Is an audiophile 2ch setup possible with $2000

[abefroeman]

2 grand are you kidding? you could have a great setup.

Paradigm Reference Signature S2 for $1,700.
A NAD 7155 stereo receiver off ebay for $100.
Plus whatever these guys reccomend for a $200 CD player.
Then add one or two DIY sound panels.

 

[highfihoney]

Yes, I suppose. Obviously, an amplifier from a portable radio or an IPOD woudn't suffice to drive a good sounding stereo system. I understand that boom boxes aren't going to sound as good as a decent home stereo. But for the most part it is true, if we're talking about hi fi components made for the purpose. The difference between the sound quality of the amplification in my $199 receiver and my former $5500 tube amp is trivial, as an example. The difference between my old HK CD player and a former $3500 one is zero. No difference in sound at all. The $3500 was built better but the HK is still going strong after 10 years so it is apparently built well enough. Hopefully, you get my meaning. With that addition, I'll stand by my statement.

I cant resist,funny that nobody has questioned your testing methods so i'll be the first

What was your testing protocol,also were your tests (if any ) sighted of blind.

I figure that if anybody who is reporting hearing differences between hi end gear & mass market can be bum rushed with these questions it has to go the other way around,right?

Any listener experience without the back up of dbt's & all that good stuff is irrelevant.

 

[mazersteven]

I found the mids to be quite colored with these speakers to be honest; they have a sort of "nasal", for lack of a better term, sound to them that grew tiring over long listening sessions. I did not hear them on really high end gear either, though I would think they would have been happy with 180w from my monoblocks (@ 4 Ohms). The highs are clear and smooth, bass is clean, but the midrange didn't deliver the same level of enjoyment for me and that is key.

gus6464,

I also didn't like the mids on the LSi's when I heard them at Fry's. They were powered by a monster 2ch amp so I don't think they didn't have enough juice. The highs and bass were very clean but the mids just seemed muddled. I preferred the sound of the LSi7 over the 9's. The LSi9 is considered an MTM setup right?

OK

I'm taking my LSi9's, and I'm going home.

I don't want to play with you guys anymore.

 

[dorokusai]

I don't think I've heard a good demo of an LSi in any brick and mortar, ever. It's a shame but its out of my hands.

I prefer the bookshelf LSi9/7 over the floorstanding LSi15/25. They just sound better IMO but I completely understand the aforementioned comments on the midrange. I'm a planar fan so there isn't likely to be a Polk speaker in my 2CH rig anytime soon

Mark
Polk Audio CS

 

[mr-ben]

I'm shocked no one has mentioned this yet: Headphones. You can get a top of the line set of headphones, headphone amplifier, and a good player for $2000 that will sound better than any bookshelf speakers you might find.

 

[jostenmeat]

I'm shocked no one has mentioned this yet: Headphones. You can get a top of the line set of headphones, headphone amplifier, and a good player for $2000 that will sound better than any bookshelf speakers you might find.

You are in the minority. As one well known pro notes (Kal Rubinson): "Spatial representation is distorted when you listen to stereo sources on headphones. Also, there is often some spectral differences due to the proximity of the drivers". I read this kind of thing everywhere. If you want, I can find you more.

Not that headphones can't be fully enjoyable, while saving a ton of money. Just, I wouldn't so easily be "shocked" and so easily claim that headphones would sound better than "any bookshelf speaker you might find".

 

[mazersteven]

You are in the minority. As one well known pro notes (Kal Rubinson): "Spatial representation is distorted when you listen to stereo sources on headphones. Also, there is often some spectral differences due to the proximity of the drivers". I read this kind of thing everywhere. If you want, I can find you more.

Not that headphones can't be fully enjoyable, while saving a ton of money. Just, I wouldn't so easily be "shocked" and so easily claim that headphones would sound better than "any bookshelf speaker you might find".

The question is have you listened to a "Top of the Line" headphone rig? And if so what headphones and amp?

 

[Tomorrow]

You can get some killer speakers if you want to go the Audiogon route.

Here are a couple worth considering. (No connection to me.)

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrmoni&1189350533

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrmoni&1190241206

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrmoni&1188413076

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrmoni&1189530591

Etc.

Good hunting!

 

[jostenmeat]

The question is have you listened to a "Top of the Line" headphone rig? And if so what headphones and amp?

Nope.

Why is that the question anyways?

Just some old Sony monitors on my cdp. A friend's set, forgot what they were. He upgraded one $300 set for another.

Fwiw
I was saying that he was in the minority. I've never driven a Ferrari, but if you claimed to be shocked to not have considered a Corolla instead for better performace, I might reply in the same manner. Hyperbole? Sure. But the point is even if I've never driven a Ferrari, I still have a strong inclination to make such a statement based on what everybody else says.

Now dear mazersteven, did I ever say I, me, myself, preferred speakers to headphones. I stated that he was in the minority, and just maybe I was "shocked" that he was "shocked". Do you have a dissenting opinion here? I imagine you have been involved in this hobby for much longer than I.

I guess I got a sour taste with the delivery.
edit: not yours, his.

oh, also not hi-end, Ive listened to a lot on headphones, very critically in recording my classical music in the past. To the point I got physically sick from the work.

 

[fmw]

I cant resist,funny that nobody has questioned your testing methods so i'll be the first

What was your testing protocol,also were your tests (if any ) sighted of blind.

I figure that if anybody who is reporting hearing differences between hi end gear & mass market can be bum rushed with these questions it has to go the other way around,right?

Any listener experience without the back up of dbt's & all that good stuff is irrelevant.

Agreed. Sighted testing is meaningless. I always test blind since I converted from audiophilia years ago.

 

[mazersteven]

I was saying that he was in the minority.

