Time for new equipment?

[sonicj]

I am a new to here, older person that has a renewed interest in music, especially in coming across new music. In doing so, I quite often find discussions about equipment to listen to music on or what format the music is in, especially in this digital world. This got me to thinking about if I could tell the difference between the different lossy and lossless formats. I found a couple of ABX tests and one were a guy uploaded 3 versions of the same song clip. In both of these I was unable to tell the difference between a 128 kbps, 320kbps, flac and the source file. As a matter of fact, in one test I said the Flac was a 128 kbps. I had 3 thoughts about why that is. The first, is that I am older so some hearing loss would be expected. The second, is that the equipment I did the test with is not good enough for anyone to tell the difference. The third, is that I have never been able to tell the difference (I am sure all those years of playing guitar did not help).

I came across this forum and saw a lot of knowledge in an area where I had little. I was hoping to address my 2nd thought above by sharing the equipment I used on these tests and see what feedback I could solicit to determine if it is good enough to reproduce the differences in the audio from different digital formats. My end goal is to work out if I need to purchase better equipment or is it good enough for a person with good hearing to distinguish the differences in lossy and lossless.

I tried 2 different pieces of equipment that I currently have. These are:
Philips SHP9500 HiFi Stereo Over-Ear Open-Back Headphones from my pc using a Soundblaster Play!3 usb dac.

Sherwood S-7010 and the speakers are Cerwin Vega VS-100 and probably the weakest link in this equation is I used the headphone out of an Amazon tablet to line in on the Sherwood receiver to play these.

A few extra notes on these. A few years ago, I picked up the Sherwood for about $35 and I found the Cerwin Vega at a Goodwill for $15. When I got the Cerwin Vega's the woofers had been changed out to a Rockford Fossgate Series 1.

Some pics...

 

[krabapple]

With a good set of headphones and extremely careful and tedious listening, using fast switching, and focusing on very brief segments of music, you might be able to reliably tell some of those mp3s apart from lossless, in a blind test.

In normal listening? Probably not.

Don't worry about it.

As for upgrading your receiver, I would do it mainly to get better connectivity options to modern sources (digital connectors like USB, S/PDIF, HDMI) and outputs (e.g., multichannel, subwoofers). And 'room correction' options.

As for the speakers...I haven't a clue how those hybrid CW beasts actually perform. Send one to Amir and he can measure it. ;>

 

[Willem]

I am afraid your current gear deserves retirement. The speakers are a clear case of trouble given that the drivers are not original. And the amplifier only delivers 8 watt per channel.
I don't know how much you are willing to spend, but here are some suggestions, but first, you should know that these days streaming audio such as from SPotify is an important source.
1 The cheapest decent speakers that I know of are the Wharfedale Diamond 220s, selling for about 150 euros (Amir tested them)
2 My favourite for a basic amplifier is the Yamaha AS 201 at 200 euros
3 For a source: A Chromecaset Audio (discontinued but Ebay etc is your friend) streamer for about 50 euros. This will also give you internet radio.

As for compressed formats, I don't think you will be able to hear the difference between 320 kbs and lossless (almost nobody can). And even at lower quality levels such a used in internet radio the sound is still remarkably good (and better than FM radio).

 

[DVDdoug]

...the weakest link in this equation is I used the headphone out of an Amazon tablet to line in on the Sherwood receiver to play these.

The headphone-output should be fine. It's often better when used as a line-level output (without the lower impedance headphone load). But I don't know that an Amazon tablet has any issues with a regular headphone load so it might be perfectly fine with headphones too, as long as it goes loud enough for you. If there's a weakness it's usually noise, and noise from a digital device is usually "whine" from a switching power supply or the digital switching inside the device. Frequency response and distortion are almost always better than human hearing.

The amplifier is wimpy by today's standards but if goes loud enough without distortion (and if there are no strange noises or other obvious defects) the sound quality should be fine too. The main difference with modern electronics is that it's cheaper, especially power... Watts-per-dollar is a lot lower. And you almost always get a remote control, and you can get other features like digital inputs, surround, sound, room correction, etc.

How do the speakers sound to you? They might be OK and they might be more sensitive/efficient (go louder with less power than most modern speakers). The trend with modern speakers is toward smaller woofers in smaller cabinets, often with a subwoofer to make-up the difference in bass. (With movie surround a subwoofer is required for the "point one" channel, and most people don't want 5 or 7 (or more) large full-range speakers in their living room.)

