-of-lifed. The normally $400+ receiver cost me $199 at Circuit City. The damn thing is a tank. It sounds great and weighs 25 lbs due to its massive transformer...about 10 more than the average Sony. I cracked it open out of curiosity and was surprised at how well-built it is compared to my previous crap JVC receiver.

I've actually had good luck with other Sony stuff, especially their computer monitors. I just don't like their receivers and low-end audio stuff. The upper-end and ES-level components are quite good.

Just pay a little extra and buy something good--it will last. Instead of, say, a Pioneer or JVC receiver, get a H/K, NAD, Denon or Onkyo. This isn't high-end audiophile gear by any means, but it is considerably better than Bose and most of the other mass-market crap at Best Buy.

And don't buy those all-in-one home theatres. If one component fails, you'll be stuck with a whole bunch of useless (still good) equipment.

Umm, hate to tell you this since you're obviously on the high horse... but:

Klipsch speakers are hardly anywhere near setting any standards in audio quality. "The best computer speakers" they may be, but having separate "computer speakers" is silly. There's nothing stopping you from using real speakers with your computer -- except maybe price, but high fidelity never was for the poor.

Hint: to get higher quality stereo sound out of your computer, get an amp (an entry level NAD will do nicely) and a pair of high quality two-way speakers (like the Amphion Argon).

Combine these with a soundcard that doesn't produce audible hiss at a comfortable listening level. Then, only then, may you be able to say something about the differences between audio codecs.

Note: not a troll, but will probably be modded as one. Got karma to burn.

I had the advantage of living near an excellent audio store here in Seattle, of which I availed myself before buying my audio gear. They have an excellent page on exactly how you should structure your listening tests: you should listen to the tune.

(The rest of this comment is a small rant; feel free to ignore it.)

I ended up buying my integrated amplifier from NAD (which has the added benefit of a humorous name), CD player from Marantz, and speakers from Axiom. (You can't imagine how good these inexpensive speakers are.) I aimed for decent sound in my office without spending too much money. I'm not an audiophile, but I also know a particularly obvious imperfection will bother me. The system is pretty well-balanced for the price.

After replacing my crapomatic integrated bookshelf stereo in the office with decent components, the issues of MP3/OGG/etc. became irrelevent. They're all crap, and your only options are separating less stinky crap from really stinky crap, if you're listening to generated waveforms coming from your internal DAC. My SGIs, which spank any PC with an internal sound card for fidelity and noise level, don't even match up.

I really want to try one of the USB-connected external DACs, because I like the ability to manage my entire CD catalog from one place, without having to switch CDs. However, I couldn't continue kidding myself that the sound from the computers was the least bit faithful.

other names are less recognizable like Arcam , Marantz, Rega , Rotel , NAD, and Nakamichi . But all make superlative gear for less than you'd think.

my habit has recently been Krell and Vandersteen

above all, any audiophile will tell you to listen, make adjustments, and buy and enjoy what sounds the best. all it takes is love of music

The last amplifier I bought was a NAD 2200. The 218THX is rated at twice the continuous power of the 2200, and if it's anything like the 2200 quality-wise it should impress just about everyone. Note that since the 2200 and 218THX are both two channel amplifiers, you'd need 3 of them to do 5.1 surround. If you were running them in bridged mode to make roughly 3-4x more wattage, you'd need five of them (six if your sub doesn't have its own amplifier).

I love my CSW New Ensemble speaker system. It's got fairly flat response in all of the bands it covers, and the bass enclosures are shallow enough to hide out of the way. CSW also has a great 5.1 surround setup they sell that's built around these same speakers. You can't get much better in the under $2000 pricerange. Plus there's a 10 year warranty in case anything goes wrong. They even let you trade your used CSW gear at its full purchase price for newer/better stuff within the first year.

I have my gripes with Sony's audio amplifiers, including those used in their car stereo and home theater amps. Maybe it's got better in the past few years, but last I checked their amplifiers couldn't muster enough current to drive high end speakers, had wattage ratings that were inflated by a good 50%, and introduced a lot of noise, clipping, and harmonics when driven hard. Then again, maybe I'm just picky.

The last amplifier I bought was a NAD 2200. It's just as powerful as some of their newer THX certified power amplifiers, but built before THX certification existed. You'd need 3 NAD 2200's to do 5.1 surround - 5 if you were running them in bridged mode and hard a powered subwoofer.

Failing one's ability to find a few used 2200's along with a Dolby Digital / DTS decoder and preamp at a good price, one could instead opt for one of the newer Onkyo integrated receivers. Better models give you integrated decoding w/ DSP effects, an AM/FM tuner, input selection betwen about 8 sources with a tape monitor, 2 or 3 digital inputs, and an equalized Phono preamp stage, volume control, and amplifiers for the 5 major channels along with a line-level output for your powered subwoofer. The built in amplifiers are rated conservatively and put out plenty of current, unlike the Sony and JVC stuff I've played with, so you'll have no trouble driving low impedance loads at high volume.

All very good points. For speakers, I would also suggest Polk Audio - they have great output.

You might also want to look in a phone book for locally run stores specfically devoted to audio equipment in your home town. The owners are in the business because they are audiophiles. Granted, the prices are generally a bit more expensive, but you could at least go to see which brands they respect and carry, and then shop around online for the same brands.

By the way - if you ever win the lottery or come across a large sum of money, you should check out NAD. They rule.

Both me, and two of my friends have been very happy with out NAD T760 surround receivers. It has a huge number of inputs (including 3 digital inputs), supports both DTS and Dolby Digital, sounds good (to our ears, at least), and combined with a NAD T218THX power amplifier, it really rocks.

Both me, and two of my friends have been very happy with out NAD T760 surround receivers. It has a huge number of inputs (including 3 digital inputs), supports both DTS and Dolby Digital, sounds good (to our ears, at least), and combined with a NAD T218THX power amplifier, it really rocks.

Good point; I guess I'm one of those snots that would buy a separate DVD player (aside from a PS2) so that it would look nice in my audio rack. NAD and Nakamichi look great and sound great and would probably max out the vision/hearing capabilities of 99% of the public. I'd also like all my components to match, too ... BTW, I disagree that the TT drives great (try an S4, if you're gonna stick to Audi), but they do drive very well compared to many other cars out there. And although I don't think I'd ever own one, I really admire its design and inspiration. It's so refreshing to see some car manufacturers market risky designs and put some flavor into cars these days (the Chrysler PT Cruiser comes to mind, among others).

In terms of design, i like Nad Electronics' ( www.nadelectronics.com) designs. I have fallen in love with their L40. If they only had that running MP3s...


..................................@ @

In terms of design, i like Nad Electronics' ( www.nadelectronics.com) designs. I have fallen in love with their L40. If they only had that running MP3s...


..................................@ @