What's your Upgrade Philisophy?

[av_phile]

<font color='#000000'>I would consider anything that sonically and visually improves my set-up an upgrade.

Here are some upgrading rationals I've come across:

(1) Going from a 100 watt amp to a 200 watt amp is an upgrade. &nbsp; Going from a 100 watt am to a 150 watt amp is not.

(2) &nbsp;Going separates is alaways an upgrade.

(3) &nbsp;Going from consumer brands (Pioneer, Onkyo, Yamaha, Sony, Wharfedale, Mission, etc.) to boutique brands (Rotel, Aragon, Sunfire, Krell, Martin Logan, Sonus Faber, etc.) is always an upgrade.

(4) &nbsp;Going from stereo to multi-channel is an upgrade.

(5) &nbsp;Going from 5.1 to 7.1 and up is an upgrade.

(6) &nbsp;Going for DPL to DPLIIx and other formats is an upgrade

(7) &nbsp;Going from HTIB to anywhere is an upgrade

(8) &nbsp;Going from B-O-S-E &nbsp;satellites to any other speakers is an upgrade

(9) &nbsp;Going from a hardware cables to exotic cables is an upgrade (???)

(10) &nbsp;Going from Solid State to Tubes is an upgrade (???)

(11) &nbsp;Going from Digital to Analog is an upgrade (???)

Which ones are your cup of tea? &nbsp;Which ones are valid? &nbsp;Any more philosophies in upgrading?</font>

 

[Kilwox]

<font color='#000000'>This is a great question av-phile. &nbsp;I would have to say that any improvememt, that is audible to the listener, can be considered an upgrade. &nbsp;Like you pointed out, there are some pretty defined paths that are significant upgrades, but it's different for every listener.

My upgrades are relatively small becuase I have a great offer from my dealer where I can trade in my speakers within one year for a full refund on an upgrade. &nbsp;This has allowed me to make some real progress to audio nirvana over the past 6 or 7 years. &nbsp;Same deal applies to components, but the time period is only 90 days.

Every step I've made has been an upgrade in my mind, and not just because my bank account is lighter

</font>

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'>Add to your list:

13) Improving your room acoustics

14) Buying better recordings

My opinions on some of the others:

2) Separates: Yes, but not in terms of audibility. Flexibility, sure. I prefer separates.

3) Agan, not in terms of audibility. Build quality, prestige, pride of ownership, even styling, sure. All those are perfectly defensible reasons if you have the scratch. But some boutique brands (but not the ones you mention here) can be a step backward! I think the &quot;high end&quot; has a lot of stuff designed by dilettantes and outright frauds.

4) Yep. Can't wait till I make the leap myself.

7) Well, duh! &nbsp;

8) see (7)

9 - 11) NO! Gack, barf...

</font>

 

[zipper]

<font color='#000000'>Good subject. Since I've started over in building a system,I can totally relate. Here is how I plan to upgrade:

&nbsp; 1. Replace Boston speakers with Axiom,Paradigm,Pinnicle,etc.

&nbsp; 2. Buy an outboard amp( on my sorry-butt budget probably an Outlaw) to add on to my Yamaha RX-V3300.

&nbsp; 3. Replace my 32&quot; JVC TV with a Mitsubishi Diamond series 60&quot; HDTV (fat chance).

&nbsp; 4. Upgrade to HDTV satellite.

&nbsp; 5. Buy a high-end SACD/DVD-A player.

&nbsp; 6. Start over again or enjoy my reincarnation as a frog.

&nbsp; 7. Buy exotic speaker cables.</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>The key to upgrading to be sure to only replace a peice of gear with a better one!

</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'>I agree with a lot of what both Rip and Av-phile said, and disagree with others.

I strongly agree with Rip on room acoustics and quality recordings, some of the most important upgrades you can make.

I partially agree with Av-phile on more watts, if you have a large room, but if your room is small and you listen to a lot of delicate music, a high watt amp is not only unnecessary but can create a noise floor that can be audible over certain passages of music.

I somewhat agree with Av-phile on multi-channel, but only if the many &quot;if's&quot; are properly taken care of concerning it.

I disagree that adding more channels is an upgrade. I'm still not convinced that 5.1 is even necessary.

