High-end audio experiences for little money

[Hear Here]

What, please, are these?
And why does the construction differ between them?

How observant you are! The speakers are Avantgarde Duo XDs. I've had them for 3 years now and before these I had 2006-vintage Duos and before that (in 2002) I started my conversion to horn speakers with Unos.

You spotted they differ in appearance. Yes, the one on the right is how they normally appear, but I value the views from my floor-to-ceiling windows so I "slimmed down" the speakers by ditching the scaffolding and supporting the mid-horn with a cradle - as Avantgarde do with their Mezzo model. The base frame is simply rotated 90 degrees and they now have IsoAcoustic Gaia 1 feet in place of the ones shown in the photo. Avantgarde kindly sent a scale drawing to show the spec of the cradle I needed to get made and since then, their new Duo GT has also ditched the scaffolding and is considerably slimmer than the standard Duo XD. I'm very pleased with the slimmer speakers and there is zero compromise on sound quality. In fact the mid-horn is slightly better isolated from the bass enclosure now.

 

[FrantzM]

How high do you have to cross over your subs in order for this to work out? After all, LSR308s are known for being more than just a little unhappy at 96 dB / 1 m anechoic in the lower midrange.

Either way, I would insist on (MMM) measurement facilities being an integral part of any good budget speaker setup. Aside from being able to account for those pesky room modes, there is a multitude of speakers out there with fundamentally decent dispersion but misc. frequency response warts... and in nearfield, you can even make some real turkeys fly (case in point - these go from "blech" to "I wouldn't mind listening to this all day, even if the extremes aren't 100% perfect"). This potentially allows for plenty of recycling. Most budget nearfields can use some help, too.

Also, don't sabotage yourself with poor speaker placement.

80 Hz... And it works for me. No localisation. One sub in the from left corner the other in the back of the MLP. mininDSP 2x4 with MSO.

The limitations of the LSR308 are real. these are very unhappy around 90dB at the MLP.. I , fortunately don't listen that loud so .. Not an issue. The 110 dB thing, was on a test, I conducted to see how loud these could play and they did, It wasn't enjoyable, my ears, rung, despite having worn some protection.

I will post my response at the MLP some time. Not able to do it now, a sad story..

The LSR308 do punch way above their weight (price) class.. I'd suggest you read this @amirm review_Click Here_

The Dayton SUB 1500 are just ... subwoofers. Not that great, they are cheap, so .... A pair in my smallish (4 x 5 x 2.8 meters) concrete room allow me to a have smooth bass from 20 to 200 Hz... I will add an additional "serious: Subwoofer, one capable of plumbing the depths, (SVS or monoPrice THX 12 inches) and use MSO, to linearize and integrate the bass with the mains, whatever those would be (Revel, BMR, Kef? Wharfedale?).

@Hear Here

I suggest you read this thread :"Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time". You seem to fit the definition of a "golden eared" audiophile. Hope you stay here and learn..


Peace.

 

[sceptical1]

Bryston B60, Mini-T all second hand

$2600 plus $90 for the upgraded tweeters for the Mini-Ts.

Ipad as input with whatever streaming service has a deal going or internet radio for variety.

No dsp, room treatment, apple dongle or cable lifters.

It sounds okay.

 

[Hear Here]

@Hear Here

I suggest you read this thread :"Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time". You seem to fit the definition of a "golden eared" audiophile. Hope you stay here and learn..


Peace.

I did read the first post in that link some while ago and decided not to read further. I don't recognise myself in any of the characteristics described, but I take measurements as a guide to accuracy and certainly not a reason for a purchase. They may encourage an addition to a short list, but never more than that. Measurements (for speakers in particular) will never tell you what they will sound like in your own listening room. Ones that measure exceptionally well may sound dire in your own room, so home demo is 100% essential unless buying "cheap", or used in which case you lose little once you decide you don't like the sound.

Ears are far more important in processing musical excitement than measurements, in the same way that a Michelin-star chef's meal offers far greater taste-bud excitement than the ingredients in his kitchen. That's not to say that ingredients aren't important, but they are just a starting point.

 

[Matt_Holland]

I auditioned KEF Q7 Meta at their Music Gallery in London this week. They retail for £1399 (10% discount is available if you register your details) and I have to say that whilst this is a lot of money, the linearity and sheer resolution they deliver is nothing short of outstanding. I had also forgot how good Uni-Q imaging is. I’ve heard far far worse sound from far far more expensive speakers. Absolutely very high-end experience for very reasonable price. In small rooms, I think could be end-game for some.

 

[HalSF]

This thread is being sabotaged to a certain degree by the pernicious term "High End audio."

The history of home hi-fi starts with DIY and small startups (which is why people still insist on using "hobby" to describe this scene), then evolved into a mass commodity-appliance market (similar to the way TV sets and computers are today), and then home hi-fi was unfortunately transformed into an aspiring luxury realm of audiophilia where high-end audio dwells.

"High end" as a concept has played an essential role is creating an irrational system that correlates price to quality, and it's impossible to retrofit "high end" as something that's purely about sound quality and about high-fidelity and about excellent measured performance. The key to the idea of "high end" is that you have to go above the modest, reasonably priced, sad underworld of "entry-level" and "budget" and "mid-fi," and then rise upward and cross a threshold into the expensive and high-priced zone of the high end. And if you believe in the high-end system you have to possess a naive faith that sound quality is reliably indexed to price, that sound quality improves as you add more zeros to the MSRP, and that ineffable audio magic requires a shocking outlay of cash. This is the credo of the high end.

"High End" is overwhelmingly about price, not performance; in this system, sound quality is conceived as a function of price, and high-end subjective evaluation relentlessly reinforces the principle that high cost produces better sound quality the higher it rises. "I can just hear it" means "I can hear what the price is telling me." "Upgrade" equals "more expensive."

One of the ways that I think about Audio Science Review is that it's a weapon aimed at high-end audio delusion. If measurements and specs are superb and match objective criteria of high-fidelity sound quality, the component is good — not merely "good for the price" or "punches above its weight" good, but simply an excellent component, period. Price isn't completely irrelevent, but measurements operate independently of the hypnotic force of high prices and brand embellishment.

IMO this thread should be talking about hi-fi audio for little money. For me what's exciting about this forum is discovering DACs, IEMs, headphones, headphone amplifiers, Class D amps, and other component categories where performance has been getting better and better as the price for performance has gone down dramatically. There's a separate conversation to be had about speakers and transducers and the fact that spending serious upward-trending money on them can provide objectively rewarding returns on the investment, but that is not the same thing as ratifying the plutocratic anti-science value system of "the high end."

 

[Matt_Holland]

This thread is being sabotaged to a certain degree by the pernicious term "High End audio."

The history of home hi-fi starts with DIY and small startups (which is why people still insist on using "hobby" to describe this scene), then evolved into a mass commodity-appliance market (similar to the way TV sets and computers are today), and then home hi-fi was unfortunately transformed into an aspiring luxury realm of audiophilia where high-end audio dwells.

"High end" as a concept has played an essential role is creating an irrational system that correlates price to quality, and it's impossible to retrofit "high end" as something that's purely about sound quality and about high-fidelity and about excellent measured performance. The key to the idea of "high end" is that you have to go above the modest, reasonably priced, sad underworld of "entry-level" and "budget" and "mid-fi," and then rise upward and cross a threshold into the expensive and high-priced zone of the high end. And if you believe in the high-end system you have to possess a naive faith that sound quality is reliably indexed to price, that sound quality improves as you add more zeros to the MSRP, and that ineffable audio magic requires a shocking outlay of cash. This is the credo of the high end.

"High End" is overwhelmingly about price, not performance; in this system, sound quality is conceived as a function of price, and high-end subjective evaluation relentlessly reinforces the principle that high cost produces better sound quality the higher it rises. "I can just hear it" means "I can hear what the price is telling me." "Upgrade" equals "more expensive."

One of the ways that I think about Audio Science Review is that it's a weapon aimed at high-end audio delusion. If measurements and specs are superb and match objective criteria of high-fidelity sound quality, the component is good — not merely "good for the price" or "punches above its weight" good, but simply an excellent component, period. Price isn't completely irrelevent, but measurements operate independently of the hypnotic force of high prices and brand embellishment.

IMO this thread should be talking about hi-fi audio for little money. For me what's exciting about this forum is discovering DACs, IEMs, headphones, headphone amplifiers, Class D amps, and other component categories where performance has been getting better and better as the price for performance has gone down dramatically. There's a separate conversation to be had about speakers and transducers and the fact that spending serious upward-trending money on them can provide objectively rewarding returns on the investment, but that is not the same thing as ratifying the plutocratic anti-science value system of "the high end."

I know what you mean.
But then I think we all knew what the OP meant too.

 

[Audionaut]

it's impossible to retrofit "high end" as something that's purely about sound quality and about high-fidelity and about excellent measured performance

Maybe it's a question of culture, but many of the German audio enthusiasts will probably disagree with your definition, because if the price is high but the objectively measurable performance is poor, it's not high-end. We call that an expensive cucumber.
The correlation is not "expensive = high-end", but "excellent performance = high-end"
Conversely, a relatively inexpensive product that has very good measured values and convinces people in other ways can be considered high-end. Perhaps it is different in the USA.

 

[olieb]

"High End" is primarily about price;

I understand your point and I see that there are those who see it that way ("high end" as something that results from status products), but for me it is not about price.
The "High End" is to me, when there is not much more room for improvement left (for a system inside its conceptual limits). Reproducing stereo (or multichannel) via an IEM is such a point, considering the possibilities of EQ and the superb distortion levels that have been reached. A bit of software trickery is all that is left to do.

