Potential new system (input)

[knowj]

Sorry if this is the wrong board (too many to choose from)

I am looking at getting a new system for a relatively small room 12ftx10ft (ish) I went into a local hifi shop today and demoed:

Bower and Wilkins 685's Then the CM5's running off a NAD C-326BEE Amp.

At first I was impressed with the sound quality of the 685's but then when the CM5 had the same tracks running though it was like a completely different experience with tighter bass and more sense of atmosphere/sound separation.

With the CM5's the assistant said it would be better to go for a better amp rather than make do with the NAD for speakers which are double the price and go with a Roksan Kandy K2 (i think it was).

Does anyone have any experiences with any of these setups and am I going in the right direction with B&W speakers.

Is it worth spending double to get the CM5's and the Roksan?
Are they a worthy investment?
Are there any other brands which I should be looking at instead?
Would it be a waste to run a £300 (the NAD) on £800 speakers (CM5's)

Sound quality is my main focus with the room being fairly small there is no point going for volume (although it is nice without distortion and overpowering the space)

My plan is to run my iMac as the default input and Re-Rip all my music at 320bit.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

 

[markw]

I've always believed that you really can't have to much power, as long as one uses common sense. Having a surfeit of power allows all speakers to produce a deeper, more extended bass, particularly those with a lower efficiency rating, even at lower volume levels.

Keeping this in mind, remember that the NAD is rated for 50 watts and the Roksan is rated for 125. I tend to believe that it's not so much the difference in brands that made the CM5's sing with the Kandy as it was the extra power available.

 

[ski2xblack]

I tend to believe that it's not so much the difference in brands that made the CM5's sing with the Kandy as it was the extra power available.

It sounds like the only amp used in the audition was the NAD, unless I am misinterpreting the original post. If that was the case, and the results were good in the store, it would likely suffice in knowj's smallish room. The NAD is probably as ballsy as any 50 watt integrated in it's price class.

Of course, what Markw said is correct, you can't go wrong with more power.

 

[highfigh]

Sorry if this is the wrong board (too many to choose from)

I am looking at getting a new system for a relatively small room 12ftx10ft (ish) I went into a local hifi shop today and demoed:

Bower and Wilkins 685's Then the CM5's running off a NAD C-326BEE Amp.

At first I was impressed with the sound quality of the 685's but then when the CM5 had the same tracks running though it was like a completely different experience with tighter bass and more sense of atmosphere/sound separation.

With the CM5's the assistant said it would be better to go for a better amp rather than make do with the NAD for speakers which are double the price and go with a Roksan Kandy K2 (i think it was).

Does anyone have any experiences with any of these setups and am I going in the right direction with B&W speakers.

Is it worth spending double to get the CM5's and the Roksan?
Are they a worthy investment?
Are there any other brands which I should be looking at instead?
Would it be a waste to run a £300 (the NAD) on £800 speakers (CM5's)

Sound quality is my main focus with the room being fairly small there is no point going for volume (although it is nice without distortion and overpowering the space)

My plan is to run my iMac as the default input and Re-Rip all my music at 320bit.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

If you plan for the future, buy more power. In the 10' x 12' room, you won't need more than a few Watts to reach a decent SPL and in that room, thee 685s should sound pretty good.

 

[knowj]

Thanks for the advice so far. The room is only what I'm currently using obviosouly I want the system to be usable as/when I move in potentially bigger rooms.

The room I was in a the store listening to them was quite big 30-40ft x 20ft (aroundabouts)

The main thing I'm curious about is am I going in th right direction brand wise/money the CL5's + Roxan amp would be around £1500. For around this budget would this be a good setup to go with?

 

[TLS Guy]

Sorry if this is the wrong board (too many to choose from)

I am looking at getting a new system for a relatively small room 12ftx10ft (ish) I went into a local hifi shop today and demoed:

Bower and Wilkins 685's Then the CM5's running off a NAD C-326BEE Amp.

At first I was impressed with the sound quality of the 685's but then when the CM5 had the same tracks running though it was like a completely different experience with tighter bass and more sense of atmosphere/sound separation.

With the CM5's the assistant said it would be better to go for a better amp rather than make do with the NAD for speakers which are double the price and go with a Roksan Kandy K2 (i think it was).

Does anyone have any experiences with any of these setups and am I going in the right direction with B&W speakers.

Is it worth spending double to get the CM5's and the Roksan?
Are they a worthy investment?
Are there any other brands which I should be looking at instead?
Would it be a waste to run a £300 (the NAD) on £800 speakers (CM5's)

Sound quality is my main focus with the room being fairly small there is no point going for volume (although it is nice without distortion and overpowering the space)

My plan is to run my iMac as the default input and Re-Rip all my music at 320bit.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

First of all, I think you are wise to go for the CM5. The B & W 600 series fails to impress me. I think the gem of the CM series is the CM5. It has a good bass to the 50 Hz range, and seems fairly well diffraction compensated.

It is a step down from the 800 range, but not really from the 800 bookshelf.

Now the speaker is 88db 1 meter 2.83 volts so it is relatively insensitive. The sensitivity rating cover the fact the minimum impedance is 3.7 ohms. You can bet the low impedance is in the below 600 Hz range where the power is. That is how you bring about the diffraction compensation. So on a 1 watt 1 meter sensitivity it is going to be about 85 db sensitivity.

I would say you should drive these speakers with more power, unless you plan on listening to program like solo voice and acoustic guitar only.

Since you live in the UK, you have a clear choice for your amplification. I recommend the Quad 909 above anything else. It will drive those speakers for year and years to come, and any future speakers you may buy.

 

[knowj]

Thanks TLS really helpfull information. I am very uneducated when it comes to decent audio equipment. So the breakdown of volts etc... go over my head a bit but i get the general idea of what your saying there.

Wouldn't a power amplifier be a bit overkill for the CM5's. Unfortuantly the Quad 909 would throw me way over budget as I would also need to invest in a decent pre-amp and possibly a DAC dependant on how the audio compares with the standard output on my iMacs sound card.

I would love to be able to invest in the Quad 909 but it would be another £1000+ (with a pre amp) ontop of what i want to ideally spend. Maybe in the near future.

Is it worth spending £20+ a metre on speaker cable for short distances (2 metres a speaker) Or is it like with HDMI cables when it's a con to spend £100+ on a 2m cable because of the short distance?

I have little/no knowledge of systems at this level.

 

[TLS Guy]

Thanks TLS really helpfull information. I am very uneducated when it comes to decent audio equipment. So the breakdown of volts etc... go over my head a bit but i get the general idea of what your saying there.

Wouldn't a power amplifier be a bit overkill for the CM5's. Unfortuantly the Quad 909 would throw me way over budget as I would also need to invest in a decent pre-amp and possibly a DAC dependant on how the audio compares with the standard output on my iMacs sound card.

I would love to be able to invest in the Quad 909 but it would be another £1000+ (with a pre amp) ontop of what i want to ideally spend. Maybe in the near future.

Is it worth spending £20+ a metre on speaker cable for short distances (2 metres a speaker) Or is it like with HDMI cables when it's a con to spend £100+ on a 2m cable because of the short distance?

I have little/no knowledge of systems at this level.

Do not waste money on specialty speaker cables. 16 AWG wires will be fine.

I will research UK integrated amps a little.

 

[markw]

NAD makes more powerful integrated amps but I'm not sure what the prices are where you are. Lower than the Kandy, I'm sure.

Logic dictates that if a small NAD made he CM's sound good, a more powerful one will be better.

 

[JerryLove]

Logic dictates that if a small NAD made he CM's sound good, a more powerful one will be better.

Or the same.

 

[markw]

Or the same.

...but with more reserve power.

 

[knowj]

I haven't had chance to listen to the CM5's with a more powerful amp than the origional NAD yet. I have booked some time in the stores studio to get a proper comparison with both amps (Roksan kandy k2/NAD) and the 685's/CM5's

Are the late 2007 iMac sound cards any good if im running it as my audio input or is it definatly worth forking out on a DAC?

 

[TLS Guy]

I haven't had chance to listen to the CM5's with a more powerful amp than the origional NAD yet. I have booked some time in the stores studio to get a proper comparison with both amps (Roksan kandy k2/NAD) and the 685's/CM5's

Are the late 2007 iMac sound cards any good if im running it as my audio input or is it definatly worth forking out on a DAC?

I have had a look at that Roksan Kandy 2 integrated amp. It looks like a nice addition to the range of British integrated amps. It can provide a very useful 190 watts into 4 ohms. It should drive the CM5s very well.

I would not bother with the 685s, they are a big step down from the CM5s.

The wider issue is that you need to be clear about your needs. The Roksan as no digital capability or video capability. Not that is any the worse for that.

Very few UK homes are suitable for anything other than 2 channel audio.

There really is a dearth of good two channel AV receivers. That is a pity, as good ones with two channels and an LFE output, with really good stereo speakers would likely do a much better job of the AV experience not only in UK homes, but a lot of US ones also. Two really good speakers properly powered will beat five, seven, or nine poor ones hands down.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I haven't had chance to listen to the CM5's with a more powerful amp than the origional NAD yet. I have booked some time in the stores studio to get a proper comparison with both amps (Roksan kandy k2/NAD) and the 685's/CM5's

Are the late 2007 iMac sound cards any good if im running it as my audio input or is it definatly worth forking out on a DAC?

I would make sure to compare apples with apples with regards to amplifiers. I'm not that familiar with the Roksan, but if it is rated at 125 wpc and has a hefty power supply, then it's going to perform better in a large room, or at high volume. The NAD C-326BEE is a fine amplifier, but you may want to compare the Roksan with the C-355BEE or preferably, the C-375BEE (80 wpc and 150wpc, respectively).