I agree that seprates add more flexability but not necessarily better sound quality.

I strongly disagree with Rip from my own personal experience with higher quality power amps. No one would argue that a Mercedes S-class is better in EVERY WAY (not just prestige of ownership) than say, a Chevy Cavalier. Apart from speakers, better recordings and acoustics, it's the best upgrade you can make. I do agree with him though that many high end amps aren't worth it, and some are down right frauds.

As far as tubes, cables, and analog? There's so many variations and exceptions to these things that Av-phile's (???)
was a correct assumption.</font>

 

[goodman]

<font color='#000000'>

Going from stereo to multi-channel is an upgrade QUOTE]
For movies, sure. &nbsp;For music, I don't think they have the kinks worked out yet, particularly on the software side. &nbsp;As for hardware, most of us have our systems set up optimally for movies, not for music. &nbsp;Generally, I prefer SACD in stereo, not multichannel, and if I listen in multichannel, it's better with the center channel off and the signal summed.
To change the subject, we watched &quot;Radio&quot; last night. &nbsp;Corny film, but it gave me the an idea to change my web site name to &quot;Stereo.&quot; &nbsp;It works best if you say it like a retard.</font>

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'>

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Going from stereo to multi-channel is an upgrade QUOTE]
For movies, sure.  For music, I don't think they have the kinks worked out yet, particularly on the software side.  As for hardware, most of us have our systems set up optimally for movies, not for music.  Generally, I prefer SACD in stereo, not multichannel, and if I listen in multichannel, it's better with the center channel off and the signal summed...</td></tr></table>

I've heard so much pro and con on this! Until I actually get my own multichannel setup I guess I should withhold judgement.

On the face of it, it seems obvious that an actual center channel should be superior to a phantom center that is created in your mind by summing: the stereo image should be wider with an actual center and won't collapse when you move off center out of the &quot;sweet spot&quot;, the instruments in the middle (winds and brass) should be more realistic (talking symphonic music here) since they're mainly coming from their own speaker, etc, etc. But enough people like you prefer otherwise to make me wonder.

Maybe it is the software. But I have heard and read persuasive opinions that even stereo CD's are greatly improved in DPL II mode with a center channel.

Also, it's worth noting that when stereo was being cooked up at Bell Labs in the '30s that it included a center channel for the reasons I stated above. Two channel seems to have resulted from the limitations of the playback medium then available to consumers, i.e, the vinyl record and needle pickup. I guess they couldn't get three channels to work with a single pickup.

I guess I'll just have to build myself a center channel speaker, get another amp channel &amp; a pre/pro, and find out for myself!</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, it's worth noting that when stereo was being cooked up at Bell Labs in the '30s that it included a center channel for the reasons I stated above. Two channel seems to have resulted from the limitations of the playback medium then available to consumers, i.e, the vinyl record and needle pickup. I guess they couldn't get three channels to work with a single pickup.
</td></tr></table>Yes, I've heard a lot about that. Some classical was recorded in 3-channel on the Mercury and Everest labels in the fifties and was a source of debate on the iclassics forum on whether the new SACD versions of those recordings should be listened to that way or in regular 5.1 or whatever, but I think the idea the original producers had was to have three full sized speakers strategically placed in front of you, which would block some peoples TVs, and the little center speakers many people have wouldn't do them proper justice. I don't know what's up with movie vs music sound. There both just audio sources right? Even soundtracks of movies I have on CD sound a lot different, and better in most cases, then the movie versions. My soundtrack CD from Conan The Barbarian sounds WAY better than the same music on DVD, with or without multi-channel. BTW Rip, that Conan soundtrack has some of the best classical music I've ever heard, better than a lot of the old stuff, although it dosen't always flow together like a properly written symphony or tone poem. After all, it was made for a movie.</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>The DVD sounds worse not because it's Multichannel but because DD &amp; DTS compress the music to within an inch of it's life!

You guys probably know where I stand on this issue- I feel MC is inherently better and can be more realistic. &nbsp;There are some crappy mixes, but you can find a lot of crappy stereo mixes too (and mono ones, for that matter).