If you are considering upgrading your speakers a trip to an audio/video store would be worthwhile. You can't really A/B (unless they let you bring your speakers) and the room affects the sound too. But, I still think it's still worthwhile.

Even if you can't hear a difference with MP3 you are almost certain to hear a difference (better or worse) with different speakers or headphones. Oh if you listen in a store, try to listen at about the same volume you listen at home... Louder is always "more impressive" and often "sounds better".

I don't see a port on the speaker and if there is no port on the back that's usually a good thing when swapping woofers. A ported cabinet is (or is supposed to be) tuned to the speaker characteristics and a different woofer can really foul things up (you might get boomy-annoying one-note bass or wimpy bass). Sealed cabinets are much more tolerant. You still might get stronger or weaker bass with a different woofer but it's more likely to sound OK.

I was unable to tell the difference between a 128 kbps, 320kbps, flac and the source file.

These days there's almost no reason for using 128kbps but it can sometimes sound identical to the uncompressed original depending on the music (or other program material) and the listener's ability to hear compression artifacts. People often look at the frequency spectrum and you can see a loss of high frequencies with MP3. But at higher bitrates, that's not what is usually heard. If anything is heard (at high bitrates) it's usually something described as "pre-echo" on transient sounds like castanets. And at higher bitrates you normally have to listen very carefully and compare with the original to hear a difference.

If you don't already know this, the bitrate (kbps) is kilobits per second. There are 8-bits in a byte so you can divide by 8 to get kilobytes per second and calculate file size. A lower bitrate means more compression and a smaller file. With lossy compression more data is being thrown away so you tend to get lower quality... If you can hear a difference... If you can't hear a difference a higher bitrate is still mathematically-lossy so we can't say the quality is "better". And if there is an audible compression artifact, it often doesn't go-away at a higher bitrate.

If you are ripping CDs (or digitizing vinyl) you probably have plenty of disc space and you can use FLAC. Or, some people make FLAC masters and then MP3s or AACs for their portable devices with less storage.

...Flac (lossless compression) has another advantage over WAV besides, besides a file that's almost half the size. Metadata "tags" (embedded artist, title. album, artwork, etc.) is not well-standardized or well supported. Almost all of the compressed formats (both lossless and lossy) are better for metadata than WAV.

If you buy downloads, most music is only available to purchase as MP3 (Amazon) or AAC (iTunes). The streaming subscriptions are now offering lossless. (They are "better" than 128kbps, but I'm not sure of the exact standard bitrates. They might be variable bitrate, which means bits aren't wasted on silence, or near-silence, or "simple" easy-to-compress sounds.)

 

[Beershaun]

I'd start with what you want for a listening experience and what your budget is. Do you want to start with primarily headphone listening sitting in an office, near field listening in an office, or sitting in your living room listening in far field. There are some great "all in one" active speaker options as well as solid streaming integrated amplifiers. The cheapest+best fidelity option will be a desktop headphone setup if you want to dip your toe in to see what modern hifi system is capable of. A Topping DAC+amp combo with some well performing headphones from Amir's review recommend list would be a great start.

 

[Matthias McCready]

I don't know about the Cerwin Vega VS100's but I have some Cerwin Vega RE-30's in my dining room/kitchen.

Do they have fidelity? No.

Are they fun? They sure are!

They are also pretty efficient, 3 watts a side gives me more volume than I care for most days.

----

The non-original woofers on yours would be suspect though.

----

I don't see a port on the speaker and if there is no port on the back that's usually a good thing when swapping woofers.

For what it is worth the VS100's are ported on the back.

----

To the OP you can certainly get nicer sounding speakers, for a listening setup you probably want something else, but it might be worth finding some original woofers and hanging on to them for another system in the house. I have speakers that cost orders of magnitude more, but my Cerwin Vega's still have a place in my home.

 

[Robin L]

I've got a close relative of those Philips headphones. The Fidelio X2HR 'phones go deep for open back 'phones, image well but have an edge that seems to work best with big-band jazz. I keep playing these "live" Ellington recordings over them. I've also got the Drop 6XX headphones, find them more neutral and "Musical" overall [musical means lack of distractions to me]. Also, a bit pricier. $220 when I got mine, $240 now.

