We just moved our record player into the living room. Along with the Pioneer stereo system.

 

We just weren't using it in the other room. It's been nice to have it in there and looks pretty good on an Ikea Kallax shelf as the records fit perfectly inside the squares.

 

Sounds much better in a bigger room too.

 

We've also ditched out cheapo soundbar (now in the bedroom) and have the TV hooked up to the stereo instead.

 

Thankfully Logitech had the stereo in their database so I was able to add it to the Harmony remote. So one click on the remote and the stereo comes on with the TV and switches to the correct input etc.

Having had a collection of 90s hifi, I spent some time fixing some bits.

 

Audiolab 8000s

B&W P5

Sony MD recorder, which was on DAC duty.

 

The P5 needed all new caps on the crossover and the fluid in the tweeters removing, cleaning and replacing. The amp just a clean.

 

Sounded stunning, although I had got sick of having to go through a complicated set up for any film not on a disc.

 

So I had a hunt and found an Arcam SR250 for a very good price. After making sure I was happy with the sound the 8000s went back to my father who originally had it, for his spare room system.

 

Music is really good, it runs cool (Class G) and films sound great through the p5. High end treble, speech, all the way down to the background running/pulsing bass or fast moving well controlled bass.
 

I don’t notice the lack of sub, although I have an option to add 2 if I want.

 

I really don’t understand why more manufacturers don’t make amps that can switch AV via hdmi, still have direct phono and digital inputs and down mix films properly to stereo.  I don’t have space for all the extra speakers, nor do I want them and the wires. I also don’t miss them one bit and the money saved in extra speakers can be used on far better amp than a 16 channel at the same price point.

 

Funny how the world seems to have gone back to stereo in a small way.

Edited 11 April, 20215 yr by cheezemonkhai
Typos

The 'fold-down' ratio of tv sound has been a bugbear for at least a decade or so. These are pre-defined ratios of how 5.1 is auto mixed down to stereo, often failing. It seems there is no universal ratio either. When the Olympics came to London, the broadcaster were set to apply their usual ratio for mix down, but the Olympics had their own and overriding idea. Many audio mixers (the human version, not the electronic version with faders) were not happy and were forced to comply-not always with complete success.

 

You get to hear some of the weirdness of the fold down ratio when you have had to turn your telly up to listen to a program on an HD channel then get the shock of your life when the adverts come on and blow you into next week. This happens less as tvs and soundbars with 5.1 decoding become more commonplace. 

7 hours ago, cheezemonkhai said:

 

...

Audiolab 8000s

 

 

 

Funnily enough I am looking out for a new amp to double up for 'home theatre bypass' and the Audiolab 8300a is on my short list

5 hours ago, Lady Elanore said:

 

 

Funnily enough I am looking out for a new amp to double up for 'home theatre bypass' and the Audiolab 8300a is on my short list

Mine was a UK made rather than engineered in Uk made in elsewhere version so I can’t comment on those.

 

The S version you could completely separate the pre/post circuits mind.

 

As to downmixing, the sr250 can decode dts hd, Dolby digital etc then I believe makes it’s own down mix. Luckily though it also perfectly takes a pcm stereo feed too 😂😂

The 8300A has direct access to the power amp, which is why it's on my radar  

 

The Fold Down ratio I was referring to, is the stereo sound you hear on telly when the original sound was in something like 5.1. So for the Olympics or Wimbledon, which may well be originated in 5.1, the ratio is preset by the broadcaster, although the person mixing it hopefully will keep an ear across the stereo mix and tweak if necessary -it doesn't always happen successfully of course. Movies for tv may be encoded in surround sound but is auto mixed for stereo :( There is a bias towards the front sound of course as that's where the dialogue and most of the general fx and music is.

Unless I am missing something, the SR250 being able to decode and if require downmix (which I can tweak) was one of the reasons to get it.

 

FWIW the 8000s, wasn’t super powerful per se, but the power is very usable and controlled.

 

Still sounds far better than modern amps costing 3-4 times the money vs what it cost in the 90s.

The 'fold down mix' is something that happens before the sound gets to the consumer. It's done at the broadcast end and it's a ratio of  'L+R:C:Surround' that the sound mixer sets up. It's how regular stereo telly gets it stereo sound when the original program was made in 5.1 or similar. Too much surround or even L+R can mean the ratio against the speech channel in the centre will make it tough to hear dialogue over fx and music. Although there is a certain amount of what would normally be the centre channels speech fed into the L+R in a 5.1 mix which mitigates this (you can feed speech only into the centre channel or equally into the L+R channels and achieve the same mono result of speech in a surround system).

 

Another off-piste thing is some sound mixers use the  '.1' channel to add bass and low frequency into, instead of it being an fx channel. Most movies rarely put much above 120hz into the subwoofer channel.

 

It's really just the problem of do you do the mix for 5.1 or stereo/mono? In telly it's rare to do both properly, as time and money aren't available, so if a show is made in 5.1, a predetermined ratio of how the 5.1 channels are put together so that the stereo listener and the mono listener get a decent experience. Naturally it doesn't always work. There have been a few dramas over the last several years that have been disasters with muffled and hidden speech. One possible reason is the dubbing mixer listened in surround with a nice clear centre channel for dialogue, but when auto downmixed to stereo or mono, things became rather muddy. 

 

Your receiver is doing something similar if needed, eg if you only had 2 speakers but were listening to a show that was in 5.1. Funnily enough, some receivers produce poor audio results doing this, not because they get the ratios wrong (which can happen) but because they are driving internal power amps into none terminated outputs (ie the surrounds and sub channels if you only had say two speakers). 

 

Hope that makes sense 

2 hours ago, cheezemonkhai said:

 

 

FWIW the 8000s, wasn’t super powerful per se, but the power is very usable and controlled.

 

Still sounds far better than modern amps costing 3-4 times the money vs what it cost in the 90s.

 

I think I have said before on this site, I like to buy my hifi by weight  Lighter is very rarely better

 

The beauty of these older amps and a lot of British current amps, is they have big toroidal transformers in them and can produce big current when it's demanded. This means they can drive difficult loads (many modern speakers have impedance that can dip down to 2ohms) with a good amount of shove. A clever high-powered Japanese amp/receiver may have greater headline figures, but ultimately can't deliver that same as the toroidal powered amp. A bit like 2 cars with similar headline power figures, eg the old M140 and the AMG A45. From a rolling side by side position, the ageing M140 with it's older school big engine could usually pull away from the A45 with it's smaller high tech engine. It's one of the reasons British amps are still amongst the best in the world  (they make V8 amps  )

1 hour ago, Lady Elanore said:

The 'fold down mix' is something that happens before the sound gets to the consumer. It's done at the broadcast end and it's a ratio of  'L+R:C:Surround' that the sound mixer sets up. It's how regular stereo telly gets it stereo sound when the original program was made in 5.1 or similar. Too much surround or even L+R can mean the ratio against the speech channel in the centre will make it tough to hear dialogue over fx and music. Although there is a certain amount of what would normally be the centre channels speech fed into the L+R in a 5.1 mix which mitigates this (you can feed speech only into the centre channel or equally into the L+R channels and achieve the same mono result of speech in a surround system).

 

Another off-piste thing is some sound mixers use the  '.1' channel to add bass and low frequency into, instead of it being an fx channel. Most movies rarely put much above 120hz into the subwoofer channel.

 

It's really just the problem of do you do the mix for 5.1 or stereo/mono? In telly it's rare to do both properly, as time and money aren't available, so if a show is made in 5.1, a predetermined ratio of how the 5.1 channels are put together so that the stereo listener and the mono listener get a decent experience. Naturally it doesn't always work. There have been a few dramas over the last several years that have been disasters with muffled and hidden speech. One possible reason is the dubbing mixer listened in surround with a nice clear centre channel for dialogue, but when auto downmixed to stereo or mono, things became rather muddy. 

