Support your local brick and mortar store

[realhifi]

I've decided for now on I am only going to purchase stereo equipment assembled in factories owned and run as anarchosyndicalist cooperatives, and purchase from dealers whose businesses are run in such a way that there is no hierarchy and everyone has equal ownership and is paid the same, and instead of trying to push products, the sales people engage in establishing consensus of all parties involved in the transaction.

Struck a nerve there. *s* So you think sales tax is.....socialistic? Yet again a simple discussion about our industry turns into a political rant.

Seriously?

[realhifi]

I'm kinda surprised by the anger and vitriol for the brick and mortar dealer. Not that I haven't had my share of bad experiences -- some rather similar to those listed here. But I've also had experience with similar shenanigans from online retailers. It's not a matter of B&M vs online, it's a matter of "good dealer" vs "loser". Just not sure you can paint them all with the same brush.

Personally, I think the constriction in the dealer market has been catastrophic for high-end audio. These are the guys, love them or hate them, who actually do know more than you do about what goes with what. No amount of opinion collection and/or forum surfing is ever going to replace the real-life/real-world experience of that dude who's been building systems for 30 years. Sure, they may not know everything about computer audio. But what they do know is about the rest of your system -- and more importantly, that it's a system, and not all about the source (or the component, or the speaker, or the room, &c).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think we're the problem. We, the consumer, that is. We're kinda wrecking things with our OCD around pricing and forgetting that there's real value in consultation -- and that that consultation and deep knowledge is actually worth something. Specifically, that knowledge can keep us, the ADD consumer, from making a series of unnecessary purchases. Based on this on supposition, I suspect that the demise of the B&M will actually cost us more money in the long term, even as we save pennies here and there. Penny wise, pound foolish, and all that.

That said, times have changed and the 21st century dealer really needs to wise up and figure out a way to provide real, obvious and tangible value.

I have a screed on all this called: "21st Century Audio Dealer: The Consultant and the Retailer".

Potshots welcomed.

Well said.

[REShaman]

Rant? Anger? Vitriol?

Real and personal experience(s) which influence one's future choices? Diverse points of view? Contrast frame? Humor, wry or otherwise? All or nothing thinking? Cognitive Dissonance, as in opposing points of view that are both valid. Fair comment?

To “see both sides” of a problem is the surest way to prevent its complete solution. Because there are always more than two sides.--Idres Shah.

Best,
Richard

[Jud]

Smart solutions are good solutions.
Smart solutions will automatically match the right equipment or calibrate it to fit.

The needed information may be imbedded in IT solutions or actual rigs, but why would anyone think it efficient or desirble to have it hand carried by an installer or a B&M shop?
Analogue solutions will be mis-matched and waste money and look increasingly stupid.

As a modern consumer and accomplished engineer i expect quality products to be:

- High volume mass produced
- Modular
- FAT tested and quality approved
- Low failure rate
- Smart topology
- Self optimizing
- Cost efficiently produced and distributed

I will thus try to avoid:

- Small volume productions
- Costum intallations
- Hand and/or costum build appliances

I tend to go for superior sound rather than romantic stories and personalized service.
I therefore find most analogue audiophile equipment overpriced and of dubious quality.
This is particularly true for square speakers, passive X-overs and analogue cables.

You could spend some of the savings on an acoustic room consultant and treatment!

Support smart solutions and let the dinosaurs die in peace!

DigiPete, how familiar are you with DOS, the Terminal in Mac, the terminal or console in Linux, etc.? The reason I ask is this: Over a couple of decades, I've found that often the "easy," "self-optimizing," "automated" graphical solution has quirks built in by the programmers you just can't get rid of, unless you know how to go into the shell/console and play around with the configuration files that are actually there behind the scenes doing the work. (If this was allowed by the iPad, for instance, I have no doubt the automagic - and incorrect - word changes that REShaman and wgscott have mentioned in this thread could be dispensed with quickly.)

While this sort of automagical stuff is a boon for the vast majority of people (including me) in the vast majority of instances, inevitably, especially for people on the tails of the bell curve like audiophiles, one runs into corner cases. In such instances it's a really good thing to have available folks who have run into such corner cases before, either online or locally. A good brick and mortar dealer can fill this role very well (not to say online forums can't).

One additional comment is that analogue is unavoidable since that, rather than binary code, is what we can hear. Even what you recommended as a substitute use of funds - room measuring and treatment - is as much art as science (see above re having dealt with corner cases before), since the acoustics of even a very simply laid out listening room do not admit of exact numerical solutions.

