[wisnon]

Best advice is to start with the speakers and then build the rest of the system around the speakers.  There's lots of good speakers around, I'd recommend starting with a few that I've found to be excellent:

Daedalus Athena's
Serenity Super 7's
Geddes Abbeys
Audiokinesis Dream Makers

The vast majority of audiophile speakers out there are quite overpriced, IMO.  The 4 above are not.  They are expensive, but worth every penny.

Here is a real speaker bargain...if you can still get it:
http://www.unitedhomeproducts.com/id101.htm  (Kithara)

[CrazyBlue]

$25 is just the maximum budget for the above mentioned components and the speakers.  Room treatments will have their own budget.  But don't get me wrong.  I by no means believe that the entire budget must be spent.  And I'll certainly be perusing Audiogon for deals.  But cost adds up quickly.  I've got $5k+ in an adequate living room 2-channel setup, half of that in the monitors and sub.  Going up from there, it's easy to spend that on a pre and amp and not be heading into esoterica land, or even approaching the border. 

Going bang-for-the-buck, internet direct, off the top of my head, with say, a pair of 3.7s, AVA FET Valve DAC, Pre, and 600R amp, and a pair of Salk-built Rhythmik subs would hit $17k, sans cabling.  You could substitute the Salk HT3s for the Maggies for about the same money, without upgrades.  Adds up fast, and Frank's gear is all engineering and zero bling.  His Ultra DAC is the best piece of gear in my living room, followed by the ART Legato I feed it with, both of which I bought used, right here.   

I'm talking a no-holds-barred dedicated room in which I'll also be working with background music going for hours each day.  But I'm a practical sort, so I set a ceiling and won't go beyond it, new or used, and I'm not necessarily a retail guy, so used is likely, at least with electronics.  I'll probably DIY most of the room treatments, and my diffraction will be bookshelves that would drive any self-respecting librarian crazy with wanting to straighten the spines, spaced at intervals around the room.  Yeah, I read a lot.  And I'm a music lover first, then maybe a stereo freak.  Audiophilia comes in last.  Bling?  Meh.  Okay, I have a weakness for beautiful wood.  But huge, detailed, nuanced, realistic sound with my favorite music is what this will be about, low or high volume.

I'll definitely give the 1.7s a listen, as well as the Vanderssteen 5A (heard great things about them, but have never had a chance to meet them in person).  Basically, I'm going into research mode, and appreciate the input of folks who have been down the trail ahead of me. 

And the shared interest, of course, in all its many forms.   

[a.wayne]

My suggestion is to choose speakers first , to do so , best to advise on  type and variety of music you listen to and what is the size of your listening room ...

After which we can then make amplifier suggestions ..

Regards

[a.wayne]

Ohh,

Throw in sanders ESl and amplfier , very good and budget friendly hi performance ...

Regards

[decal]

I'll make a deal with you CrazyBlue, send me the 25 grand and I'll buy you a fantastic system for 20 grand and keep the other five as a consulting fee. I guarantee you, we will both be happy. It's a win-win situation!!!!!! Deal?   

[geowak]

$25 is just the maximum budget for the above mentioned components and the speakers.  Room treatments will have their own budget.  But don't get me wrong.  I by no means believe that the entire budget must be spent.  And I'll certainly be perusing Audiogon for deals.  But cost adds up quickly.  I've got $5k+ in an adequate living room 2-channel setup, half of that in the monitors and sub.  Going up from there, it's easy to spend that on a pre and amp and not be heading into esoterica land, or even approaching the border. 

Going bang-for-the-buck, internet direct, off the top of my head, with say, a pair of 3.7s, AVA FET Valve DAC, Pre, and 600R amp, and a pair of Salk-built Rhythmik subs would hit $17k, sans cabling.  You could substitute the Salk HT3s for the Maggies for about the same money, without upgrades.  Adds up fast, and Frank's gear is all engineering and zero bling.  His Ultra DAC is the best piece of gear in my living room, followed by the ART Legato I feed it with, both of which I bought used, right here.   

I'm talking a no-holds-barred dedicated room in which I'll also be working with background music going for hours each day.  But I'm a practical sort, so I set a ceiling and won't go beyond it, new or used, and I'm not necessarily a retail guy, so used is likely, at least with electronics.  I'll probably DIY most of the room treatments, and my diffraction will be bookshelves that would drive any self-respecting librarian crazy with wanting to straighten the spines, spaced at intervals around the room.  Yeah, I read a lot.  And I'm a music lover first, then maybe a stereo freak.  Audiophilia comes in last.  Bling?  Meh.  Okay, I have a weakness for beautiful wood.  But huge, detailed, nuanced, realistic sound with my favorite music is what this will be about, low or high volume.