A lot of people have formed their opinion of MC by listening to home theater systems, which isn't giving them the whole picture. &nbsp;That's like deciding you don't like Chinese food cause you got crappy chow mein at the mall food court.

Try one well mixed MC recording played back thru good, well calibrated gear with 5 identical (or very very similar) speakers. &nbsp;If you honestly try that and still don't like it, that's fine by me. &nbsp;But if even one MC recording works for you even once, then mayve you'll see why I'm so infatuated with it.</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's like deciding you don't like Chinese food cause you got crappy chow mein at the mall food court. </td></tr></table>I never realized how good authentic Chinese food can be until I moved to Dallas (bad Chinese food is another consipiracy to destroy us, like FM radio). Still, it's not my favorite, which may or may not be the same attitude I may have for MC. You're right though in that dumb people who don't give a dang judge things from their first impression. Unfortunatly for me, I've been exposed to bad MC numerous times, but all this talk is making me want to get MC, just so I can find out for myself what it's capable of, because I know I'll take the time to get it right, but I refuse to compromise the quality of my equipment. Until I can get a Rotel or Sony ES SACD and/or DVD, a Rotel MC receiver and be surrounded by Paradigm Studio Monitors or better with a sub designed for music that can go down to 20-25hz, I ain't getting one (but I'd settle for a NAD/PSB set up

), and it ain't happening soon cause I need to get a car! Sorry, no sir! no more square, black, plasticy &quot;Made in Malaysia&quot; stuff for Vivaldi. Can't go back! No! No! No!

</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>I've been anxiously awaiting the release of the new DALETH 5.1 Preamplifier from Margules Audio. &nbsp;They have an excellent rep for making killer gear at sane prices. &nbsp;The Daleth will have 2 x 5.1 inputs with bass management plus 3 x stereo inputs. &nbsp;Although it's primarily a high end preamp, it does incorporate very basic prepro functions (ie, no DD or DTS, but it does do Video Switching. &nbsp;It also has an analogy surround circuit to derive faux surround from the stereo inputs). &nbsp;It will come equiped with a full featured remote. &nbsp;MSRP is somewhere between $1200-$1400, but preordered units will be under a grand with shipping. &nbsp;I've been told it's gonna ship in May.</font>

 

[ajohnson699]

<font color='#000000'>
No one would argue that a Mercedes S-class is better in EVERY WAY (not just prestige of ownership) than say, a Chevy Cavalier.
</font>

I sure would!

 

[zipper]

So would I!

 

[DJ_Stunna]

(1) Going from a 100 watt amp to a 200 watt amp is an upgrade. &nbsp; Going from a 100 watt am to a 150 watt amp is not.
-Assuming all else the same, going from 100W to 200W would give you 3 dB more clean power, which is noticable, and may mean the difference between distortion and pure audio at listening levels. In reality, though, when you change amps, so many different factors come into play, such as if one is over/under rated and how they handle diferent impedences. Sometimes the 50wpc amp can be better than the 200 wpc amp. Power rating's aren't ALL THAT. (Thus I disagree with your statement)

(2) &nbsp;Going separates is alaways an upgrade.
-I disagree, as I believe that my Denon AVR-5800 is better than some of the lower-end separates out there. Although, the truly elite items are all separates, and you won't find any bargain basement separates like you do for receivers (ie. $90 DD/dts 5.1 receivers).

(3) &nbsp;Going from consumer brands (Pioneer, Onkyo, Yamaha, Sony, Wharfedale, Mission, etc.) to boutique brands (Rotel, Aragon, Sunfire, Krell, Martin Logan, Sonus Faber, etc.) is always an upgrade.
-Look at the answer above - the same can apply here.

(4) &nbsp;Going from stereo to multi-channel is an upgrade.
-If done properly it CAN be an upgrade, but I rather have stereo at the moment for audio.

(5) &nbsp;Going from 5.1 to 7.1 and up is an upgrade.
-Depends on how well it's done. If done right, it is more immersive, in my opinion.

(6) &nbsp;Going for DPL to DPLIIx and other formats is an upgrade
-Yes, especially when you get away from those nasty analog surround formats (DPL, DPLII) and go to digital discrete surround.