[DigiPete]

DigiPete, how familiar are you with DOS, the Terminal in Mac, the terminal or console in Linux, etc.? The reason I ask is this: Over a couple of decades, I've found that often the "easy," "self-optimizing," "automated" graphical solution has quirks built in by the programmers you just can't get rid of, unless you know how to go into the shell/console and play around with the configuration files that are actually there behind the scenes doing the work. (If this was allowed by the iPad, for instance, I have no doubt the automagic - and incorrect - word changes that REShaman and wgscott have mentioned in this thread could be dispensed with quickly.)

While this sort of automagical stuff is a boon for the vast majority of people (including me) in the vast majority of instances, inevitably, especially for people on the tails of the bell curve like audiophiles, one runs into corner cases. In such instances it's a really good thing to have available folks who have run into such corner cases before, either online or locally. A good brick and mortar dealer can fill this role very well (not to say online forums can't).

One additional comment is that analogue is unavoidable since that, rather than binary code, is what we can hear. Even what you recommended as a substitute use of funds - room measuring and treatment - is as much art as science (see above re having dealt with corner cases before), since the acoustics of even a very simply laid out listening room do not admit of exact numerical solutions.

Jud,

I grew up with UNIX, FORTRAN77, Cobol and DOS, so I am well aware of the programmers view of the world.
Audiophiles are however rarely experts, and we keep getting sub-optimal setups as the needed information and skills are not available or optimal matches are not possible.

I am proposing systems that are build for optimum fit in any situation rather than choosing a jumble of parts.
I did the jumble of parts in my analogue days, but now I am older and wiser.
Take the guesswork out of choosing your rig and leave it to the skilled experts at the manufacturer.

I propose you consider the appliance approach, and all the benefits that comes with optimal fit.
Digital audiophile solutions really should use quality approaches such as:

- Digital signal distribution
- Bi/tri-amping
- Active or digital X-overs
- Coaxial Mid/High driver for optimum imaging
- Optional DSP for room correction and optimal sub integration

This is more likely if the rig is thought out by one company that treats it like a modular system rather than a jumble of parts.
The company can optimally distribute money and efforts so the costumers get the best sound for the least money.
Also, they have nobody else to blame for bad choices, not the shop and not the costumer.
Ie. efficiency and predictability. No need for a costly B&M shop or installer.

I do agree that room acoustics are different, let me quote myself:

You could spend some of the savings on an acoustic room consultant and treatment!

Quirks and limitations
All systems have limits and/or quirks build into them, this is not limited to smart "easy," "self-optimizing," "automated" graphical solutions.

Smart/proprietary solutions may even have more limitations than a home brewed jumble of parts.
Analogue systems have a higher noise floor, often problematic X-overs, especially when integrating subs.
Digital systems has had problems with digital distortions, even if this is quite limited in newer systems.

My own digital stereo/surround Genelec system is limited to PCM, a price that I am willing to pay.
The sound is exquisite, parts easily integrated (up to 30 speakers) and sub X-over can be optimized/changed on screen.


All in all: home brewed jumble of parts may be a fun hobby for some, but they tend to be underperforming and a very expensive path.

[wgscott]

Struck a nerve there. *s* So you think sales tax is.....socialistic? Yet again a simple discussion about our industry turns into a political rant.

Seriously?

You didn't read the whole thread, did you?

I'll make it easy for you: post 17

[Jud]

Jud,

I grew up with UNIX, FORTRAN77, Cobol and DOS, so I am well aware of the programmers view of the world.
Audiophiles are however rarely experts, and we keep getting sub-optimal setups as the needed information and skills are not available or optimal matches are not possible.

I am proposing systems that are build for optimum fit in any situation rather than choosing a jumble of parts.
I did the jumble of parts in my analogue days, but now I am older and wiser.
Take the guesswork out of choosing your rig and leave it to the skilled experts at the manufacturer.

I propose you consider the appliance approach, and all the benefits that comes with optimal fit.
Digital audiophile solutions really should use quality approaches such as:

- Digital signal distribution
- Bi/tri-amping
- Active or digital X-overs
- Coaxial Mid/High driver for optimum imaging
- Optional DSP for room correction and optimal sub integration

This is more likely if the rig is thought out by one company that treats it like a modular system rather than a jumble of parts.

While some of this is appealing, I find both the list of optimum approaches and the thought that this (or any) set of optimum approaches are best done by having a single company supply all the parts to be too much of a generalization. I'll fall back on another software analogy: Have you ever found a third party company's software that could f*** up a Windows installation worse than Microsoft's own updates? I haven't. In many cases I feel third party software running on Windows does a better job than MS's own applications.

