Should I get a Bang & Olufsen stereo? (this is the thread where you tell me that I could get a much better system for that kind of money)

B&O looks nice, if you like that kind of thing, but I like music.

I'm probably the only twit who doesn't like the B&O design. :-(

threadstarter: be a smartypants and seperate that shit up.

Do it...

How much are you planning on spending on your stereo?

http://static.flickr.com/6/9909037_15d1ce39af_m.jpg

...would buy quite a nice little mini-component system AND I shudder every time my daughter pads over towards the rest of the highly-specced tat AND I've got to disassemble it all soon and move it AND my days of slumping on the couch for hours on end working my way through records are pretty much over, I empathise with anyone just trying to keep it simple. I still wouldn't buy B&O though.

Do it...

Do it...

How to tell if you are really ready for B&O:

1. You already have a Lotus which is garaged 9 months out of the year
2. You own the dwelling in which you plan to install it
3. You have paid three times as much for stuff that looks exactly like IKEA but does not come from IKEA.

I agree with sicky mouthy.

Try lots of speakers as well, you may not like the sound of B&O’s own.

Also, “look at my smooth looking stereo, aren’t I pretentious” comes to mind.

Do it...

Still.

Do it...

Of course it doesn't fall apart after a year like Ikea furniture seems to do. ;-)

I've always been told that seperates is much better.

-- Nathalie (stevi...), Today 2:12 PM.

Because it's very pretty and sleek.

First person to mention Bose get's a slap.

Do it...

Do it...

Do it...

self-proclaimed "audiophiles" who think $5000 gets them better results than the professional engineers are getting AT THE MASTERING DESK = profoundly deluded.

people who buy loudspeakers for looks = diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, just be honest about it.

(I never said my sense of humor was good, I just think yours is worse. Also, I hate ellipses. HATE)

You can usually find fairly objective reviews of monitors online or in sound recording mags that can help you choose a pair that work for your listening preferences. I tend to find that the Alesis really make everything sound terrific, actually.

When I picked them out I actually went down to Guitar Center with a friend and we took along a few CDs with us and made the salesmen let us have a listen to a couple of tracks on just about all the monitors they had in stock. If you can find a shop that has a room with all the speakers installed in it side-by-side and plugged up to a switchboard or a mixing desk for easy toggling, definitely take some music down to them and see what you like and for how much.

i assume you have about 20 grand to spend, right?

What about the 10% of yr records that were monitored with notionally superior (and certainly pricier) Dynaudio or ATC monitors? How does one map tens of thousands of dollars worth of Neve desk onto a pre-amp for home use? If some fancy Apogee A/D was used on a record, how far should you go with your D/A to capture that quality?

(I actually agree with your main point, Tombot).

http://www.manleylabs.com/images/hifi99/500blue.jpg

sorry for de-railing in to ridiculous high-end territory here, but OH MAN LOOK AT THIS:
Hovland Sapphire power amplifier
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Hovamp1.jpg

Cute and cheap. You can buy TONS of records with the amount you have saved.

Ah, OK, this it what I'm talking about:

http://www.podcastingnews.com/articles/Home_Studio.html
http://studio-central.com/studio_monitors.htm

This is flawed reasoning but even if you subscribe to this philosophy none of the speakers mentioned on this thread begin to approach the cost of "the equipment used to make the music."

Pound for pound and watt for watt the best speakers in the world are Mackie's biamplified studio monitors. It's a safe bet 90% of prerecorded sound you put through your speakers is mixed using them or something very similar like the Alesis pair pictured above.

So not true.

Dreamfluff?

aren't studio speakers generally made to work best up close rather than usual listening distance?

xpost

Aerolam!

http://audiojournal.co.kr/arts/C/img/200102arts14.gif

http://www.mutoworld.com/_uimages/PN3.jpg

you can play with amp/speaker combinations to get the sound you like, but a powered monitor is what it is

How do I go about "playing" with these combinations? Oh, right, I have $9000 to blow on this shit.

The implication that Alesis or Mackie monitors are the pinnacle of speaker technology is pretty ridiculous though, as is the idea that a B&O stereo costs more than the gear you would find in a recording or mastering studio. A lot of records are mixed through much more expensive speakers than the Mackies, not to mention all of the music recorded in the decades before they even existed. Even a great album mixed on NS-10s is going to sound better on better speakers because the sound that was captured in the studio using high end mics and preamps is still on the tape regardless of what the engineer chooses to listen through while working.

Yeah, I'd say that perhaps the best or only reason to use monitors for a home setup would be their indestructibility. They're designed to weather clueless bands dropping amps on mics and so forth.

I kind of wanted to get some NS10s for a while just because of their vaunted mix-testing capabilities. Then I listened to some MSP5s and decided there wasn't any point in torturing myself any further with Yamaha's offerings in that arena.

Well it's true there are things in the world of loudspeaker sound that are way out of the realm of midsized powered monitors.

Honestly though I think it's true that the vast majority of recorded music exists in a range that a mid-price biamped monitor can do perfect justice to. I also think that most humans live in places and are subject to so much possible hearing damage by their mid-20s that beyond that range exists very little that we're prepared to hear and enjoy. I guess I'm a bit of a cynic. Then again, Ally claims her Altec Lansing sat&sub computer speakers sound just fine for mp3s, so by comparison, I'm quite the purist!

My daughter has a different Hello Kitty boombox that's better than that one. Hold on, let me find a pic.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00009NQW3.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

an engineer once told me at some point that the issue wasn't that they were so good, just that they were so ubiquitous. If every studio had the same monitors, it helped narrow down issues when moving from studio to studio.

Err, care to explain that?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/njsouthall/nads019.jpg

Rather than with the speakers at different heights and in different positions in the room, like... wherever the hell they are in this room;

http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com/photos/albums/InTheBedroom/DSC00057.jpg

JM Lab Chorus 714
Cambridge 540 A
Cambridge 540 C
total: 1368 EUR

Mission M34
NAD C 320 bee
NAD C 521 bee
Total: 1380,00

BW 601 S3
Marantz PM 4400
Marantz CD 5400
Total: 923 EUR

I wanted to stay below 1000 EUR (i.e. 600 pounds), but I'm very tempted by the NAD system. Any advice?

Do you want a system that is technically good but you don't like the sound of, or do you want a system that plays the music you like the way you like to hear it?

Take a sample of your favourite cds, make sure all the genres of your collection are covered, and then go and try the systems out. If it's a good shop, then they'll have a seperate room where you'll be able to try all the variations of kit until you find what you really want.

For what it's worth, I went to Richer Sounds over 10 years ago and after sitting through many variations of kit, bought a NAD amp, tuner, and turntable, a cheap philips cd player, and Gale floorstanders, and I've only had to replace the cd player (went for a QUAD) I'm sure it's past time to upgrade bits of it, apart from the fact that we don't seem to sit around listening to music as much as we used to.

Ah the good old days... I just found this in my parent's garage:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bang-olufsen/beogram/6002.jpg