-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
Small system for Classical?
- Thread starter kerouacknew
- Start date
You have a hi-res source .. that can take advantage of hi-res amplification ..
For best sound quality, I'd recommend an inexpensive passive preamp and a high quality used basic power amp ..
If you don't mind some compromises in sound quality and you want tone controls, then integrated amps are the choice ..
Good amps make all the difference IMHO ..
Speakers are an individualized component .. depends on what ya like within the budget .. and how big is too big ..
fill35u
Super Member
In what specific ways are you finding your current system lacking?
Hey .. it has a preamp out ..
Run it into a high quality used separate power amp .. and it should sound far better ..the MOSFET amps are nice for classical ..
The other advantage of a high power, high current amp is that you won't be limited in your speaker choices, and almost every speaker will sound a bit better with the extra power and definition available ..
Last edited:
kerouacknew
Active Member
Im not sure exactly. I think its the speakers which dont convey the classical so well. Ive heard classical at the local hock shop playing thru a pair of Polk Rti which sounded better IMO.
I like the Vegas for Rock music. The sound fantastic with Guns and Roses,.
I think its the highs that are lacking......maybe.
bigaltx24
Super Member
johnda
Addicted Member
In my living room, I am using a pair of KEF Q300 speakers and they are excellent for all types of listening, but I REALLY love them playing classical. I am driving them with a Yamaha R-N 402 internet capable receiver. The 402 has been discontinued but the R-N 303 is the replacement. The KEF Q300 speakers have been replaced by the Q350 speakers . I think getting the Q350 speakers and the Yamaha R-N 303 would be in your budget window. Oh yes, the Yamaha R-N 303 has a phono input if you want to spin some records! Good luck!
Last edited:
fill35u
Super Member
What does unused power sound like?
How does having more amplifier power than needed increase "definition"? For that matter, what's "definition"?
If unused power makes everything sound so much better, all systems must sound their best with the volume turned down so low you can barely hear them!
(obvious joke aside: that some systems sound the best when they are turned down so low that you *can't* hear them!)
rocknroll1
Well-Known Member
If you are a member of Bartertown there is a almost new pair of Dynaudio Emit 20's for $600 and the same guy has a Arcam SA20 Integrated Amp for $900. I have heard the Emit 20's and they are a sweet little speaker. I have no affiliation with this seller, just thought both were a good deal.
fill35u
Super Member
You can't compare different speakers in different rooms. Speakers and rooms interact with each other.
Moving speakers very slightly, tilting them up or down, or turing them in or out, can have profound effects.
Where you sit can have a profound effect.
Then there's the room size, its dimensions, the way the walls are constructed, doorways, windows, reflection and absorption at different frequencies. And everything else in the room.
If you liked those Polk Rti's (and those are fairly popular and well-regarded. The RtiA9's are 8 ohms nominal and an average 90dB sensitivity, so they shouldn't be difficult to drive), find a way to audition them *in your room*. Make sure you can return them if you find you really don't like them. Heck, that should go for any audio gear you buy, unless you have money to burn or you want to start collecting...
Improved sound quality .. detail.. realism ...
It could be called resolution, maybe definition and is generally the result of higher quality, closer tolerance construction standards of a quality separate amplifier ..
They are also generally simpler and therefore longer lived than most of the integrated amps..
If I were buying used, I'd definitely prefer a simpler basic power amp ..
Last edited:
fill35u
Super Member
So is it unnecessary power that provides definition/resolution? Or quality? Or the fact that an amplifier is located in its own chassis?
What does "resolution" sound like?
I'd expect an amplifier *without* extra features to be simpler than an amplifier *with* extra features.
From the standpoint that the extra features provide more opportunities for failures, I'd expect that integrated amps have more failures than non-integrated, *all else being equal*.
But what if you still need a preamp? Or a tuner? I prefer separates to a receiver as well, but they can be more expensive and take up more space.
fill35u
Super Member
Key word: "can". If those power reserves improve transient response(why does it have to be only the transients that require power?), then that power was *needed* and *used*. It wasn't "extra".
The rest of the world refers to unused power (or signal level) as "headroom". It's a buffer zone, but it's also wasteful to have capacity and never use it.
For the same power: if a speaker is higher impedance, you need more voltage but less current. Lower impedance, less voltage, more current. The hardest things for amps are peak current and peak power, but those needs are determined by speaker reactance at particular frequencies, not nominal or even lowest impedance. However, an amplifier's capabilities in those areas aren't included in the single "FTC" number that amps are sold by. Just buying an amp with more nominal power isn't a guarantee that you can play as loud as you want, if you have exceptionally difficult speakers.
It makes more sense to spend the money on more efficient and easier-to-drive speakers that will work with more amps.
My concern is that you're advising that he obtain an amp larger than he needs, when he's specified a budget and is looking to upgrade his speakers as well. The more sensitive his new speakers and the lower his preferred listening level, the less power he'll need. Right now we don't know either of those variables.
In fact, it may be worth his money to refurbish his existing receiver. A refurbished used equivalent would probably cost more. If he upgrades to a modern receiver, within his budget he'll end up with around the same power. 120W per channel is plenty for most speakers at volume levels below the threshold of hearing damage, at typical listening distances in typical rooms. Sure, there are exceptions, but right now you're doing the OP a disservice to advocate "get the biggest amp you can find", especially while making the false claim that it will always make everything sound better.