The company can optimally distribute money and efforts so the costumers get the best sound for the least money.
Also, they have nobody else to blame for bad choices, not the shop and not the costumer.
Ie. efficiency and predictability. No need for a costly B&M shop or installer.

* * *

My own digital stereo/surround Genelec system is limited to PCM, a price that I am willing to pay.
The sound is exquisite, parts easily integrated (up to 30 speakers) and sub X-over can be optimized/changed on screen.


All in all: home brewed jumble of parts may be a fun hobby for some, but they tend to be underperforming and a very expensive path.

I find this to be another generalization. Your speakers, with inboard amplification, cost $28,304 US if one uses online discounted prices as a guide. My speakers, preamp, and amp cost a total of $6800 (actual prices paid at time of acquisition).

Now there are a couple of things that could be done with this. We could use your actual acquisition cost rather than the online discounted price, if you got it for less. We could also drop your surround speakers and sub, and compare stereo to stereo, resulting in $11,278 for your system as a comparison point. But on the other hand, the surround approach is the one you feel gives you the most realistic sound, while I tend to think for purposes of best imaging that more than two speakers and a subwoofer lead to some relatively complex issues with regard to time arrival of various frequencies and the lack of correspondence of such a setup with anything we hear in real life. (The cello doesn't move closer or further away depending on whether it's playing in the upper or lower part of its register. So why should the driver that reproduces the lower part of the register be located closer or further away than the drivers that reproduce the higher frequencies?)

You may well disagree with me on this - obviously you do. As I mentioned above, I find your list of approaches that should necessarily lead to best sound rather generalized, i.e., not something everyone would automatically agree is true. But then to further generalize and say, as the owner of a system where speakers and amplification alone cost almost $30,000 US, that the modular approach is "very expensive" is I think rather ironic.

[realhifi]

You didn't read the whole thread, did you?

I'll make it easy for you: post 17

My apologies, I missed that. I am guilty of not following the thread closely enough. As far as Amazon, I really don't feel they are competition for most audio shops as they seem to be dealing with tvs and low end audio mostly. I can usually match their prices on those small items.

[DigiPete]

. . . .
You may well disagree with me on this - obviously you do. As I mentioned above, I find your list of approaches that should necessarily lead to best sound rather generalized, i.e., not something everyone would automatically agree is true. But then to further generalize and say, as the owner of a system where speakers and amplification alone cost almost $30,000 US, that the modular approach is "very expensive" is I think rather ironic.

Jud,
I do see the irony ;-)

However, my arguments do hold true.
It may be more true for the high end audiophile equipment at the moment, but it will become increasingly true in the near future as the price of DSP and quality DAC's currently drops like a brick through a wet paper bag.


So let us compare apples to apples!
I auditiioned Bowers & Wilkins beautiful 800 Diamond speakers as I was starting my venture into Computer Audio.
They were powered by Classe pre/power amps and different exoteric front ends.
A very impressive experience indeed, and I was seriously considering signing a check for almost $30,000 US. It was a one time offer, and a pretty good one. However, it was $30,000 just for the speakers, so I decided to go back and research what I really could get for that kind of money.

20 years ago I left the audiophile community because I got tired of people bickering over details like cables and mismatching equipment.
This is largely still the case today, however, the world has changed around audiophilia - the internet, computers, DSP, high res digital music.

I am still surprised that old analogue tricks of the trade have not been put to more use.
Active X-overs, bi-amping and rounded speaker cabinets (minimum diffraction).
IMO these have all long proven track records, and should be considered for top of the line equipment.

I was researching DAC's at the time and stumbled upon CA, and thank Chris for that.
I re-engineer technology and invent new solutions for work, so I decided to try the same for audio equipment.
Topology of energy systems and machinery is my main focus, identifying and minimizing losses.
On audiophile systems the focus is loss of sound quality, put the process is much the same: identify losses and remove and/or minimize them by improving topology.


Starting over

So I went back to the audio system, assumed a digital source, ripped it apart and tried to come up with the perfect topology.
I set out to build a rig that can reproduce the music as true to the master as possible.
The result looked like this:

- Music in near studio master quality readily available for download.
- Quality D/A is cheap enough for one D/A per transducer in surround.
- Digital X-over is now available and far better than passive X-over.
- DSP has become cheaper and offer near lossless room correction.
- Quadraphonic (and/or 5.1) is back and only available as digital.
- Science will replace guessing or hoping in getting desired sound.
- I can finally get the Brüel & Kjær house frequency response curve.

You may not agree, but that is what I found.