Massdrop x Sennheiser HD 6XX | Top Rated Open Back Headphones | Drop

Our all-time best selling open-back audiophile headphones, the Massdrop x Sennheiser HD 6XX is a replacement to the original HD 650 with a refreshed aesthetic & improved utility.

drop.com

Headphones should give you a good idea of what sort of sound you would like via speakers. Ten years ago, I was lucky enough to be living in a neighborhood where a lot of college types had a lot of college type equipment. Not quite top of the line---that's for dentists, lawyers and oligarchs---but "good value for money", with a lot of retiring college types downsizing their home entertainments. So, yard sales with a/d/s loudspeakers and Technics turntables for $10 and $20, thrift stores with Infinity Primus surround speaker systems for $80. Good stuff, cheap.

I had excuses enough and money enough to spend more than on enough on headphones, more than $1500 all told, but it was educational. I would imagine your source is good enough that better headphones would be worth the investment. The AKG K371 headphones are not perfect and not everyone thinks of them as highly as I do, but it's a bang for the buck breakthrough, sonically something akin to tonal neutrality, with deep bass and requiring little power, so will work with just about anything. The closest shot at "hearing it as they heard it in the studio"*.

K371 | Over-ear, closed-back, foldable studio headphones

Over-ear, closed-back, foldable studio headphones

www.akg.com

My experience with this type of upgrade of audio gear is that countermelodies become easier to hear. I suspect the masking effects of distortions can mask musical information as well. The K371s playing back a reasonably good recording---no intense data or dynamic reduction, for starters---can be both musically revealing and enjoyable.

If you want an upgrade, I'd say the speakers and amp would both have to be replaced. Note that there is a lot of good quality, relatively recent audio gear in the used market. My current system has Infinity Primus 250 floorstanding speakers. I have the speakers raised 15", one on a bookshelf and the other on a subwoofer, with the tweeters over my head as the speakers are bright sounding. The amp is a Yahama AVR, RX-V461. It allows for switching signals from a digital and an analog source, also sends out an eq-ed line out signal to the Sonus "Son of Sub" sub. Most of the volume control comes from using a Topping L30 headphone amp. as a line-level preamp, other digital routing via the Topping E30 DAC.

What normally would be the most expensive components here---the speakers and the amp---are the cheapest on account of the glut of used gear. I spent $30 for the speakers, $50 for the amp and $50 for the sub. On the other hand, the two Topping products were bought new, added $300 and were very much worth it.

Knowing the nature of your speakers---having made more than a few "Frankenspeakers" in my time---I'd replace them first. JBL and Infinity speakers from the previous 10/20 years ago had fairly consistent quality. Paradigm made some very nice speakers. I've owned Titans, dynamic little bookshelf speakers with enough bass to notice. And a friend spent real money---$3000---for some very nice floorstanding Paradigm speakers. Knowing from experience how hard it is to mesh together the sounds of two very different speaker drivers, I know somebody with a mess 'o' computers and access to an anechoic chamber can do better.

My $50 AVR has 100 watts a channel into two channels, has all the buttons and knobs one could hope for. The reason it is so cheap? No HDMI, so no connectivity to the TeeVee. As it seems as though your primary source will be audio from a computer, an older AVR would probably work fine for you.

ASR is an excellent resource for hunting down gear, check out the reviews. Some final advice---the speakers [and those speakers' interaction with the room they're in] have the biggest impact on the sound, followed by the amp. Unless you want to complicate things with a turntable. With the amp the issue is usually "is it powerful enough?" until it is, then it's no longer an issue. So, the first thing I'd do is check out thrift stores for speakers, almost anything would be better than the speakers you're describing.

*Pedro: "That's metaphysically absurd, how can I know what you hear?"

 

[sonicj]

Wow. All great insights everyone. Thank you.

The headphone-output should be fine. It's often better when used as a line-level output (without the lower impedance headphone load).

I said headphone out, and I guess that is what it is, but their site says it is a 3.5 mm stereo out. For some reason, when I run audio this way it is lower in volume. I guess that is due to the low impedance?

The amplifier is wimpy by today's standards but if goes loud enough without distortion

and

How do the speakers sound to you? They might be OK and they might be more sensitive/efficient (go louder with less power than most modern speakers).

It is only 8 watts per channel, but I cannot turn it up very loud. The room it is in, is 19 feet by 25 feet. If I turn on the radio, which gets louder, I can barely stand how loud it is at the 10 o'clock position. With the tablet playing Spotify through the aux, 2 o'clock is just comfortably loud in that room. I have often wondered about this as I have heard systems with much higher ratings for the watts that are not as loud as this one, seeing as it is only 8 watts. I read this quote below about the speakers, and I am guessing some of it is related to that?