I'll definitely give the 1.7s a listen, as well as the Vanderssteen 5A (heard great things about them, but have never had a chance to meet them in person).  Basically, I'm going into research mode, and appreciate the input of folks who have been down the trail ahead of me. 

And the shared interest, of course, in all its many forms.   

As many stated here, the room will be very important. It's wise that you are considering it to the extent you have mentioned. I may get beat down here but I think the 1.7's and 5a's are very different speakers and in different leagues. I think of the Vandersteen as a full range speaker with little compromise. The 1.7's will be limited in the low freq range unless you add two tight subs like Vandy subs!
I had heard the 1.7's and was all set to get them, till my dealer set me up the Vandy 2ce Sig II. The 2ce is at the bottom range of the Vandersteen line, and I liked the sound a little more.
But it's like apples and oranges, what do you have a taste for?
Also my approach was to buy a manufacturer who has been in the business for awhile.
I did not get wooed by the latest greatest buzz word speaker. Who knows if they will be around in 15 years,
Magnepan and Vandersteen have!!

[a.wayne]

If going maggies get 3.5/3.7's and subs, IMO 1.7 is out at this budget .....!

[goskers]

My opinion is to select your speakers first.  Why? Speakers will always be the most inaccurate device in the reproduction chain.  Making a gain stage that has a flat frequency response has been easy for decades.  Gatling your source to be accurate is not that difficult to do either.  So, selecting the most accurate speaker shoulde be at the top of the list when it comes to investment.  By 'accurate' I tend to look at polar response as the main variant.

Why controlled directivity? CD is important because some reflections are good while others are bad.  Early reflections arriving soon after the original tend to smear an image while reflections arriving a good bit after the original add aurally to an added sense of ambience.  We try to tame some of these reflection nasties with non CD speakers by using room treatments at early reflection points.  The negative to doing this is that it is easy to deaden a room in the mid/high frequencies by using treatments.  These room treatments end up reducing all reflections, good or bad.  Controlling the directivity of a loudspeaker allows you to 'aim' the output a bit like a flashlight enabling you to greatly minimize early reflections but not killing the later arrivals.

Multiple subs allow you to more evenly excite room modes to provide a bass response that is even across a much larger area.  If you like being locked in a vise and never have anyone else listening with you then you can theoretically us eq to provide a flat response in one location.  A properly tuned, multi-sub system provides the best bass response that I have ever heard.  Think of the floor in you room as being water.  Your low frequency producers can be thought of as the stones that you would drop in the pond.  A stereo pair of speakers would be two stones generating their waves in the pool.  Two speakers with three separate subs produces five points of waves which really reduces the peaks and valleys in the listening space.  Simple physics as to why this is a better solution over a killer pair of full range speakers. 

Am I a fan of the science behind some of this, yes! If you get past some perceptions and start using some common sense then this all makes complete sense to me.  At the end of the day it's all about the music.  Science based systems help me get there quicker as our systems include the speakers, source, amplifiers and room.  All pieces play an important role and the goal of each should be considered individually as well as in respect to the overall system.

Happy spending!!

[revrob]

I would also select my speakers first. I believe that and your room are the most critical components in building a system. Everyone on here is going to give you their opinions on what they like. But building a system is a very personal journey with lots of bumps. There are some really good speakers but you need to take the time to listen. Most audiophile will tell you that it can sometimes take years to find what they are looking for and unfortunately most of us are still looking even after 20 years.

Good luck and be patient.

[James Romeyn]

By exponential margin the single greatest determining factor of performance is the interaction between:

The speakers
The room's boundaries 
The listener's two ears

The first chore is to determine how to handle the above variables, which are infinite.  Consider for a moment the infinite power responses of speakers, infinite siting locations for speakers and listeners, and infinite boundary shapes and sizes.  The closer to infinity are the variables the greater are the weights attached to each variable.  For instance: how should I interpret one speaker's power response relative to another?  What makes one better in my room with my ears? 