Brands that I felt took advantage of the new available technology:

- Steinway Lyngdorf
- behold / Ballmann Electronica GmbH
- Genelec
- Meridian
- Lyngdorf Audio
- Spatial Computer
- DEQX
- Audiolense

I auditioned Genelec, Meridian and Lyngdorf Audio as they are within my chosen spending range and offered integrated systems.
Next I went back and auditioned the beautiful Bowers & Wilkins beautiful 800 Diamond speakers and others in that class.

I found that the:
- Genelec 8260 simply delivered way above it's price tag.
- Meridian DSP7200 could sonically compete but at double the price.
- Lyngdorf system was well conceived but outdated
- B&W 800 Diamond and similar could compete sonically only in a near perfect acoustic environment but at 3-5 times the price.

Conclusion

I ended up with a stereo system at the same sonic capabilities and half the cost of a set of B&W 800 Diamond's.
The price of my rig included additionally 24/192 DDC and AD/DA conversion, optional DSP room correction and amplification.

I consider that cheap!

I agree that 15 or $30,000 US is a lot of money.
Many people take pleasure from spending such amount to get a nice car rather than a people transporter.
Who are we to judge?

I still believe my arguments hold true.
It may be more true for the high end audiophile equipment at the moment, but it will become increasingly true in the near future as the price of DSP and quality DAC's currently drops like a brick through a wet paper bag.
We, normal consumers and audiophiles alike, stand to gain, and manufacturers that dare join stand to win.

All the best

[Paul.Raulerson]

Jud,
I do see the irony ;-)

However, my arguments do hold true.
It may be more true for the high end audiophile equipment at the moment, but it will become increasingly true in the near future as the price of DSP and quality DAC's currently drops like a brick through a wet paper bag.


So let us compare apples to apples!
Much fine commentary edited our for space purposes

Hi Pete -

You know, I actually see your point. However, I don't think you addressed Jud's point. Start with an arbitrary budget, say $2000. That is actually slightly above the cost most people are willing to spend on audio systems, at least in the beginning.

You can get a really decent two channel rig for that kind of money, one that will even vastly improve the sound from your television or DVD/Blu-ray player.

What can you get for that same cost in surround sound? I'm serious about that, what would you consider an apples-to-apples comparison?

You can push the budget up to say, $3000 if you wish, but for an additional thousand dollars, that two channel rig is going to have a corresponding improvement as well.

-Paul

[wgscott]

My apologies, I missed that. I am guilty of not following the thread closely enough. As far as Amazon, I really don't feel they are competition for most audio shops as they seem to be dealing with tvs and low end audio mostly. I can usually match their prices on those small items.

They sell the Peachtree Nova, for example, probably via one of their affiliates. In this case, they actually sell for $100 above the list price (and that was before discounted ones started appearing.

I bought a small velodyne sub on Amazon for about $500, which sells at the brick and mortar place for about $800, if they can be bothered to get back to you.

I'm interested in the Bowers and Wilkins PV1D subwoofer at the moment. It has been out since March. I cannot find any Brick and Mortar place that stocks it, or is even interested in returning my calls or emails without pestering (this in the middle of the worst post WWII economic depression). They will special order it for me if I pay in advance, wait 3 weeks, and forfeit the return policy. So if I don't like how it sounds, I am screwed.

Contrast this to Amazon. I bought two of those microvee subs at the same time, quickly determined I did not want them in my main system, kept one for my office and send the other one back for a quick refund. UPS picked it up from my door.

If I could push a button right this moment and buy the PV1D at $100 above list price on Amazon, I would not hesitate. (I am one of those few people who will also voluntarily pay sales tax.)

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi DigiPete - I think many of your points and approaches are valid. I just don't think I've heard a system like yours that is as good as some of the traditional systems.

That said I simply haven't heard too many system that take advantage of all that technology. I wish high end manufacturers would team up and create powered speakers. A Spectral & Magico loudspeaker could be absolutely stunning, but wouldn't be inexpensive.

There's no right or wrong way to design one's system. Pick a technology and run with it :~)

[Purite Audio]

Completely agree with DigiPete, you have to spend so much more to even get close to the Genelec 8260, and it isn't just Genelec that make fine active monitors, Klein and Hummel,Geithain for example.
Keith.

[REShaman]

They sell the Peachtree Nova, for example, probably via one of their affiliates. In this case, they actually sell for $100 above the list price (and that was before discounted ones started appearing.

I bought a small velodyne sub on Amazon for about $500, which sells at the brick and mortar place for about $800, if they can be bothered to get back to you.

I'm interested in the Bowers and Wilkins PV1D subwoofer at the moment. It has been out since March. I cannot find any Brick and Mortar place that stocks it, or is even interested in returning my calls or emails without pestering (this in the middle of the worst post WWII economic depression). They will special order it for me if I pay in advance, wait 3 weeks, and forfeit the return policy. So if I don't like how it sounds, I am screwed.

