[samplesj]

First let me say that I definitely agree that computer audio is the way to go.  Even the stock sb3 with elpac in the den sounds pretty good (on A/V3's coincidentally).

However I think some of the posting have veered into apples/oranges

And when you consider the price of the drivers ($375 each  ), you must also look at the total cost of the speaker $1600/pair) and compare it to what else is out there.  Most speakers retail for 4 and more times the cost of drivers/crossovers.  So for a typical $1600/pair speaker that means about $50 to 75 drivers are used.  Quality of sound must suffer in comparison.  (The cost for the compensation circuit components is chicken feed, don't worry about it.)  The FTA-2000s have been compared to $4000 speakers.  Most standmount designs at this price require a sub and stands that would double the price.  For example the $1450/pair GR Research A/V-3 uses $329 of drivers and crossovers (kit price) in a transmission line design to achieve similar specifications with $26 and $50 drivers, but (not to slam GR at all) I can't imagine the quality being even close. 

This isn't a slam against full range speakers since I've not heard them, but this is questionable.  First of all the original poster mentioned building his own A/V3s.  This means we're not talking $1600 vs $1450.  He was looking at the $329 kit price for the pair vs $375 each (more than 2x as much).

Its also very questionable to say the cost of a driver makes it good or bad.  Just because one driver is $20 and another is $30 doesn't mean the $30 one sounds better.  Compared to traditional driveres the full range drivers probably have a much higher markup because they are more of a niche product.  It also isn't a reasonable comparsion to compare the price of a full range driver to a single component driver in a multi-driver system.  Only part of the cost of the full range driver is due to any particular freq range optimizations.  This means that it is possible that many "cheaper" traditional drivers actually perform in their designed range better than the full range driver since they don't have to worry about the other freq ranges.  I am not at all saying that the advantages of having no coloring crossover aren't valuable, but instead just pointing out that saying that $X price on this doesn't make it sound better automatically.

The GR midwoofer is supposedly regarded as a very high price/performance driver.  Isn't it used in several other designs because of that? 

Anyway I just wanted to point out that comments like "Quality of sound must suffer" don't really add anything.  Maybe it can be argued that crossover problems will hurt the sound, but saying that just the price alone will isn't valid.

[JLM]

Jeremy,

You're right, price does not automatically make a product superior.  I've not heard the A/V-3's, just pointing out content value.  But as I stated, I can't imagine a $26 midwoofer comparing to the F200A's.

A better comparison of a single driver/transmission line cabinet design might be Den's Brine Acoustics FT-1600 Mk II.  The 1600's and A/V-3's have about the same rated bass performance and are closer to the same size. 

But the 1600's are significantly more efficient; parts would cost half as much; and they offer the coherency, imaging, and active amp loading advantages of single drivers.  Bought assembled they're still $500 cheaper. 

[Carlman]

Jeremy,
You're right, price does not automatically make a product superior.  I've not heard the A/V-3's, just pointing out content value.  But as I stated, I can't imagine a $26 midwoofer comparing to the F200A's.

Not only can I imagine it, I've heard it... and it's quite good.  I've heard fancy efficient drivers like the Fostex and Lowthers as well.  They have some good points too.  Just not my cup of tea. 

I've heard enough of the single-driver sound to know it's not for me.  I like 3-way designs the best personally. 

One driver sounds very good for midrange and mid-bass.  If you listen to mostly folk, jazz, acoustic, and music with less than a 4 instruments, the single-driver makes a lot of sense.... that's what it does well.  Ed's horns are the best single-driver I've heard... they did bass the best and did fairly well on highs, too....

In any case... A well-implmented $10 driver will sound better than a poorly-implemented $500 driver.  The driver works in concert with the cabinet and crossover.  All 3 make mega-huge differences on the sound.

-C

[bacobits1]

When I bought the 1600II's I was going to go for the 200's (not a matter of cost) but I was using the Dual Core Decware Sig Monos at 5 watts the most. I thought I would be pushing it too much with those watts even with the sub. Paul Bui has/had the 200's and the Sig Monos at one time but he was also using other amps as in the F1 and others. I could mono my EE PP Mini Max amp but I see no reason to do that with the setup and room I have. Bob makes great sounding speakers
for the cost. Considering the 200's total built cost especially the drivers they are a real bargain!

JLM, no offense taken.I know what I'm hearing. I just didn't want others to get the wrong idea the way it was stated.
 
The Horns are great speakers too for what they do and $$$ but I like the MLTL 1600II's much better. Ed insists there are all kinds of problems with MLTL speakers. BS!