 

Your receiver is doing something similar if needed, eg if you only had 2 speakers but were listening to a show that was in 5.1. Funnily enough, some receivers produce poor audio results doing this, not because they get the ratios wrong (which can happen) but because they are driving internal power amps into none terminated outputs (ie the surrounds and sub channels if you only had say two speakers). 

 

Hope that makes sense 

It makes sense... the amp is a 2.2 channel output amp, which can decode many of the Dolby and dts standards, so shouldn’t get it driving speakers that are not there 👍

https://www.avforums.com/reviews/arcam-sr250-stereo-receiver-review.12408

 

It also weighs a metric eff load... due to said psu😂

 

 

The 8000s has a big psu too, and required two hands to lift as the psu on one side was very heavy.

No idea if the new ones use the same.

 

Edited 12 April, 20215 yr by cheezemonkhai

Big round heavy things and big cylinders that go bang when shorted out make the best amplifiers  

Having had to replace a number of PSU capacitors in previous roles... yes they certainly can go bang. Especially when your colleague prods it with a screwdriver to ask if it’s been discharged. 😂

On 11/04/2021 at 17:25, Lady Elanore said:

You get to hear some of the weirdness of the fold down ratio when you have had to turn your telly up to listen to a program on an HD channel then get the shock of your life when the adverts come on and blow you into next week. This happens less as tvs and soundbars with 5.1 decoding become more commonplace. 

 

Ah, I know the phenomenon but never knew why until now.

3 hours ago, cheezemonkhai said:

Having had to replace a number of PSU capacitors in previous roles... yes they certainly can go bang. Especially when your colleague prods it with a screwdriver to ask if it’s been discharged. 😂

 

I think of them as big 'bean tin' shaped fuses, in the same way I think of silicon chips as little spider shaped fuses.

As long as they still contain the magic smoke everything will work fine. 😂

So I have bought a new power amp with a chuffing huge old school toroidal power supply, which will be used for work (it has XLR inputs) as well at home. I reckon I can put part of their cost through whats left of my business account. Astonishing difference what a properly built British designed (and 'built' I believe) amp can make. My tricky front speakers have so much more bottom end I'm going to have to dial it back several dbs! Mind you, the amp can produce 220 watts into a 4ohm impedance (my speakers can go down to just below 2 ohms.     Now playing all sort of old rubbish I haven't listened to in years at the moment and falling in love again 😂

 

 

I should add I have continued in buying hifi by weight with this, as it’s too heavy to lift with one hand (not helped by the big round lump of metal at one side    ) around 14kg I think

Edited 5 May, 20215 yr by Lady Elanore

The old 8000s is a comparative leightweight and half the amp you have there at only 7.5kg .

For curiosity, I weighed the new amp and it's 15kg give or take, so I guess must have picked up a complimentary subscription to the amplifiers by weight package somewhere along the line.     Average = 3/4 of the amp you have

 

As for hard to drive speakers sounding good, It's amazing what a good amp can do, particularly where there's high volumes or lots of low end bass to be dealt with.

 

What did you go for in the end?

 

I like the XLR inputs and as they're so much simpler to use than a phono pair, I'm somewhat surprised they never really took off outside of professional circiles.

I guess the improvements of being balanced, were offset by manufacturers having the cost of making sure the kit was spot on too.

I went for the Roksan K3 Power amp in the end. I think the last 3 receivers I've owned have been between 10+kg  My Onkyo 906 weighed 24 kg! Bit of a beast, but was killed in a thunderstorm, along with my plasma telly (surge protection mains strip was bugger all use as far as I can see) 

 

My old EPOS M22s (a small floorstander) were around 17kg and my Epos sub weighs around 20kg. Ideally everything would weigh more 

Have you tried feeding them biscuits?