(7) &nbsp;Going from HTIB to anywhere is an upgrade
-Now I want to say that some where, out there, there is a HTIB that actually sounds good, but I can't find an example. While it is possible that there is, I doubt it. I agree here, unless you're talking about going BOSE, which is baaaad.

(8) &nbsp;Going from B-O-S-E &nbsp;satellites to any other speakers is an upgrade
-If it isn't a $50 set of multimedia speakers, yes.

(9) &nbsp;Going from a hardware cables to exotic cables is an upgrade (???)
-I disagree.

(10) &nbsp;Going from Solid State to Tubes is an upgrade (???)
-I definately disagree. Although this may sound nicer, due to harmonics that the tube amps apply, it is less accurate.

(11) &nbsp;Going from Digital to Analog is an upgrade (???)
-I disagree, although some analog equipment is BETTER than some digital equipment.

 

[av_phile]

(1) Going from a 100 watt amp to a 200 watt amp is an upgrade. &nbsp; Going from a 100 watt am to a 150 watt amp is not.
-Assuming all else the same, going from 100W to 200W would give you 3 dB more clean power, which is noticable, and may mean the difference between distortion and pure audio at listening levels. In reality, though, when you change amps, so many different factors come into play, such as if one is over/under rated and how they handle diferent impedences. Sometimes the 50wpc amp can be better than the 200 wpc amp. Power rating's aren't ALL THAT. (Thus I disagree with your statement)

I agree, but only because different manufacturers use different measuring conditions. Some are conservatively rated, while others are over-rated. This is actually my caveat on some otherwise excellent receivers and amps out there with over-rated power specifications, especially Japanese models. Going from a conservatively rated 120wpc high current Rotel RSX1067 to an over-rated 170wpc Yamaha Z9 is not my idea of an upgrade either. Feature-wise, maybe.

 

[Yamahaluver]

Point is to like what you hear, if 120 watts or 170watts sounds great with the speakers of your choice, then enjoy it. Dont go for the hype, just because a certain company rates its amps in a certain way, is built like a brick house, comes from a certain part of the world has no bearing on how it will sound to your ears. Have seen many brick house amps and speakers humbled by bookshelf and small amps from mass produced manufacturers.

In the end, let it be a victory of your ears, not hype. So many so-called niche' products are holding on to their last straws because of snobbish marketing tactics, a promise of exclusivity to something which in all probability is just a technological dinosaur.

 

[av_phile]

I have no problem with letting the ears be the judge. But this is supposed to a forum about the "truth in audio," right? Or did I read wrongly. So why attempt to reveal as faulty a $3,000 RCA cable that claims it will improve the sonics? Some, if not many audiophiles find pleasure in listening with them? So is it ok they're claim is just as valid as long it gives the owner listening pleasures? I find that no different form questioning a receiver claiming to be a 170watt receiver when in reality it gives only a smaller power. For me they're both misleading.

And that is not the point. The point is when you upgrade from whatever you have to something more powerful, you better make sure you do have a more powerful amp. Not in just what the specs says. Good if all the spec sheets rate their goods on a level playing field. But they don't So you could end up wondering why youer new gear sounds no more powerful than your old amp.

 

[Yamahaluver]

Only a fool or megalomaniac or someone with hormonal problems upgrade for wattage, most upgrade for quest of better sound.

To assume that all of us are sheep and we only have one purpose to upgrade is a preposterous notion to say the least.

Same is the claim of esoterics who claim not technological superiority, but lineage, country of origin, and its insanely high price due to its lack of resources during manufacturing. However to some, high cost of ownership feeds their egos, and therefore they have to justify their purchase even though they have been thoroughly ripped off.

 

[av_phile]

Only a fool or megalomaniac or someone with hormonal problems upgrade for wattage, most upgrade for quest of better sound.

To assume that all of us are sheep and we only have one purpose to upgrade is a preposterous notion to say the least.

Same is the claim of esoterics who claim not technological superiority, but lineage, country of origin, and its insanely high price due to its lack of resources during manufacturing. However to some, high cost of ownership feeds their egos, and therefore they have to justify their purchase even though they have been thoroughly ripped off.

LOL Hey guys, tell me if this is a response from a rational creature?