The bottom line here is you either have to buy the amp and match the speakers or buy the speakers and match the amp carefully. If upgrading or considering a system from the beginning you have to do this first. I have been real lucky lately the system is just great and  succeeds at what I expect.


Den

[CButterworth]

In reply to Scott,

I like you comments.

Most of all my CD's are currently stored in Apple's Lossless format on my Mac, and I specifically use error-correction when ripping them, it really doesn't take much longer than without error-correction.

However, I do disagree about a successor to the CD.  How do you buy your latest music? My guess is that you purchase a CD and then rip it onto your computer.  As far as I can tell, the iTunes Music Store does not distribute totally lossless music files, only AAC, which is usually at 128 Kbps as opposed to a CD's 705.6Kbps.  So, if we are so concerned about musical accuracy, then music downloads would be clearly inferior to CD's.

I certainly do agree with you about the concept of reduced jitter, so it is likely that a well-ripped CD into a lossless format, played back using the Squeezebox could sound extremely good.

Anyway, it just seems that CD is not dead, rather the mode of playing CD's may be changing.

Charlie

[Scott F.]

I like your comments.

However, I do disagree about a successor to the CD.  How do you buy your latest music?

Anyway, it just seems that CD is not dead, rather the mode of playing CD's may be changing.

Hi Charlie,

You're right. I guess computer based playback is actually replacing the way I play CD's rather than a replacement for CD's. I've got SACD and DVDA, both of which sound very good but the problem with them (as you know) there isn't enough releases to make it worthwhile (for me anyway).

When it comes to buying music, I buy the CD and then rip it to hard drive. I use lossless compression. I have downloaded a few truely free songs (not shared files) that are between 64 and 128kbs. The 128's don't sound too bad, they still aren't lossless but not too bad at all.

One of the great things about the Squeezebox is the internet radio. There are tons of stations broadcasting at 128+. Again, not lossless but damned enjoyable and a great way to find new music.

Even if you were to do an Airport Express for your MAC, I personally think you'd find it far superior to your CD player. You may want to consider a used one just to give it a try. You'll find that all of the harshness of the CD will disappear and everything will sound much more natural. The SB works with a MAC too. Used stock units can be found on the market for $200-$250 regularly.

One last consideration is a USB DAC for your MAC. That way you can stream directly from your PC to your system. There are several out there to choose from.

[CButterworth]

Scott,

Actually, the Squeezebox would work very well with the MAC (according to its specs).  If I get one, I'll connect it by wireless to the computer.

One of my main reasons for avoiding the computer route is that our music would be stored on the house iMac, which will get used by my wife, me, and any eventual kids, as well as visiting family members.  I can just envision myself sitting down in my listening room (when the new house gets built) with a glass of single malt scotch and relaxing to the Haydn Quartets, when the iMac gets rebooted, or my wireless stream gets invaded by the soundtrack of the latest computer game featuring death, destruction and encouragement to commit extreme violence.  Only Joking.......but I like the idea of isolation from possible interruptions.

Of course, I could put a computer in the music room, but then there would be the whirring small fans in the background.  The Olive sounds good, but at an expense for the models featuring large storage capacity.

Internet radio may be handy, although we tend to listen to NPR stations, which are still available by regular FM wireless.


Maybe I am bit of a luddite.  I spend my working days dealing with the high tech in a DNA lab that I manage.  We don't own cell phones either, although my wife and I do have our HAM radio licenses!

Thanks,
Charlie

[zybar]

Scott,

Actually, the Squeezebox would work very well with the MAC (according to its specs).  If I get one, I'll connect it by wireless to the computer.

One of my main reasons for avoiding the computer route is that our music would be stored on the house iMac, which will get used by my wife, me, and any eventual kids, as well as visiting family members.  I can just envision myself sitting down in my listening room (when the new house gets built) with a glass of single malt scotch and relaxing to the Haydn Quartets, when the iMac gets rebooted, or my wireless stream gets invaded by the soundtrack of the latest computer game featuring death, destruction and encouragement to commit extreme violence.  Only Joking.......but I like the idea of isolation from possible interruptions.

Of course, I could put a computer in the music room, but then there would be the whirring small fans in the background.  The Olive sounds good, but at an expense for the models featuring large storage capacity.

Internet radio may be handy, although we tend to listen to NPR stations, which are still available by regular FM wireless.


Maybe I am bit of a luddite.  I spend my working days dealing with the high tech in a DNA lab that I manage.  We don't own cell phones either, although my wife and I do have our HAM radio licenses!

