Quote from Syfoon :

You could run monitors through an amp, but it'd be a waste of high-end speakers.

They're self-powered for a reason, so they deliver a nice sound all the way through the EQ range. Normal amps often distort somewhere on the EQ, producing more bass or more high-end. Monitors are built not to do that. Using an amp will make all the hard work the R&D guys put in useless

Sorry but no sub £500 "active" monitor is going to be neutral at all spl levels. An amp is an amp, it's not relevant where it sits physically with regard to it's quality. There are a lot of audio quality issues relating to physically placing amps inside speaker cabinets but there are of course some audio quality benefits, as with everything there are pros and cons. But ultimately the pro of active speaker amplification is far outweighed by the actual quality of the amplifier, and the amplifier in any £250 set of active speakers is going to be a long long way from perfect.

Quote :

Same with cheap speakers. They don't kick out a flat sound. Hi-fi speakers are the same, they're usually overly bassy. Much cheaper to build them flawed.

And those Alesis are not going to "kick out" anywhere near a flat sound either at that price point. If by "Hi-Fi" speakers you mean your average £200 JVC etc that most people would have in their homes then maybe they are a bit bass heavy. But many are the complete opposite, you simply can't generalise like that. True audiophile speakers try and balance absolute neutrality with good dynamics. This is always a compromise as the laws of physics dictate that the higher the senitivity of a drive unit is the narrower, (and often more uneven), it's frequency response is.

Studio montors aren't actually built to be "accurate" despite what all the speil you might read about them might say. They are designed to be "revealing" to allow the engineers to be able to hear what is going on in the mix and to be able to play very loud. To this end they are nearly all, (bar the extreme top end custom built designs), bright in the midrange.

Final note, a speakers final tonal balance is heavily dependant on the environment of it's use. Speakers interact with their surroundings. A speaker that may be bass heavy in one room will be neutral or even bass light in another and vice verse.

Oh and a final final note.. small speakers, (by which I mean anything that isn't at least a meter high floorstander), are incapable of being "accurate" , (even in terms of frequency response), over the the entire audiable spectrum. Very few speakers on the market today have any significant response as low as ,(let alone below), 40hz. The majority can't even produce a Bass guitars E string fundamental at the correct level let alone its sub harmonics.

Quote from george_tsiros :

maybe i'm behind the times, but 50% of the budget on speakers (2) 20% on source (1) 20% on amp (1) 9% on cables etc, 1% on chocolate (2).

every system sounds better when you're eating chocolate.

Wow !!.. I haven't seen that split recommended since before Linn proved the importance of source quality !! (no I'm not that old).

Ok maybe in the day of CD front ends things have shifted around a bit and whilst I would generaly agree that good speakers are expensive, (as you state a completely different kind of engineering involved), I'm not sure that balance is right for all levels of equipment.

I get where Bob is comming from, at the level being discussed here people should really only be looking at getting the fundamental balance right. Niceties of dynamics etc are all way out of this budgets price range. I would also go for a reasonable amp and "essentially" neutral speakers (which the diamonds have always been in the past). At this level it's not really about getting speakers that can reveal the differences between amps its just about getting speakers and amp that aren't massively flawed.

Quote from gezmoor :

Wow !!.. I haven't seen that split recommended since before Linn proved the importance of source quality !! (no I'm not that old).

Ok maybe in the day of CD front ends

so since you understand why i gave that split, why did you say the previous things?

a 70gbp set of speakers will rattle and resonate badly (needing 50gbp in stands) because... brace for it... they are 70gbp worth of speakers and their enclosure will suck!!!

if you can't spend 150 on a set of speakers (entry level KEF/AE or whatever floats around this year) you aren't talking about a "hifi" set. you're talking about a glorified pc speaker set.

instead of 300 for a system that has 70 worth of speakers (the most sensitive component of audio and the second most important aspect of sound reproduction that is actually under your control) get a selfpowered set of speakers and a high quality, external, sound card.

wtf

70gbp for speakers

my 5.1 logitech set of crap was that much

spending 150 on an amp to drive 70 worth of speakers?

that's just plain wrong resource management.

Quote from george_tsiros :

70gbp for speakers

my 5.1 logitech set of crap was that much

Yes, but for that you bought 5 sat speakers, a sub and a multichannel amp. Buying just a pair of stereo speakers at that price, they should sound substantially better.

i give up.

i said, i give up

Well Im not looking for anything amazing, just decent quality for whenever I play my music. I just wanna notice a difference between my current logitech crap and what ever ones I get. I just need to decide on either the 520's or the Actives MK2s...

George, I'll add one last thing. What's the point of buying something designed to be easily upgraded, but making all the components so poor that if you upgrade one thing, you've sensibly got to do the lot? Better to have one reasonable but weak link, then just upgrade that when the bug hits you (and it will if it's your first hifi) and have something much better overall. IMO, of course.

Alex - if you don't want to go the hifi route this is fine and off course you choice, it is definitely cheaper to avoid getting into it, but it always makes financial sense to try and get good value for money (a very relative term in hifi).

The most important thing is to get a sound system that you actually enjoy, because ultimately that's what you'll remember the most, and not whatever the dent was in you wallet.

Quote from george_tsiros :

so since you understand why i gave that split, why did you say the previous things?

a 70gbp set of speakers will rattle and resonate badly (needing 50gbp in stands) because... brace for it... they are 70gbp worth of speakers and their enclosure will suck!!!

if you can't spend 150 on a set of speakers (entry level KEF/AE or whatever floats around this year) you aren't talking about a "hifi" set. you're talking about a glorified pc speaker set.

instead of 300 for a system that has 70 worth of speakers (the most sensitive component of audio and the second most important aspect of sound reproduction that is actually under your control) get a selfpowered set of speakers and a high quality, external, sound card.

wtf

70gbp for speakers

my 5.1 logitech set of crap was that much

spending 150 on an amp to drive 70 worth of speakers?

that's just plain wrong resource management.

Have you ever seen, let alone handled or listened to Warfdale Diamonds??

Your response suggests you haven't. I think you'll be surprised. They have won many awards over the years and comparing them with PC speakers is, to be blunt, ludicrous.

http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Wharfedale-Diamond-90/


High end audiophile speakers they are not, but then nor is anything under £2,000, and certainly nothing as small as the Diamonds. But plastic boom boxes they are not either. They are well designed, well built small speakers for use in space restricted budget systems, and when set against the standard of other speakers that you can buy for £100 (they are on offer in Bobs link) they come out very well.

In all honesty, most £300 speakers are so flawed that they're almost unlistenable to and the fact that they make an attempt to be proper hi-fi actually makes them worse by just drawing attention to their limitations.

The awfulness of most mid-range speakers is the reason I went down the DIY route, (as mid-range is all I could afford), until eventually Wife acceptance factors forced me in to getting hold of an end of line deal on a pair of AE floorstanders. Despite the fact that they retailed for £750 a pair, (which I certainly didn't pay for them), even they took me a long time to get used to their flaws, and to an extent I still haven't.

you couldn't even spell the name

you want me to believe you know anything about them?

if that is the case, my lanca has 220php

86db/w/m at 6Ω with max power 75W?

my farts have more low end than that.

and yeah, i've seen wharfedales. their construction (unless it has improved thousandfold the past 10 years) reminds me of lego.

so to recap... 70 worth of speakers will sound better than 150 worth of speakers.

and spend about as much for a piece of steel to keep them in place.

brilliant!

Alternative to Bobs suggestion. Same budget :


Amp £170 : Cambridge Audio Azure 640a V2

Reviewed as being better than most sub £500 amps - of course it's a matter of opinion to some extent.

Speakers £80 : Tannoy Mercury F1 Custom

A steal at the price RRP is £160 and review well at that price point.

"If you've seen our Awards 2007 issue, then you'll know that these Tannoy Mercury F1 Customs are among our favourite speakers up to £160. Which leaves only one conclusion: the Tannoys are still the best budget speakers around. Which means this review is destined to be something of a lap of honour."

Quote from george_tsiros :

you couldn't even spell the name

you want me to believe you know anything about them?

That's a rather pathetic thing to say in all honesty.

Quote :

86db/w/m at 6Ω with max power 75W?

my farts have more low end than that.

The overall sensitivity, impedance and power handling figures of a speaker tells you absolutely nothing about their "low end" performance.

Diamonds are tiny speakers of course they don't have low end. Show me a £300 speaker that can do low with anything resembling accuracy or control?? I'd rather not have it, than have a load of waffle.

Quote :

and yeah, i've seen wharfedales. their construction (unless it has improved thousandfold the past 10 years) reminds me of lego.

Uhuh, care to point me to a pair of £300 speakers that are better constructed? Bigger they may be, thicker cabinets they may have, but vastly more prone to cabinet resonances they also are, and hence a lot more in need of high quality cabinet construction and materials. Trust me, you're going to be listening to a lot more cabinet resonance from an average pair of £300 speakers than you are with the Diamonds.

Anyway, I'm not going to discuss it further. I don't take kindly to being called stupid over a pathetic point of a spelling mistake. Let's just say that I have designed and built, (several variations), of my own speakers in the past, so I know something about what it takes to make good ones.

who called you 'stupid' ?

Ok scrap the monitors. I've just pulled out the two Pioneer speakers my dad had, turns out they're 120W each and they sound quite decent. I'm thinking of getting an amp, and two smaller speakers to accompany it and a sub woofer? I might place them around the room so I have surround sound, with the 2 Pioneers behind me or should I not bother with buying 2 extra speakers? Thanks.

If the speakers are decent, get an amp and you'll be fine. No extra speakers needed, and no subwoofer either.

Why would I not need a sub woofer? I dont think the speakers will provide enough base, and I like base What amp would you recommend?

120W power handling is tons, unlikely you'll be getting an amp that powerful with your budget. So what are you powering them from atm? Do you know the exact model of speaker you have?

Quote from Alex_Ward :

Why would I not need a sub woofer? I dont think the speakers will provide enough base, and I like base What amp would you recommend?

If they are normal hi-fi speakers, the "subwoofer" is "built in" already. They should provide decent bass. Boomin car stereo systems have subwoofers, Crappy 5.1 sound systems and PC speaker systems have subwoofers... a good hi-fi system consists of an amp and two speakers, and NO subwoofer.

With the Yamaha amp and the two ELAC speakers (110W) i have, i can make the floor shake/vibrate from the bass so the neighbours will hate me and come running complaining. I'll say it again, no subwoofer.

If you get an amp, make sure it's a decent brand and nothing cheap. Also, get an amp with a lower power output than the speakers can handle. This way you won't destroy your speakers if you ever turn it to high (stupidly high) volumes.

Erm atm they are powered by a stereo set that they came with, its like an all in one cd player, radio and amp. I havent properly had a look as its all encased in a cabinet but ill get it all out when im at home friday. I may be lucky and see that the amp is seperate, then I can just use that cant I? I only know that they are made by Pioneer, model I dont know and will have to have a proper look. I cant look around for any amps until friday, as im on my phone.

If it's one of those all in one things and can't be taken apart like normal stand alone devices, then it's probably not the best amp in there. What could be however, is that it's a receiver and a CD player. Receivers are amps with a built in radio, and they are usually just as good as stand alone amps.

Check at the back of the device if you can find any in- and outputs other than the speaker output. If there's in- and outputs, you can probably use it.

It's hard to tell at the moment. Best would be if you can find out the exact model of the speakers and of the other components.

jibber - that totally depends on what speakers you have. A top end set of floor standers may well produce rock solid sub-bass, but my little standmount speakers benefit quite a lot from the presence of my sub.

I'm certainly not well educated when it comes to audio equipment. I just have good ears.

I didn't think about standmount speakers when i wrote that post. And in this case, i can certainly see the need for a sub.
It's just that my idea of a hi-fi system, where it's purpose is to "sit in front of it" and listen to music with it, is two big speakers and a good amp.

I must admit that the only standmount (or wallmount, right?) speakers i came accross, where in fact the bose ones. I remember them from a few places where i've heard them, and recently my parents bought a system for their living room (which is not a bad room regarding acoustic). Probably i've also heard a few other systems, but i can't really remember those.

However, from the little experience i've had with such systems, they never had the same sound quality compared to other speakers (normal sized). They sound very good, but in comparison i could always hear a difference. It's like comparing a CD and an LP (played with a good turntable). Both sound good, but only the LP can give you this full, warm and powerful sound. But then again, that's just me maybe.

It did sound like the speakers Alex has are normal sized ones. And if that's the case, it would be wrong to run them together with a subwoofer.

Ok thanks guys, ill take a look at the speakers on friday and see what I got. The speakers I have are normal sized I think, they are fairly big. I may take a picture just to show you :P

Quote from jibber :

....... Also, get an amp with a lower power output than the speakers can handle. This way you won't destroy your speakers if you ever turn it to high (stupidly high) volumes.

WRONG !! The easiest way to blow speakers is to overdrive an amplifier in to them. Especially a cheap amp that has 10% THD at so called rated power !!

A speakers power rating is measured using a completely distortion free signal. Speakers can only handle 120W (or whatever) when being fed clean signal power. Feed speakers with a signal with even a relatively low level of distortion and just watch the power handling capability of the speaker tumble !!

Always get an amplifier that is rated higher than your speakers can handle. Otherwise you're going to get your amp up to around 9/10 on the dial one day and your tweeters are going to go pffff. The only exception to this rule is when your amp and speakers are rated so high, that you're never going to be running the amp anywhere near full output in a million months of sundays anyway.

As for amps. Bob and myself have already given two examples of good quality budget amps. Forget multi-channel amps, you don't have the money to get even a budget one worth considering.

As for subs. For the kind of money being talked about, again forget it. Nothing but cheap plastic boom boxes producing a lot of uncontrolled resonant bass frequencies.

Yes good subs are worthwhile when using small/mid sized standmounts but only if

a) They are servo controlled active devices with adjustable levels and cut off frequencies etc

b) You really must make the floor rumble with every song you listen too.

I say that as a firm believer that properly controlled extended bass extension is an absolute must for the reproduction of accurate music even when the music itself contains no instruments with fundamentals that low. It's all about how frequencies are percieved by the human ear/brain cognative system.

Again, i'm not an audio guru, nor an audiophile.

With a half decent set of speakers and amp, you'll never go even near maximum volume. You never even go near half of the full volume.
Maybe what you say is true, but i consider it a safety option. If you take 50W speakers, and a 200W amp, will the speakers blow if you ever turn the amp to full volume?

Just so you can get an idea of the "normal" hi-fi stuff i'm talking about.

I have two ELAC 110 blabla speakers, and a Yamaha AX-397 amp. They sound nice, and i never ever had to really turn it up, because it gets fairly loud towards 1/3 of the volume. The speakers are more than ten years old, and were always running with a lower powered amp. They sound like on their first day.

I don't know what kind of equipment or rooms (where you place the speakers) you are thinking of. Or if you perhaps listen to music at extreme volumes (i like loud music sometimes, so it's not like i never "turn up the volume")... But i really don't see a situation where i'm ever going to use the full power of my amp. My sound system is placed in my living room by the way, which is about 30 square meters in size.

And what's bad about multi-channel amps? Would my amp be one of those? Since it has various in- and outputs...

Again... I like music. I like to listen to loud music sometimes. I have good ears and love good quality speakers/sound. Etc.
There's tons of speakers out there that sound a lot better than what i have. My brother spent over 20k on just speakers and amp... it sounds amazing compared to my system, yes. But does my system sound bad because of it? For the money i spent, and for a normal human being listening to music... no, it doesn't. It sounds very nice in fact.

So regarding the fact that my system can produce a beautiful sound, good enough to satisfy any music loving ears (except for audiophiles maybe), i think it's a great plus that i can connect all kind of other devices to the amp. If i'm not mistaken then my amp is such a "multi-channel" amp. What's so bad about it? Because i haven't noticed yet...

Quote from jibber :

So regarding the fact that my system can produce a beautiful sound, good enough to satisfy any music loving ears (except for audiophiles maybe), i think it's a great plus that i can connect all kind of other devices to the amp. If i'm not mistaken then my amp is such a "multi-channel" amp. What's so bad about it? Because i haven't noticed yet...

I'm pretty sure he was referring to a multi channel amp as in, 5.1 - surround sound. In fact an amp without input selection is kind of a useless amp (yesyes, for home usage... there are amps with just one input, but those you use on a live stage mainly, not at home )