The VS-100's measured sensitivity was even higher than rated. We measured a 96-dB sound-pressure level at 1 meter on the tweeter axis with a 2.83-volt input of pink noise. That is one of the highest sensitivities we have measured from a home speaker. In practical terms, it means that an amplifier that can drive an average speaker (with its 89- or 90-dB sensitivity) to a comfortably loud level will be able to produce an uncomfortably loud output from the VS-100. Alternatively, with a 25-watt amplifier, the VS-100 will deliver the kind of punch that for most speakers would require at least 100 watts.

When I first got the receiver, it had a static sound that would come and go. I could lift it and set it down gently and it would go away but come back shortly after. I took it to a local electronics store and the guy fixed it, but alas it is happening again. Another reason to ponder the upgrade.

I like the general sound of the speakers. I am not blown away by the sound, but the volume sure can blow me away. The bass seems to lack something though. I think there is something not right with the woofers. If I do turn it up past 12 o'clock with the radio or 4 o'clock using tablet/aux, the bass has an odd sound. If I had to describe it, I would say it is like a person talking and runs out of breath. Also, the bass does have a port in the back.

To the OP you can certainly get nicer sounding speakers, for a listening setup you probably want something else, but it might be worth finding some original woofers and hanging on to them for another system in the house. I have speakers that cost orders of magnitude more, but my Cerwin Vega's still have a place in my home.

I actually reached out to cerwin vega today to see if they have original replacements or can suggest a replacement for the woofers. I am waiting on their return call. I did only pay $15 might be worth it if it helps the sound. I could put them downstairs.

 

[N9R]

a guy uploaded 3 versions of the same song clip. In both of these I was unable to tell the difference between a 128 kbps, 320kbps, flac and the source file. As a matter of fact, in one test I said the Flac was a 128 kbps. I had 3 thoughts about why that is. The first, is that I am older so some hearing loss would be expected. The second, is that the equipment I did the test with is not good enough for anyone to tell the difference. The third, is that I have never been able to tell the difference (I am sure all those years of playing guitar did not help).

The thought most likely to be correct, in my opinion, would be - there just wasn't that much difference between the bitrates

Reasons:

• The song chosen could be "friendly" to lower bitrates - audibility of artifacts varies from example to example, and there are always "golden samples" to either prove or disprove transparency.
• You don't mention what encoding standard is used. Modern codecs are much more performant at lower bitrates than mp3
• Even mp3 is a lot better at 128k these days than it used to be, and much development effort has, in recent times, been focused in this area. I'm often surprised after enjoying a radio stream, to discover it was running at a lowly 128k, in mp3

Also, frequency range curtailment at low bitrate is generally a much less noticeable artifact than the issues with splishy-splashy treble and mushy transients (e.g. pre-echo, as already mentioned) that affect much of the audio band, so if your hearing is a little on the dull side, I can't see it being that much of an issue - it may just be that you need to know what to listen for in tests like these.

On to audio equipment; I don't think it would be too extravagant to claim that, compared to what you're using right now, a modern, minimal active/powered speaker system (or a trad/passive+amplifier setup, of course!) would provide strong and clear benefits to the enjoyment of music when using pretty much any pair of ears capable of receiving sound waves! Look through the archived reviews here - they will tell you what models you should be considering, at whatever your budget is.

 

[mhardy6647]

While that's very much an entry level Sherwood of its time (and very low power), that era of Sherwood equipment was very much in the 'sleeper' category, then, and still now. The FM tuner sections in that era of Sherwood receivers (and in the ones that came before it, as well) were way better than average in real-world performance (and in sound quality).

All just my opinions, of course, but not uninformed opinions!

 

[Robin L]

While that's very much an entry level Sherwood of its time (and very low power), that era of Sherwood equipment was very much in the 'sleeper' category, then, and still now. The FM tuner sections in that era of Sherwood receivers (and in the ones that came before it, as well) were way better than average in real-world performance (and in sound quality).

All just my opinions, of course, but not uninformed opinions!

My favorites from that era were the Harman Kardon receivers. 430 had the sweet spot, low powered but twin powered and more than enough power for most music:

 

[mhardy6647]

My favorites from that era were the Harman Kardon receivers. 430 had the sweet spot, low powered but twin powered and more than enough power for most music:

View attachment 217830

I am not about to disagree A few hk pieces of that era here. Heck, dollar for dollar, the even the little hk330c (20 wpc, and not TwinPowered) was a fine little receiver.
... but we digress.