Thanks,
Charlie

Why not simply buy a very, very cheap pc and use that as your dedicated music server?

It takes very little processing power to run the Slim Server software and send the music to the Squeeze Box. 

I had no issues using an old Pentium II computer for this task. 

Where the P II fell down was in the ripping of the cd's to FLAC.

George

[Scott F.]

The only issue you would have by sharing your home compuer is the rebooting. Games, surfing, doing the checkbook or any other task won't interupt the music stream. If I remember correctly, the squeezebox has a pretty healthy sized cache onboard. I want to say its large enough to take a full song if not larger. No worries about the SB hogging bandwidth on your router or even processer time on your main PC .... I mean MAC  Just a quick 3 or 4 second stream every few minutes. And if you are worried about sharing your hard drive, do like many of us have, add an external drive, either USB or Firewire.

Oh, and you've got to love Single Malts. I know I do. I just polished off the last of my Oban last weekend at MerRev's house. I need to stop and pick up a fresh bottle although I've got four or five others in my liquer cabinet that I should be sampling. Its just that the taste of Oban has really grown on me.       

Damn you Tyson! 
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=8737.0

[CButterworth]

Scott,

Being a Brit (originally), I grew up with availability of Single Malts.  Right now, I have a few - mainly from Islay (Ardbeg, Caol Isla, Lagavulin).  When I left the UK around 10 years ago, I left a few of my bottles with my parents, including a 28 yr old Springbank.  You cannot imagine my shock when I saw a 30 yr old listed for $1500!  The 28 yr old only cost me around $100 back then.

However, I do find it difficult to drink scotch during the long Arizona summers, so for this reason, I long for the cooler evenings during the winter, when I can settle back and relish a wee dram.

Regards,
Charlie

[JLM]

One disadvantage with SB and the like is the requirement to rip.  Olive gives you the choice.  Rarely played CD's or CD's that a friend brings over can be played without ripping.  In FLAC 100 CD's fit in about 40 GB.  Since ripped sounds best it may take much longer to fill the hard disk if non-audio-grade recordings are left off.  Of course hard drives can be added.

[CButterworth]

Zybar,

I have thought about buying a cheap, cheap PC.  However, having made the switch to Mac almost a decade ago, I think that having to deal with Windows (which I do but very rarely) would drive me insane with its tirade of question dialogs ("there are unused items on the desktop " etc.) and condescending treatment of the user. This would be exacerbated especially if the cheap PC itself was problem prone.  Of course, there's always Linux, although I have never used it.

And as for slow ripping, my music is already stored as Apple Lossless format, and it could possibly be converted to a Windows format.

Maybe it is my fault for going Mac   

Thanks for the reply,
Charlie

[JLM]

The Olive folks are associated with Apple, so their user interface has the iPod look and feel.  I wonder if anyone at Apple had thought about just modding an Mini-Mac to use like an Olive?  The Mini already uses a remote, just substitute for a remote with a screen, rewrite the ROM, and beef up the output jacks.  Someone could develop a chip or digital amp to match the physical form of the Mini.

The 24 inch iMac already makes for a mini home entertainment center.

[weirdo]

To get back to the original question of what to upgrade next, the author said he is deliberating about 1,000 CDP's. I suggest auditioning the Cambridge Audio 640 Series II  for about 550.00. It is a significant upgrade over all cheap players and I believe that improvements from this point upward become difficult to readily detect. so, I agree the source is important and would upgrade with a good budget player. Do this before considering amp upgrades.   

[CButterworth]

To Weirdo (may I call you that without causing offense?????)

I have heard great things about the Cambridge CDP's 640.  I guess that I will have to decide between the Rega and the Cambridge.  I suppose that it will all boil down to how much I can afford, and 1K is my uppermost limit.  I also think that I want to avoid the external DAC route, as I'll end-up with a complex series of cables, boxes, etc.  I love my amp - the AKSA 55N, which I'll eventually upgrade to the Aspen 55 LifeForce.  Once, I get the source taken care of, I will be looking into new speakers, followed by a tubed preamp, but I am talking a couple of years down the road from here.

It is funny how my listening preferences have changed.  My first foray into audio was a headphone amp kit from Tangentsoft.  It is class A, based on stacked buffers, and the like.  When played through my Grado SR80's, I can hear amazing detail, but I get tired after a couple of CD's.  I think that if I am not careful, this may begin to happen with my main system, hence the desire for some kind of tube warmth and musucality.

Anyway, thanks for your reply.

Charlie