The M-DAC is good but, I had a bad case of upgraditis this year and, didn't want to do the PC, it's good enough as it is, so, new headphones and DAC/headphone amp. Come to think about it, I didn't really need those either...
On a somewhat different level, I have just picked up a pair of Wharfedale 7.3 floorstanders from a neighbour for free. They look like bookshelf speakers with a longer case. I haven't fired them up yet, as I need to get a small amp from work - a nice little Denon Micro receiver. They're HEAVY as he's filled the bases with sand, so they should be stable and have some bass. Report to follow...
I've found the speakers I bought in the early 80s. I kept them for more than 20 years as they were very good speakers. Paid ₤150 as they had no box and some small marks on the grills. Unlike modern stand mount speakers they were large at 57.5cm tall and had 25cm woofers, bass went very deep. Always liked good, solid bass, as long as it is not over-emphasised like Beats headphones. https://stereonomono.blogspot.com/2013/12/hitachi-hs-330.html
Ahhhh yes, I could have put it better. I wasn't thinking cutoff or frequency adjustment, but more/less tweeter or midrange. How do they sound at this late date? I have some Denon Mission 'upside down' speakers from an old Mini system that I acquired the other year. Not bad, but a bit thin compared to my modern 2.1. More style though; I had some bigger Mission book case speakers in the 90s that I regret selling. The Denon is in my office and lovely to have 'real' cabinet speakers to use again. I do miss my Linn Keilidh floorstanders that I sold as they were not getting any use with the way 21st century music consumption TV viewing has gone. Super bits of kit, with granite bases and biamped with lovely Linn minimalistic black boxes.
I kept them for 20 years or so then sold them on about 15 years ago, gaming replaced listening to music...
I saw this pop up today - https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/denon-avr-x8500h-avr-review.15266/ I almost didn't want to click through, as... - ASR does not pull punches when it comes to testing anything, including AVRs - Many AVRs measure particularly poorly, even expensive ones - ASR especially does not pull punches when it comes to testing expensive AVRs - I have one of these in my AV setup, and there was a not-insignificant cost involved in putting it there - I've been in blissful ignorance of real measurements telling myself it sounds excellent for the last two years But, I need not have been! And feel particularly smug about his conclusion: So I can replace the confirmation-biased "yeah but it sounds great and that's what really matters, who cares about these silly measurements" securely in my back pocket for another time
The only AVRs I'd consider for musical use are those by Arcam - and then only if you're bi-amping the speakers.
Without wanting to goad unnecessary argument, I think there are a lot of manufacturers in the AV space that skate along nicely on a combination of historical perception and confirmation bias. So you like your AVR300 and that's excellent, but because of your good experience with a 16 year old product you're going to discount anything else out there in one fell swoop and only pick from a stable of AVRs next time round made by what's effectively an entirely different company (and ultimately under the steerage of Samsung)? I'm not saying modern Arcams are no good, and neither am I saying that deciding "I have brand X, I like brand X, and that's going to figure into my future selections" is wrong. I'm just saying don't rule out dozens of other brands because of it. Though, fun fact, the last couple of Arcam AVRs ASR has had on the bench have measured horrifically, including the top-of-the-food-chain AV40 processor.
I'm somewhat brand agnostic when it comes to AVR's. Although I've only had a handful, so.. I am very interested in the upcoming Marantz NR1711. It's a very compact package, and seems to have all the features I'd ask of it - But being compact, if/when it gets replaced for something else it's also viable elsewhere in my home and that kind of secondary usage appeals very much.
Can we add "no debates based purely on measurements" to the list of rules? The amount of keyboard warriors out there who's looked at some measurements then decided a product is cr@p without listening to it (usually because it makes them feel better about what they own) is incredible. Musical/good sounding does not always equate to perfect measurments (valves are a classic example)
Seems my Denon X3600H is right up there as well - 3rd spot for AVR out of all those tested - always did review well for subjective sound and turns out objectively it's great as well. Anyway - been keeping an eye on this thread and whilst my gear isn't as high end as others it's good middle of the road stuff Lounge contains: Denon X3600H AVR Q Acoustics 3050 fronts (bi-amped) Q Acoustics 3090 centre Q Acoustics 3020 Surrounds BK P12-300 subwoofer Office/Man-Cave Teac AR650 MKII Amplifier (Picked up for £50 from FB Marketplace a couple of years ago as vendor wanted rid of her ex's stuff in house!) Q Acoustics 2010i (soon to be upgraded to 3010 or 3010i if worth the extra £40) Xonar Essence STX as a source for amp/headphones Garage/ Sports bar (6ft oak topped bar, pool table, dartboard, projector and screen, surround sound) Denon 1505 AVR powering a 7.1 set-up Mission fronts - forget which Mission surrounds/rears Q Acoustics 2090 centre Q Acoustics 1000s Subwoofer
I see it as an indicator of solid electrical engineering and design principles, not necessarily of sound quality, since that's largely a function of personal preference. And my personal preference is that I don't want an AVR to be a tone control like I may want in my stereo setup - so measurements are a part of figuring this. The "Measurements don't matter" and "I trust my own ears" arguments get into significantly more ridiculous territories than those on ASR and the like. There was a wonderful thread on the Roon forums I came across a couple of weeks ago with someone claiming their new £1100 music ripper (aka external CD drive) made their digital files sound so much better than the old. And had gone so far as to burn 400 hours on re-ripping an entire collection. They were kind enough to post both new and old files and guess what, identical. Very quickly went to the "well I trust what my ears are telling me" space. Taking both into account along with your own experience of a product is important IMO.
I rarely use this acronym, but. Lol. I guess my 15€ external drive based rips must sound like scratchy garbage to that guys ears!
As a cloth-eared philistine who skims this thread but will almost certainly never have a shiny of my own to show off, I'd just like to say... ...this sparked joy.
Most of my ripped collection was done on a budget DVD drive circa... 2005 ish? I'm sure the advances in bit-perfect ripping technology since then would mean I should procure said £1100 drive myself, never mind the format being 40 years old this year. I've switched entirely over to streaming now though, the convenience and lack of library management are worth the compromises in audio quality that you can hear because of fluctuations in space-time and errant gamma rays when music comes over the wire... or whatever else people like that use to talk trash about streamed music.
Of course, I mean. It behooves us all to purchase one of those ripping devices to properly rip our CD's. I bet 320 MP3's even sound better with that unit in the mix. My issue with streaming anything is the lack of physically in my hands, and reliance on licenses not changing hands (a-la TV streaming now having forty services all with one series worth watching 'cause sweet subscriber cashmoney!..) intertubes. Your having reliable internet at last has spoiled you!