Domestic rooms react to music waveforms in a completely different fashion above and below the so-called "Schroeder frequency."  The more one understands the best methods to solve domestic boundary effects (completely different from larger commercial spaces) the better is performance likely to be.
 
Anyone promoting components (source/preamp/power amps) prior to properly solving the above issues sells only snake oil and nothing else, period.  There is absolutely no exception to this rule.  If you've not properly and fully handled the infinite variables mentioned above, run don't walk when someone mentions a new tweeter "lifted veils."  To say it is pure unadulterated HS (in my stated context) is a huge understatement.     

At your considerable budget, if Trinaural Processor is available now (I don't know if it is or not), a properly assembled Trinaural system would instantly wipe any similar priced stereo system from consideration.  Stereo does not exist in nature, where all sources are monaural.  After a direct A-B comparison, stereo vs. Trinaural in my room, I doubt anyone would again consider stereo a preferred audio format for any system priced over about $10k.  Kalman Rubinson of Stereophile and myself are the only two known (living) professionals with a lot of Trinaural experience.  I noticed that Kalman, to his great credit, has suggested Trinaural Processor in at least one recent AudioAsylum thread.

The last time I switched back to stereo, I listened at length.  After awhile, I started thinking...maybe this isn't really so bad after all, the center image seems pretty darn good, etc.  Then you swap back to Trinaural and remove the damping blanket off the center speaker, and quickly repent: stereo's center image is indeed a "phantom" because it is absent (compared to Trinaural).

Remotely control level for the center channel (and bass) is pure frosting.  Such requires a remote multi-channel line preamp of four or more channels.             


 

[a.wayne]

What about speakers that just sound good and fit your listening taste since you are the one living with it. CD type speakers are not a per-requsite  for good sound.

Pick what suites your fancy and give them a listen, the Vandi speakers, maggies 3.6/'3.7, or sander ESL-hybrid  are great starting points..

Regards,

[sounddog]

For speakers, I suggest checking out the Nola KOs. I heard them at RMAF and thought they were awfully good for just under $10k.

[catastrofe]

Thanks everyone for the input.  I can't make Axpona this year, but I'll be seeking out regional shows this summer, as well as visiting nearby cities to hit the shops.  Like I said, lots of listening over the next year.  I'm not in a hurry, and have lots of other things to do in the meantime.  I appreciate the suggestions, if only because you all have brought some brands to my attention that I wasn't aware of.  Be checking out a lot of manufacturer websites too.  I can safely say that I'll always lean toward smaller companies who take great pride in their products, and show that through the products themselves and excellent customer support/service.  This will influence my decisions in no small way.

As far as speakers go, well I'm glad to hear that the longevity issue with Magnepans is a thing of the past.  I may have the speaker choice right there, because I absolutely loved the lower-end models I heard, and can't wait to hear the 3.7 (there's a local dealer about 100 miles away.)  I'll give the 20.7 a listen too, but I can't imagine having a room big enough to accommodate them.  Or maybe where there's a will there's a way.

 

Where do you live?

[CrazyBlue]

Trinaural?  Hmmm.  I actually thought about picking up a surround processor and a center channel, and eventually another Songsub, and making the living room setup (it does TV and movies as well as music anyway) into a 3.2 system.  I'm mostly a music guy though, and my wife is happy with the 2-channel for TV and movies, so I never bothered.  But a strictly trinaural processor is an intriguing proposal.

And I agree with the room/speakers/ears thing.  I'll be studying room acoustics to a much greater degree than previously before I put this together. 

I live in western Wisconsin, for now.

Right now the Magnepans are the frontrunners of what I've heard, but that's not much.  I plan to remedy that starting this spring, and the speakers will be the first purchase.   

[Folsom]

I cannot condone any system without a power conditioner. Personally the only one I'd consider using is my own, at this point; and custom made to assure it is optimal for the given system.

So far I've found no matter how much you try and spend, a good power conditioner is what makes you actually listen, a lot. (and stop swapping gear so much)

[toocool4]

I cannot condone any system without a power conditioner. Personally the only one I'd consider using is my own, at this point; and custom made to assure it is optimal for the given system.

So far I've found no matter how much you try and spend, a good power conditioner is what makes you actually listen, a lot. (and stop swapping gear so much)

This is such a general statement, a power conditioner is only necessary if you have noisy mains? I don’t have noisy mains, so I would not waste my money and even if I did I would look for other ways to eliminate the problem.