Contrast this to Amazon. I bought two of those microvee subs at the same time, quickly determined I did not want them in my main system, kept one for my office and send the other one back for a quick refund. UPS picked it up from my door.

If I could push a button right this moment and buy the PV1D at $100 above list price on Amazon, I would not hesitate. (I am one of those few people who will also voluntarily pay sales tax.)

I know this if OT. I completely understand and appreciate Scott's experience as they have been so similar to my past experiences and exist independent of the tone of the title of the thread. In other words, I have no bias against anything, merely reporting my experiences which are varied and often unpredictable and reflects how one may be influenced by any number of determinants that do not negate the thesis of OP's thread.

A variation on a theme to Scott's experience. Admittedly, my Konica Minolta Magicolor 4650DN color laser printer is not an audio component in my system. It decided to self destruct and very expensive part a few days ago. In doing my due diligence, I found that J&R Records, a well-know multi-department music/audio equipment/computer, yes that one, was selling the next model up (better for me) for $112 less then Amazon including free shipping. Both would charge tax as Amazon does. I do not know if J&R is considered a brick and mortar store. In any case, I purchased the 4750DN and high capacity cartridges slightly lower than offered by Amazon over July 4th weekend receiving it in a few days in pristine condition. At a substantial savings bought online but from a local dealer. I felt lucky, grateful and congruent with my choice of action. The worm turns.
Best,
Richard

[Jud]

DigiPete: Just wanted to let you know I prepared a long reply to many of your very interesting comments, and wonderful Internet Exploder here at work promptly lost it! :-/

It will be forthcoming some time this evening, I hope, when I get some time....

[Daudio]

... I prepared a long reply to many of your very interesting comments, and wonderful Internet Exploder here at work promptly lost it! :-/ ....

Jud,

It may be that vBulletin is at fault rather then IE (not that it's blameless). I've had problems with losing posts when I was using a second, older, CA tab, open in Firefox, and it wouldn't submit it. When I then found the thread and posting I was replying to, in my main CA tab, and clicked to reply, lo and behold, my text had been saved ! There have been variations on these symptoms, and not always successful, but it is well worth a try.

[The Computer Audiophile]

DigiPete: Just wanted to let you know I prepared a long reply to many of your very interesting comments, and wonderful Internet Exploder here at work promptly lost it! :-/

It will be forthcoming some time this evening, I hope, when I get some time....

Hi Jud try this:

vBulletin autosaves your post while you type in the comment editor. Every 30 seconds or so you will see a yellow notification of that says "Auto-Saved". If your browser crashes you can recover your post by simply going back to the thread you were on and clicking "Reply To Post." You will then see a notification that says "Restore Auto-Saved Content".

[DigiPete]

DigiPete: Just wanted to let you know I prepared a long reply to many of your very interesting comments, and wonderful Internet Exploder here at work promptly lost it! :-/

It will be forthcoming some time this evening, I hope, when I get some time....

Hey Jud

I'll be looking forward to it.

I tend to ramble when I get fired up and I do apologize.

Good luck on the "Restore Auto-Saved Content".
Chris - nice one, thanks!

[DigiPete]

Hi DigiPete - I think many of your points and approaches are valid. I just don't think I've heard a system like yours that is as good as some of the traditional systems.

That said I simply haven't heard too many system that take advantage of all that technology. I wish high end manufacturers would team up and create powered speakers. A Spectral & Magico loudspeaker could be absolutely stunning, but wouldn't be inexpensive.

There's no right or wrong way to design one's system. Pick a technology and run with it :~)

The only constant is change, that is for sure.

I am still looking forward to auditioning a Steinway Lyngdorf Model D in surround, that will be a day to remember.

Another interesting one would be a digitally enhanced, tube driven, horn system ;-)

[Jud]

Hi Jud try this:

vBulletin autosaves your post while you type in the comment editor. Every 30 seconds or so you will see a yellow notification of that says "Auto-Saved". If your browser crashes you can recover your post by simply going back to the thread you were on and clicking "Reply To Post." You will then see a notification that says "Restore Auto-Saved Content".

And I had an elegant proof that cables do make a difference, but the margins of this web page are too small to contain it. :-(


(With apologies to Fermat.)

[DigiPete]

Hi Pete -

You know, I actually see your point. However, I don't think you addressed Jud's point. Start with an arbitrary budget, say $2000. That is actually slightly above the cost most people are willing to spend on audio systems, at least in the beginning.