If one wants to play audio in a stadium or even in a listening room it is different. But even in this latter case, for everything above 200-300Hz near perfection (in respect to audibility) can be reached (for normal SPL) with rather modest financial effort.
Bass, multichannel, multiple listeners and very loud listening (or large space) are the domains left, where it might still be somewhat more expensive to get near that point of high end. But a five figure price tag for a dac or amp has nothing to do with it.

 

[bravomail]

Optional: Apple USB-C dongle - $7.
V-Monk headphones - $10.

Step-up - JMcally JM20 dongle (or Fosi DS2) and Sennhiser HD 560S headphones.

Powered monitors are more economic and come preequalized - if you need speakers.
I have Aiyima A07 and JBL Stage A170.

 

[Ropeburn]

Maybe it's a question of culture, but many of the German audio enthusiasts will probably disagree with your definition, because if the price is high but the objectively measurable performance is poor, it's not high-end. We call that an expensive cucumber.
The correlation is not "expensive = high-end", but "excellent performance = high-end"
Conversely, a relatively inexpensive product that has very good measured values and convinces people in other ways can be considered high-end. Perhaps it is different in the USA.

This is a good point illustrating differences between various definitions of "high end", which are often dictated by culture and tradition.

Much like that of neighbouring cultures like the Dutch or Danish or even the French, the German definition of "high end" is all about performance - mostly. There's still a rather delusional element of "big price must mean big quality" of course, just like everywhere, but my impression over the years has been that the central and north European focus is somewhat more sober and rational and ultimately more measurement-driven than elsewhere. Not trying to take the piss here or being "hifi racist" or whatever, and I could easily be wrong.

Still, it's kinda apparent how many of these local hifi companies around here (Canton, Nubert, Dali, Elac, etc. pp) have "neutrality" written all over their design philosophy and on their flags in big letters. Meanwhile, "super American" ones like Klipsch are famous for anything but that, but having a very particular "house sound" instead, which you either love or hate.

In the end it all boils down to the human experience, and a big part of that is getting what you're used to. It says little about the personal enjoyment of the individual, but I dare say that the universal musical enjoyment goal is easier to achieve with objectively good, read: fairly neutral speakers. Which is why in Germany and neighbouring cultures and their speakers, "bordering on high end" traditionally starts at around 2000 moneys the pair. Above that, there's little more than largely inconsequential physical improvements (veneer etc.) and diminishing returns.

 

[HalSF]

I know what you mean.
But then I think we all knew what the OP meant too.

I appreciate the gentle way you’ve dismissed my post!

 

[Karmacoma]

I’m happy with my bedroom setup

Fosi BT20A Pro $79.99

Klipsch RP600M $329/pair

To me for the money it is a very good sounding set up.

View attachment 446139

Is that a heatsink on the Fosi?

 

[Ropeburn]

Is that a heatsink on the Fosi?

Ignore the weird copper thing. You're supposed to focus on the silly cat! (⁠=⁠^⁠･⁠ｪ⁠･⁠^⁠=⁠)

 

[JRowland]

Is that a heatsink on the Fosi?

Yes

 

[Matt_Holland]

I appreciate the gentle way you’ve dismissed my post!

Haha. Sorry, it was a bit lacking a gentle touch wasn’t it.
Your point was well made and worthy of discussion, but in a separate thread perhaps. In the context of this thread, I think most people interpreted the OP’s question as high-end equating to objective high-performance.

 

[HalSF]

Haha. Sorry, it was a bit lacking a gentle touch wasn’t it.
Your point was well made and worthy of discussion, but in a separate thread perhaps. In the context of this thread, I think most people interpreted the OP’s question as high-end equating to objective high-performance.

I think you're probably right, and I sea-lioned the thread!

Unfortunately, I'm a crank when it comes to the way "high end" has been spoiled and muddled as a clear descriptor of objective high performance.

 

[Romario]

This thread is being sabotaged to a certain degree by the pernicious term "High End audio."

"High End" is overwhelmingly about price, not performance; in this system, sound quality is conceived as a function of price, and high-end subjective evaluation relentlessly reinforces the principle that high cost produces better sound quality the higher it rises. "I can just hear it" means "I can hear what the price is telling me." "Upgrade" equals "more expensive."

Allthough there's some truth in it it works the other way around as well. " my system sounds good, best ever, so it must be high end" and " I won't spend another dime on it, it's all for looks". And that's ok, I do that too. But a Ferrari is not a better looking Fiat. However, I don't need a ferrari I have no use case for it, but I enjoy that it exists.

 

[Ropeburn]

Allthough there's some truth in it it works the other way around as well. " my system sounds good, best ever, so it must be high end" and " I won't spend another dime on it, it's all for looks". And that's ok, I do that too. But a Ferrari is not a better looking Fiat. However, I don't need a ferrari I have no use case for it, but I enjoy that it exists.

But then again, a Lamborghini is not just an expensive Volkswagen with a tuned Audi engine. Or is it?

The distinction is hard these days.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Genelec 8010/Neumann KH80+ a $99 DAC