My speakers love me without feeding them biscuits, they say I can eat all the biscuits myself (speakers are like that  ) 

 

I might try them on cheeseburgers though? 

 Well I finally managed to source a new set of tweeters for my ageing Epos M22s (floorstanders) and replaced them both as one of them had died a bit - nothing to do with biscuit rationing in case you were wondering Mr Monkhai ^^^^. I wondered how they would compare with my newer stand mounted MA 100 Golds. I have to say they weren't bad. Even though they must be getting on for 17-18 years old (or more, as I can't remember when I bought them) they sounded so lovely. Very polite and they have a lovely mid-range, in fact they made my newer speakers sound a bit boxy if I am honest.

 So I swapped back and forth between them, listening to different genres of music. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that the new speakers are just so clear and concise if every thing they do, that the older Epos do sound a little tired in comparison. I put this down to the MA's  pleated tweeter, which is a much more modern design and also the mid/bass cone which although not having the benefit of a 3 way design like the Epos, is a very modern cone design and provides surprising bass from a small box. The Epos is still a wonderful thing to listen to, so it shows that proper British engineering ( there is 1" MDF involved  ) still has its place, but I think in this case, my 'HIFI of Yesteryear' has lost this particular battle, although it was a worthy second place. Now I just have to figure out what I'm going to do with them, at least after my back recovers from lumping them around the living room   

On 11/04/2021 at 17:25, Lady Elanore said:

The 'fold-down' ratio of tv sound has been a bugbear for at least a decade or so. These are pre-defined ratios of how 5.1 is auto mixed down to stereo, often failing. 

I wish broadcasters would agree a sound level standard. The BBC keeps reasonable sound levels, but ITV just screams at you with compressed sound, particularly daytime TV.

5.1 or now even 7.1 or 9.2 reductions on Sky can sound very odd.

 

There also seems to be an issue with amp designers of 5.1 AV receivers sound tuning systems or room equalisation. Some amps are extremely loud others don’t seem to perform till turned up to 90%. 

I haven't noticed the phenomenon of receivers  with unusual gain structures. Maybe I've been lucky with my receivers? Although I’ve owned 4 different models, Onkyo and Denon and have auditioned a few through the years. Of course, the speakers that are being driven are a big factor and low impedance speakers can cause lesser amps a big problem.

 

The thing with receivers that is always misleading, is the quoted power figures. They say things like 120W per channel and as you have a perhaps 9.2 receiver you think "wow that's a lot of power". What the small print says is its only 120W as a single channel or perhaps 2 channels driven, so if you have  full surround system going you won't see anything like the power you think you should have. Usually the first give away is the power supply isn't up to the job. That's why I like heavy amps with big room heating toroidal transformers  

17 hours ago, Jfhuk said:

I wish broadcasters would agree a sound level standard. The BBC keeps reasonable sound levels, but ITV just screams at you with compressed sound, particularly daytime TV.

5.1 or now even 7.1 or 9.2 reductions on Sky can sound very odd.

 

Aparently the adverts being crazy loud vs the show is by design... and bleeding annoying it is too.

This same effect is present on DAB too, I assume because it's not compressed, but you end up with volume levels all over the place which is definely not ok at night.

 

Quote

 

There also seems to be an issue with amp designers of 5.1 AV receivers sound tuning systems or room equalisation. Some amps are extremely loud others don’t seem to perform till turned up to 90%. 

 

I don't have this problem I have to be honest, but then I think there are many variables beyond just the amp at play.

Alluding to LadyE, I do have >10kg of PSU in the device and even though it decodes/downmixes more it is designed purely for stereo or 2.1/2.2 output.

Edited 25 August, 20214 yr by cheezemonkhai

You see, weight fixes everything. That's why cottage pie makes you feel better, where as a green leaf salad doesn't. 

Edited 30 August, 20214 yr by Lady Elanore