You can get a really decent two channel rig for that kind of money, one that will even vastly improve the sound from your television or DVD/Blu-ray player.

What can you get for that same cost in surround sound? I'm serious about that, what would you consider an apples-to-apples comparison?

You can push the budget up to say, $3000 if you wish, but for an additional thousand dollars, that two channel rig is going to have a corresponding improvement as well.

-Paul

Paul,
you have me baffled, what is the actual question?
I think you have mixed some of my postulates from different threads.
Not that i blame you.

I assume that you would like me to show that I can find a surround system that gives more value than a stereo rig in the 2-3000 USD.
I can not!

I can however show you my status at this time.

Let me try a few shots from my book :
(The cost efficient audiophile)


Cheap smart near field stereo system:

1379 USD Genelec 6010 2.1 stereo pack
699 USD KRK Ergo firewire DAC / RoomPerfect by Lyngdorf with sub
2078 USD Total system

Genelec 6010 2.1 StereoPak - White | VintageKing.com
Lyngdorf


Cheap smart mid field surround system

2506 USD Genelec 6010 5.1 Surroundpak
625 USD Lynx AES16
60 USD Cable
479 USD Audiolense XO MC DSP Room correction Software
198 USD Calibrated measurement kit
3868 USD Total system

Genelec 6010 5.1 SurroundPak - White | VintageKing.com
AES16
www.juicehifi.com


Cheap smarter mid field surround system

9419 USD Genelec SE Digital Power Pak
625 USD Lynx AES16
50 USD Cable
10094 USD Total system

Genelec SE Digital Power Pak | VintageKing.com


Conclusion

These systems are not packaged, automated and ready to.
They do however all display the following traits described earlier in this thread:

- High sonic quality at low cost due to mass production
- Good topology
- Bi-amping / one amp per driver
- active or digital X-over
- Rounded cabinets
- DSP room correction

They also demonstrate that extremely capable surround rigs are available at reasonable cost.

I am using Genelec active monitors as an example, as I know them and can vouch for them.
Many similar other and competitive solutions should be available.

PS. You really need to hear these monitors to believe what I am saying. It is spooky so tactile they make good music!
PPS. A lot of your music and film sound is mixed on this type of equipment, it may not be top notch audiophile, but it is a lot of bang for the buck.

[Paul.Raulerson]

Your $3900 system is what I was asking for, though I admit, I am not clear how you feed it 5.1 signals. I am clear it is not something considered "cheap" by most people.

The low end system is a two channel rig and I have heard it sounds very good. Not had a opportunity to listen to a well setup system with Genelec speakers yet though.

-Paul

Paul,
you have me baffled, what is the actual question?
I think you have mixed some of my postulates from different threads.
Not that i blame you.

I assume that you would like me to show that I can find a surround system that gives more value than a stereo rig in the 2-3000 USD.
I can not!

I can however show you my status at this time.

Let me try a few shots from my book :
(The cost efficient audiophile)


Cheap smart near field stereo system:

1379 USD Genelec 6010 2.1 stereo pack
699 USD KRK Ergo firewire DAC / RoomPerfect by Lyngdorf with sub
2078 USD Total system

Genelec 6010 2.1 StereoPak - White | VintageKing.com
Lyngdorf


Cheap smart mid field surround system

2506 USD Genelec 6010 5.1 Surroundpak
625 USD Lynx AES16
60 USD Cable
479 USD Audiolense XO MC DSP Room correction Software
198 USD Calibrated measurement kit
3868 USD Total system

Genelec 6010 5.1 SurroundPak - White | VintageKing.com
AES16
www.juicehifi.com


Cheap smarter mid field surround system

9419 USD Genelec SE Digital Power Pak
625 USD Lynx AES16
50 USD Cable
10094 USD Total system

Genelec SE Digital Power Pak | VintageKing.com


Conclusion

These systems are not packaged, automated and ready to.
They do however all display the following traits described earlier in this thread:

- High sonic quality at low cost due to mass production
- Good topology
- Bi-amping / one amp per driver
- active or digital X-over
- Rounded cabinets
- DSP room correction

They also demonstrate that extremely capable surround rigs are available at reasonable cost.

I am using Genelec active monitors as an example, as I know them and can vouch for them.
Many similar other and competitive solutions should be available.

PS. You really need to hear these monitors to believe what I am saying. It is spooky so tactile they make good music!
PPS. A lot of your music and film sound is mixed on this type of equipment, it may not be top notch audiophile, but it is a lot of bang for the buck.

[Jud]

Lots of well considered and thought provoking stuff here. I'll comment as I go through -

Jud,
I do see the irony ;-)

However, my arguments do hold true.
It may be more true for the high end audiophile equipment at the moment, but it will become increasingly true in the near future as the price of DSP and quality DAC's currently drops like a brick through a wet paper bag.