[Folsom]

This is such a general statement, a power conditioner is only necessary if you have noisy mains? I don’t have noisy mains, so I would not waste my money and even if I did I would look for other ways to eliminate the problem.

That is where I disagree. ENTIRELY. Even components in your stereo produce certain amount of noise that they can share among themselves. Even if I don't have a way to explain it, the results are something else. Frankly 99.99% of peoples idea of "noise" isn't very good; they're trying to remove what they can identify as audible noise, I am trying to make the music actually sound good. Well designed equipment doesn't let apparently audible noise through very easily, but all of it is subject to all noise affecting it. The difference is in level of fatigue, tonality, attack, decay, inner resolution, and what isn't yet definable by words. Being concerned with RF and stuff that resembles tape noise is an immature understanding of power conditioning.

Saying you don't have noisy mains for me is like hearing that you should treat a fever with ice baths. It sounds good based on your conception of what is going on, but the complexity of it is beyond such simple conception, show by the truth of the improvement. In fact this parallels a lot of life where people want simple answers that fit their simple comfortable ideas of how anything should work. Personally I find the attempt to fit everything into human paradigm, as if we can mold the world to our simple understandings and never learn anything new, repugnant. It undermines the beautiful complexity and wonderment of everything, which we are able to appreciate over time with openness to understand in new ways. We should be ready to accept to be proven wrong on very fundamental ideas, because it will happen.

[catastrofe]

That is where I disagree. ENTIRELY. Even components in your stereo produce certain amount of noise that they can share among themselves. Even if I don't have a way to explain it, the results are something else. Frankly 99.99% of peoples idea of "noise" isn't very good; they're trying to remove what they can identify as audible noise, I am trying to make the music actually sound good. Well designed equipment doesn't let apparently audible noise through very easily, but all of it is subject to all noise affecting it. The difference is in level of fatigue, tonality, attack, decay, inner resolution, and what isn't yet definable by words. Being concerned with RF and stuff that resembles tape noise is an immature understanding of power conditioning.

Saying you don't have noisy mains for me is like hearing that you should treat a fever with ice baths. It sounds good based on your conception of what is going on, but the complexity of it is beyond such simple conception, show by the truth of the improvement. In fact this parallels a lot of life where people want simple answers that fit their simple comfortable ideas of how anything should work. Personally I find the attempt to fit everything into human paradigm, as if we can mold the world to our simple understandings and never learn anything new, repugnant. It undermines the beautiful complexity and wonderment of everything, which we are able to appreciate over time with openness to understand in new ways. We should be ready to accept to be proven wrong on very fundamental ideas, because it will happen.

Can you tell us how you really feel?   

[Quiet Earth]

Excellent Post Destroyer Of Smiles !   

It's easy to get obsessed over one part of the system, especially speakers. The problem with obsession over one aspect is that you tend to ignore the importance of everything that allows your obsession to exist.  AC power quality, audio signal cables, and lately - source components  are viewed as mere accessories to speakers and amplifiers. This is a terrible shame and a hard way to build a fine sounding system. Spread the wealth from laser lens to dust cap, and try to keep the quality level equal from beginning to end.

Everything matters.

[skunark]

That is where I disagree. ENTIRELY. Even components in your stereo produce certain amount of noise that they can share among themselves. Even if I don't have a way to explain it, the results are something else. Frankly 99.99% of peoples idea of "noise" isn't very good; they're trying to remove what they can identify as audible noise, I am trying to make the music actually sound good. Well designed equipment doesn't let apparently audible noise through very easily, but all of it is subject to all noise affecting it. The difference is in level of fatigue, tonality, attack, decay, inner resolution, and what isn't yet definable by words. Being concerned with RF and stuff that resembles tape noise is an immature understanding of power conditioning.

Saying you don't have noisy mains for me is like hearing that you should treat a fever with ice baths. It sounds good based on your conception of what is going on, but the complexity of it is beyond such simple conception, show by the truth of the improvement. In fact this parallels a lot of life where people want simple answers that fit their simple comfortable ideas of how anything should work. Personally I find the attempt to fit everything into human paradigm, as if we can mold the world to our simple understandings and never learn anything new, repugnant. It undermines the beautiful complexity and wonderment of everything, which we are able to appreciate over time with openness to understand in new ways. We should be ready to accept to be proven wrong on very fundamental ideas, because it will happen.

How many power conditioners actually isolate components?  There's very few.