 

[Doodski]

I am not about to disagree A few hk pieces of that era here. Heck, dollar for dollar, the even the little hk330c (20 wpc, and not TwinPowered) was a fine little receiver.
... but we digress.

I like the early 80's Citation series from HK. There where some killer pieces of gear in there. Monster power amps and bad boy receivers.

 

[Beershaun]

Wow. All great insights everyone. Thank you.


I said headphone out, and I guess that is what it is, but their site says it is a 3.5 mm stereo out. For some reason, when I run audio this way it is lower in volume. I guess that is due to the low impedance?


and


It is only 8 watts per channel, but I cannot turn it up very loud. The room it is in, is 19 feet by 25 feet. If I turn on the radio, which gets louder, I can barely stand how loud it is at the 10 o'clock position. With the tablet playing Spotify through the aux, 2 o'clock is just comfortably loud in that room. I have often wondered about this as I have heard systems with much higher ratings for the watts that are not as loud as this one, seeing as it is only 8 watts. I read this quote below about the speakers, and I am guessing some of it is related to that?

When I first got the receiver, it had a static sound that would come and go. I could lift it and set it down gently and it would go away but come back shortly after. I took it to a local electronics store and the guy fixed it, but alas it is happening again. Another reason to ponder the upgrade.

I like the general sound of the speakers. I am not blown away by the sound, but the volume sure can blow me away. The bass seems to lack something though. I think there is something not right with the woofers. If I do turn it up past 12 o'clock with the radio or 4 o'clock using tablet/aux, the bass has an odd sound. If I had to describe it, I would say it is like a person talking and runs out of breath. Also, the bass does have a port in the back.


I actually reached out to cerwin vega today to see if they have original replacements or can suggest a replacement for the woofers. I am waiting on their return call. I did only pay $15 might be worth it if it helps the sound. I could put them downstairs.

You are describing a problem with the speakers frequency response. Too much mid and high and not enough low frequency. This is not a power problem but a speaker frequency response problem. Check out the Elac debut reference 6.2 review on this site for a really nice budget speaker frequency response.

 

[mhardy6647]

Are the surrounds on the woofers on the OP's loudspeakers intact? The photo of one of the woofers posted above looks pretty questionable.

In fact, are they the right woofers for those loudspeakers?
(and my apologies if the answers for my questions were in the OP, and I just missed them!)

 

[ThatM1key]

I think those woofers are car subwoofers, which usually have a peak of 120-200hz. I found the specs from this PDF: https://www.rockfordfosgate.com/rftech/library/1994/5_subwoofers/cp8975_series1woofers_man.pdf . There is a minimum frequency but not top/peak in the manual. They appear to made dual-voice and single-voice versions, so we don't know what it is and how its wired (in terms of Ohms). Even if it was wired right, there would probably be a frequency gap between the subwoofer and midrange.

 

[pablolie]

As always these tracks get side-tracked.

Honestly, you seem to have a great system based on your current listening experiences and evaluation of music *you* care for.

My only advice is that instead of an online test, you listen to your favorite music in different format and discover if it makes a difference to *you*.

In a nutshell, it's all about music first, and equipment second if you discover you care about the difference.

Equipment only makes a difference if

1. You can hear a difference
2. You care about the audible difference
3. You enjoy the music more

 

[Waxx]

I think the main problem are those speakers. They were not very high quality when being original, and that non original woofer will make them even worse as the rest of the system is not fit for that specific woofer. The second hand market is full of decent old speakers for little money if you want to keep it cheap. But i would buy something new, so it's up to date. What depends on budget and needs (how big is the room, how loud do you want it, how deep must the bass go). It may be that you also need to upgrade the amp, as speakers today in general tend to be less sensitive so they need more watt to get the same volume.

 

[sonicj]

In fact, are they the right woofers for those loudspeakers?

I had a friend that saw them and for $15 I asked him to snag them for me. When he brought them to me, I took off the grille and saw the woofer had been changed on both. But I got a free sock in both in the bass port. If I can't find a good replacement for the woofer, they will wind up back at Goodwill or in my basement maybe.

I think those woofers are car subwoofers

Doh!

 

[mhardy6647]

Do the socks match?


On topic I think the loudspeakers, at least as is, are holding you back.