Re DACs, my $450 DAC outperforms an old $2000 DAC by the same designer that was in my system previously. Let's hope this continues.

Re DSP, I do have concerns. It is difficult enough to get amplification that is really faithful to the signal. Then DSP adds circuitry, about which one must have the same criteria as with amplification: Does it do what you have set it to do without much added distortion? How does it affect not only gross criteria like frequency response, but more subtle yet essential (to me) aspects of the sound like transients and timing cues? To me, the additional electronics means additional risk of violating the Hippocratic Oath of Hi-Fi: First, do no harm.

But: The computer modeling behind DSP is getting better all the time, and hopefully the designers will improve the circuitry as well, so I will definitely keep an open mind.

So let us compare apples to apples!
I auditiioned Bowers & Wilkins beautiful 800 Diamond speakers as I was starting my venture into Computer Audio.
They were powered by Classe pre/power amps and different exoteric front ends.
A very impressive experience indeed, and I was seriously considering signing a check for almost $30,000 US. It was a one time offer, and a pretty good one. However, it was $30,000 just for the speakers, so I decided to go back and research what I really could get for that kind of money.

Funny, something similar happened to me. I listened to a $5000 pair of B&W speakers, but liked the $1200 Vandersteens more.

20 years ago I left the audiophile community because I got tired of people bickering over details like cables and mismatching equipment.
This is largely still the case today, however, the world has changed around audiophilia - the internet, computers, DSP, high res digital music.

I agree re system matching. For me, each component must stand on its own with regard to quality, not each component doing something wrong with "dark" cables somehow offsetting "bright" speakers, etc.

Re cables, the wires connecting the boxes are a part of the system along with the wires and circuitry in the boxes, so it all deserves my attention.

I am still surprised that old analogue tricks of the trade have not been put to more use.
Active X-overs, bi-amping and rounded speaker cabinets (minimum diffraction).
IMO these have all long proven track records, and should be considered for top of the line equipment.

Re active crossovers, I have the same concerns as DSP.

Bi-amping full range speakers to me is much the same thing as co-locating (sub)woofers with the midrange drivers and tweeters, a good thing with regard to timing cues. One must double the number of amps, but one amp with the power to drive the (sub)woofers and reproduce the rest of the range accurately isn't inexpensive. Bi-amping with the amps I like to use is not in my price range, but for those who can afford it, why not? (I could not afford a Spectral amp new, so I bought one used, which brings up another point: if one wants to look at the used market, it can be difficult to find two identical used amps that one likes simultaneously, to say nothing of four.)

As for speaker cabinets, my Vandersteens don't have traditional enclosures, so I'm with you there.

I was researching DAC's at the time and stumbled upon CA, and thank Chris for that.

Yep, same here.

Starting over

So I went back to the audio system, assumed a digital source, ripped it apart and tried to come up with the perfect topology.
I set out to build a rig that can reproduce the music as true to the master as possible.
The result looked like this:

- Music in near studio master quality readily available for download.
- Quality D/A is cheap enough for one D/A per transducer in surround.
- Digital X-over is now available and far better than passive X-over.
- DSP has become cheaper and offer near lossless room correction.
- Quadraphonic (and/or 5.1) is back and only available as digital.
- Science will replace guessing or hoping in getting desired sound.
- I can finally get the Brüel & Kjær house frequency response curve.

You may not agree, but that is what I found.

- High quality downloads, agreed - give me more!
- DACs, as above, agreed re quality and price.
- Crossovers and DSP I commented on previously.
- Quad, not enough material of the natural, non-"showpiece" variety to make me spend money to hear it.
- Re science, I am not as optimistic as you that we know all we need to yet, particularly about interactions among all the parts of the system. That's quite a chaotic thing to model.
- Modeling the acoustics of the listening room, though it's not susceptible to exact numerical solutions, is getting better and better. It is at the very least to the point where it can give you a massive head start before tweaking the final product by listening.

Conclusion

I ended up with a stereo system at the same sonic capabilities and half the cost of a set of B&W 800 Diamond's.
The price of my rig included additionally 24/192 DDC and AD/DA conversion, optional DSP room correction and amplification.

I consider that cheap!

* * *

All the best

And to you as well. It's a very interesting and pleasant conversation.