I don't think he is in the minority. I think it's all preference. After all how many people have spent a few grand on a Singlepower amp, and a $1000 set of headphones to say? So the people that say "no way", I have to question how they have come to their conclusion.

And Kal Rubinson isn't always right.

 

[j_garcia]

Headphones can be great, but I still prefer to listen without phones so far. If I want to isolate myself from everything else, phones are the way, but if I want to feel the bass and get that music in the air effect, phones don't quite give me that. Each serves a different purpose for me.

Mazer, I am not saying I hate the LSis, just that they are not my personal taste.

If I am looking to build a 2K system, the focus would be on speakers first, everything else second.

 

[jostenmeat]

So the people that say "no way", I have to question how they have come to their conclusion.

And Kal Rubinson isn't always right.

If that was your primary reason to reply to my post, I really wonder why you didn't join me in replying to mr. ben instead.

Reread both posts. In all honesty, which one seems more "no way" to you?

Who said that Kal, or anyone for that matter, is always right? Are you? Its just one example from a well known source. Like I said, I can go find more... right, who cares.

I was responding in the same line of thought as regards to the "no way" approach. Perhaps you take it as reactionary. Fine, I guess yours might be as well.

 

[mr-ben]

Not that headphones can't be fully enjoyable, while saving a ton of money. Just, I wouldn't so easily be "shocked" and so easily claim that headphones would sound better than "any bookshelf speaker you might find".

Sorry - I should have stated that a $2000 setup using bookshelf speakers would not sound as good as a $2000 setup using headphones. I'm sure someone will disagree with me, and perhaps headphones aren't what's wanted, but I thought I'd throw it out there as an option.

 

[Pyrrho]

2 grand are you kidding? you could have a great setup.

Paradigm Reference Signature S2 for $1,700.
A NAD 7155 stereo receiver off ebay for $100.
Plus whatever these guys reccomend for a $200 CD player.
Then add one or two DIY sound panels.

I have not heard the speakers you are suggesting, but I think your basic idea is sound. I think, if what one wants is the best possible sound, one should spend the most on speakers. I was going to suggest spending about $1500 on speakers and about $500 on electronics, suggesting that he forget about tubes altogether.

I have done this sort of thing myself; for my home theatre, I have a receiver that retails for about $600 and speakers (including subwoofers) that retail for over $6000. With a more expensive receiver, I would get more features and power that I don't need, not better sound. With lessor speakers, I would get lessor sound. I think one should spend almost as little as possible on the electronics, and put almost everything into the speakers (obviously, if one's choice of speakers were terribly inefficient or a difficult load, then one would need to get a more robust amplifier, but otherwise it is a waste of money).

Of course, if the goal is not the best possible sound, but to impress audiophools, then tubes and thick wires are the way to go.

 

[Tex-amp]

The the Ascend Acoustics Sierra 1s to speaker to listen to in this price range.

 

[westcott]

OK

I'm taking my LSi9's, and I'm going home.

I don't want to play with you guys anymore.

I would normally say " Let me bring over a six pack and we can talk about it." But, since I live so far away, I will just have to comisserate with you long distance!!!!

 

[jostenmeat]

Sorry - I should have stated that a $2000 setup using bookshelf speakers would not sound as good as a $2000 setup using headphones. I'm sure someone will disagree with me, and perhaps headphones aren't what's wanted, but I thought I'd throw it out there as an option.

No worries mr. ben, apology accepted. I think you must be right that it is an option to be explored, if the OP is interested. And you are right that no one else mentioned this option.

 

[jostenmeat]

I have not heard the speakers you are suggesting, but I think your basic idea is sound. I think, if what one wants is the best possible sound, one should spend the most on speakers. I was going to suggest spending about $1500 on speakers and about $500 on electronics, suggesting that he forget about tubes altogether.

I have done this sort of thing myself; for my home theatre, I have a receiver that retails for about $600 and speakers (including subwoofers) that retail for over $6000. With a more expensive receiver, I would get more features and power that I don't need, not better sound. With lessor speakers, I would get lessor sound. I think one should spend almost as little as possible on the electronics, and put almost everything into the speakers (obviously, if one's choice of speakers were terribly inefficient or a difficult load, then one would need to get a more robust amplifier, but otherwise it is a waste of money).

Of course, if the goal is not the best possible sound, but to impress audiophools, then tubes and thick wires are the way to go.

+1 to almost all of the above.

Ok maybe outside some nice tubes for me one day, way down the road Also, I could actually use more power for cleaner transients at higher volumes, but budget had already exploded by this point. I understand Pyrrho did not need more power in his case. I still agree with the general philosophy, however.

I did happen to list some not so cheap tube amps just as an option for the OP's desire. The Onix is definitely more affordable.

In any case, I tried following Pyrrho's same philosophy to the tilt. My original goal was to get new speakers and sub while maintaining my former $200 Onkyo receiver. So budget goal was 100% speakers, 0% electronics. New speakers' load is just too difficult, so electronics:speakers ratio jumped from 0% to 15%-85%. Still chasing that unattainable(?) in store effect, I bought a cdp. Now at a little less than 20% to 80% ratio. Though not the 9%-91% ratio that Pyrrho achieved, I did the best that I could under my personal circumstances.

 

[gmoneyreece]

i know this is an old thread but i thought i might post my opinion for a $2000 "audiophile" 2 channel system since this is pretty much what i am building right now...i of course recommend buying used components to get things done so i am listing typical audiogon sale prices...

parasound halo P3 - $450
parasound halo a23 - $450
OPTIONAL - parasound T3 - $350
paradigm studio 20 v3 - $600
this leaves you $500 if you don't get the am/fm tuner to accomidate cables and a cd player (river cable and a denon 3910 could fill that void and complete the system for $2000)