No matter which of these amplifiers you compare, if none are driven past design limitations, they will sound identical, IMHO. Anybody who does hear a difference is imagining things...

Same goes for the interconnects and speaker wire. At 2 metres, you could use lamp cord...

 

[knowj]

Thats brilliant thanks.

Anythign more than 2 speakers would be overkill for the current property I am in. I won't mind replacing/upgrading an amp if/when i move to a bigger property.

I used to have cheap floor standing speakers but they sounded aweful and were too big/powerful for the room im in now.

You mentioned 16AWG audio cable what should I be looking to spend on cable per meter? It seems to range from about £2-£20 (3-30 U.S. dollars) and very few seems to have a AWG.

 

[GO-NAD!]

You mentioned 16AWG audio cable what should I be looking to spend on cable per meter? It seems to range from about £2-£20 (3-30 U.S. dollars) and very few seems to have a AWG.

That may be because AWG stands for American Wire Gauge. We still use that standard in Canada, because we can't go completely metric until our neighbours do. I'm guessing that most wire in the UK, if not all, is measured in millimeters? If so, 12 AWG = 2.053mm, 14 AWG = 1.628mm, 16 AWG = 1.291mm.

So, there is probably no direct equivalent. Just pick the closest size to 16 AWG, which is perfectly adequate. As for price, I'd go with whatever is cheapest - copper is copper, no matter what any salesman might tell you. Happy hunting!

 

[knowj]

I'm going today to listen to a few systems. We also have another local audio store that i know of but they seems to stock MORDAUNT SHORT MEZZO 2 and DALI LEKTOR 3 a their "higher" end bookshelf speakers.

Would it be worth going and having a demo of these as well as the B&W or are the CM5's in a completely different league?

 

[TLS Guy]

I'm going today to listen to a few systems. We also have another local audio store that i know of but they seems to stock MORDAUNT SHORT MEZZO 2 and DALI LEKTOR 3 a their "higher" end bookshelf speakers.

Would it be worth going and having a demo of these as well as the B&W or are the CM5's in a completely different league?

The Mordant Short is worth a listen, but I don't think you find it a little forward compared to the CM5.

One speaker you should definitely audition, is the ATC SCM 7. ATC long a vendor to high end studios are now offering an affordable consumer line, of which the above is their entry speaker.

I heard this in England a coupe of weeks ago. My brother in law has just bought a pair from English Hi-Fi in Hereford and got a good deal.

I thought the speakers had superb musicality and detail. Quite the best speaker I have heard at that size and price in many ways. I played a CD of Ely Ameling singing Schubert lieder. This CD causes the vast majority of speakers to flunk badly. However the ATC had beautiful piano articulation and balance. A little loss of weight in the bass strings. The voice, and hers is a problem for speakers, was reproduced nigh on perfectly.

Numerous reviews have now given the speaker top honors in the 500 GBP class.

The only thing is that is a sealed design and stats to roll off about 90 Hz, However sealed units roll off at 12 db per octave, so the speaker has useful output to 60 Hz.

I would be really tempted to partner those speakers with a sealed sub. ATC make one to flesh the bottom end out. With a subtle sub you would have a killer system in my view.

ATC have a quite extensive dealer network in the UK now so you should be able to audition them. I have a funny feeling when you hear these you will want them.

 

[highfigh]

There really is a dearth of good two channel AV receivers. That is a pity, as good ones with two channels and an LFE output, with really good stereo speakers would likely do a much better job of the AV experience not only in UK homes, but a lot of US ones also. Two really good speakers properly powered will beat five, seven, or nine poor ones hands down.

I have seen this as a problem for a long time, too. I would rather have one pair of really good or great speakers and two channels of quality power than 5 mediocre speakers and a receiver that has to compromise on power amp quality for the sake of installing all of the switching & processing I'll never use. IF I wanted a receiver, it would have a stable power supply, no video inputs/processing or switching, two amplifier channels that can drive any load I throw at it, a preamp level output for sending signal to a subwoofer amp and not much else. I almost never use my tone controls (only for source material that needs help) and would rather have a video processor than include that in the receiver. IMO, surround sound needs the space of a much larger room to sound realistic and it's just about impossible to reproduce this in a small room with a high priced system, which means it's less likely to happen at a lower price. I haven't owned a receiver since 1978 and I'd really rather choose my own amplifier when I have the opportunity.

 

[highfigh]

That may be because AWG stands for American Wire Gauge. We still use that standard in Canada, because we can't go completely metric until our neighbours do.

Don't look at me, I started dealing with metric in '70, in 7th grade science class.

I want square wire. It's much easier to measure and calculate the cross-sectional area.

Do me a favour and stop spelling 'neighbors' with a 'u'!!!!