[DigiPete]

Your $3900 system is what I was asking for, though I admit, I am not clear how you feed it 5.1 signals. I am clear it is not something considered "cheap" by most people.
. . . .
-Paul

So this is it:

Cheap smart mid field surround system

2506 USD Genelec 6010 5.1 Surroundpak
899 USD Lynx two B
60 USD Cable
479 USD Audiolense XO MC DSP Room correction Software
198 USD Calibrated measurement kit
4142 USD Total system

Minor error corrected, I stuck in the digital output card in stead of the 6 channel DAC card.
My bad, I am so used to looking for the AES/EBU output.
Ruined the sub 4000,- price :-(

Anyway, lets walk through how the system works.

Lynx two B
Is a 6 channel DAC (2 channel ADC) PCI card that you can stick in any desk top computer.
Uses a breakout cable.

Genelec 6010 5.1 Surroundpak
Consists of:
5040A 6.5" subwoofer with 6 analogue inputs (including LFE) and active X-over
5 x Five 6010As satelites fed analogue signal from sub or direct from the Lynx sound card

Stick the Lynx in the computer, map the channels, connect speakers (RCA and power) and you are good to go.
VLC or any other multi-channel player will get you started.
All for the price of 3465 USD

Audiolense + Calibrated measurement kit
Optional feature.
Will allow you to do room correction on your computer and digital sub X-over using your computer.
This is a complex operation involving measuring speaker/room response, designing the desired response curve, convolving the resulting filter and embedding it in your chosen player.
This is not for the weak hearted or impatient.

Audiolense is very technically capable, sharp as a japanese sword - should be handled with care.
I personally prefer the automated type of system embedded in hardware, where you just push a button.

[DigiPete]

Lots of well considered and thought provoking stuff here. I'll comment as I go through
Re DSP, I do have concerns. It is difficult enough to get amplification that is really faithful to the signal. Then DSP adds circuitry, about which one must have the same criteria as with amplification: Does it do what you have set it to do without much added distortion? How does it affect not only gross criteria like frequency response, but more subtle yet essential (to me) aspects of the sound like transients and timing cues? To me, the additional electronics means additional risk of violating the Hippocratic Oath of Hi-Fi: First, do no harm.

But: The computer modeling behind DSP is getting better all the time, and hopefully the designers will improve the circuitry as well, so I will definitely keep an open mind.

DSP

There is no such thing as a free lunch, DSP adds digital artifacts.
Modern DSP is now 24-32 bit and designs has improved, but DSP should still be used with caution IMO.

My Genelecs use up to 4 shelve filters and up to 6 notch filters and that is more than enough.
Room correction DSP is most useful and least damaging at low frequencies, where it is used to battle room modes.
Like many I have room gains of up to 15dB below 100hz, with DSP I'm below 3dB.
More room treatment and changed geometry will help, but I'm sure I'll keep benefitting from DSP help.

I agree re system matching. For me, each component must stand on its own with regard to quality, not each component doing something wrong with "dark" cables somehow offsetting "bright" speakers, etc.

Re cables, the wires connecting the boxes are a part of the system along with the wires and circuitry in the boxes, so it all deserves my attention.

Cables

Correctly implemented digital cables are 100% lossless assuming the analogue parts of your components are immune to the little noise they pick up.
Digital inputs can actually be 100% immune to acoustic noise, analogue can not.

Analogue cables are never lossless or colorless, but usually expensive if any good.
AES/EBU calble cost like nothing: say 30USD for 5m/17'.

I use AES/EBU to feed my speakers. That is the professional balanced digital broadcast standard and it is very robust.
S/PDIF and AES/EBU use the same protocol, but with significant differences:

S/PDIF AES/EBU
Coax Balanced Cable
10m 100m Max length
0.7V 2-7 Voltage peak to peak

Re active crossovers, I have the same concerns as DSP.

Active X-overs and bi-amp

I may not be the best person to address this, so feel free to chip in.

Active and passive X-overs are terrible names, they should be called analogue X-overs before or after the power amp.
The analogue filters are largely the same, and they both cause substantial loss of voltage (energy).
The loss is however much less before the amp and is normally countered by a precision op-amp - hence the name active.

The bass power amp gains a better control of the bass transducer and the mid/high amp avoids distortion caused by the large power normally drawn by the bass.

Modeling the acoustics of the listening room, though it's not susceptible to exact numerical solutions, is getting better and better. It is at the very least to the point where it can give you a massive head start before tweaking the final product by listening.

Room correction

Most room correction systems still only performs two simple tasks:

- EQ each speakers frequency response after offline mapping with a seep
- Time aligning all speakers including subs after offline mapping with a klick

Both functions rely on a calibrated mic on a stand in one or more locations / sweet spots.
The tricky part is designing the EQ filters to best correspond with the mapping.

Everything matters, but a bad topology can not be saved at any reasonable cost.