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
This is where I have a major disagreement. IMO one should buy speakers that sound good to "you". Once you find speakers you like, acquire the power necessary to drive them to the level desired. The efficiency of a speaker should not be a primary concern. The only thing that matters with any speaker is how it sounds to you.
swechsler
Frog Whisperer
+1. More power is pretty cheap these days. Finding the right speakers is golden.
I always recommend Brit speakers for classical (and jazz), unless there's money for McIntosh, Sonus-Faber or such. Wharfedale, KEF, ProAc, B&W and some others I have heard.
I like the old B&W DM23 speakers; yes, I am VERY biased. Best speakers for jazz and classical I have ever owned, with the Tablettes a close second. If you use that Realistic receiver, consider the DM1400 model.
Good luck with the search.
I like the old B&W DM23 speakers; yes, I am VERY biased. Best speakers for jazz and classical I have ever owned, with the Tablettes a close second. If you use that Realistic receiver, consider the DM1400 model.
Good luck with the search.
fill35u
Super Member
I don't think there's a *major* disagreement?:
Of course! Acceptable sound quality was the OP's stated reason for wanting to upgrade in the first place.
But we are certainly "spoiled for choice"! There are *thousands* of speaker designs to choose from, even in the OP's budget range. We can reasonably say that the OP will never audition all of them. We can also reasonably say that a large number of them would be a perceived improvement to the OP. Therefore, to narrow the field, I suggest looking at ones that are easy to drive.
It is, if you're working within a *budget*. If the OP needs to buy a more powerful receiver than he has now, or refurbish his receiver to reuse it *and* buy an external amp, that eats into his speaker budget.
In this case (and in most cases, I suspect), *price* matters. Same old rule of thumb: allocate the most money for speakers, to widen your options, because they affect the sound more than any other gear.
That leaves less money for power. And while amp power may be cheaper than ever these days, it's certainly not free, and there are diminishing returns.
musichal
poet emeritus
I agree that a pair of good bookshelf speakers will sound better than the CVs. I love my Monitor Audio speakers paired with one of the recent (not current) Yamaha integrated amps. It isn't just classical music that sounds better to me than the Klipsches I had in there previously (and we used to call Cerwin-Vegas the po' man's Klipsch) - everything sounds better, but is more noticeable with classical and jazz, just due to the nature of the instruments themselves and the way they are recorded.
While I prefer new electronics, if the RS receiver sounds good to the Poster with whatever speaker he decides upon, then fine. Other speakers previously mentioned in this thread I find of interest include the KEF LS-50. A lot of people claim that the active ones sound best. If he bought a pair of the active models, he could feed them the preamp output, and delay any change he might want to make for a preamp indefinitely, but it opens up some nice options.
I was a little surprised to see Maggies being recommended so quickly, with so little information from the OP about room and placement. All we knew is that "bookshelf" was specified. Maggies sound best with some air around them. OTOH, so do almost every other speaker, but the Maggies really need some space behind them to get the money's worth, imo. If he has the room - hell, if I had the room myself - I'd trial a pair.
Now, the OP also specified he would be buying used - vintage was not specified. For classical music, or jazz, I find many current, or recent, speaker models that provide vastly superior resolution than a pair of say, OLAs. I owned several pair of Advents over the years, but kept none of them for long - there was better available at the time. If vintage is the goal... well, read someone else's recommendations, but throw the Dynaco A-25 in, also, though it might be too bulky a bookshelf model by current standards. They sound better than OLAs to me, but not as good as my Monitor Audio or Bryston.
While I prefer new electronics, if the RS receiver sounds good to the Poster with whatever speaker he decides upon, then fine. Other speakers previously mentioned in this thread I find of interest include the KEF LS-50. A lot of people claim that the active ones sound best. If he bought a pair of the active models, he could feed them the preamp output, and delay any change he might want to make for a preamp indefinitely, but it opens up some nice options.
I was a little surprised to see Maggies being recommended so quickly, with so little information from the OP about room and placement. All we knew is that "bookshelf" was specified. Maggies sound best with some air around them. OTOH, so do almost every other speaker, but the Maggies really need some space behind them to get the money's worth, imo. If he has the room - hell, if I had the room myself - I'd trial a pair.
Now, the OP also specified he would be buying used - vintage was not specified. For classical music, or jazz, I find many current, or recent, speaker models that provide vastly superior resolution than a pair of say, OLAs. I owned several pair of Advents over the years, but kept none of them for long - there was better available at the time. If vintage is the goal... well, read someone else's recommendations, but throw the Dynaco A-25 in, also, though it might be too bulky a bookshelf model by current standards. They sound better than OLAs to me, but not as good as my Monitor Audio or Bryston.
bimasta
Addicted Member
So many good systems already recommended, so I won't add to "spoiled for choice."
But your avatar is Dylan (and Kerouac Knew). Now you listen "more and more" to Classical. I started with Classical (grew up with it in my home) and then Dylan, not more and more but instantly. He finally and rightfully IMO won a Nobel Prize for Literature for "creating new poetic expressions" — if that's not classical, what is?
What Classical music do you prefer? I may have some suggestions you'll like.
I don't want to divert the thread, but all systems are for Music. If I can expand your collection, maybe it should be a "conversation"...? Up to you
But your avatar is Dylan (and Kerouac Knew). Now you listen "more and more" to Classical. I started with Classical (grew up with it in my home) and then Dylan, not more and more but instantly. He finally and rightfully IMO won a Nobel Prize for Literature for "creating new poetic expressions" — if that's not classical, what is?
What Classical music do you prefer? I may have some suggestions you'll like.
I don't want to divert the thread, but all systems are for Music. If I can expand your collection, maybe it should be a "conversation"...? Up to you
Last edited: