Only you can ultimately answer this question in terms of whether the value added to your life by a hi-fi is equal to, or greater than, 1000 GBP. It's a very personal calculus of trade-offs, opportunity costs, utility value, etc and no one else can or should make it for you.

But if your question is more specifically centered on whether MP3 bitrate files are technically worthy of quality amplification and speakers: absolutely yes! This is more a question of matching the quality of your source (MP3) with the quality of a playback chain such that they are not imbalanced, and as such is more an exercise in considering and balancing "first order" versus "second order" or "third order" hi-fi features.

What I mean by these "orders" are tiers of sound quality features that are progressively more and more subtle as one moves from the first order to the third order. Granted, the distinction and classification of sound quality attributes is somewhat arbitrary on my part (one could just as easily segment into more or fewer categories, or have none at all), but I think it is useful for a beginner to think about sound quality in this way so that they can focus on the biggest issues first (first order issues like frequency response) without worrying too much about the second and third-order items (transparency, soundstaging, acoustic "air", liquidity of midrange, etc.). This should be your strategy with MP3's, which have plenty of first-order sound quality but not much of the more subtle details that constitute the second and third order effects.

For, while not ideal, well-encoded MP3's at 128/256 kbps or higher have "first order" features that will greatly benefit from a better downstream playback system: generally good frequency extension, timing, stereo separation. What they do not do well are subtle tonal inflections, reproduction of acoustic space, frequency extremes, and textures/detail -- "second order" effects whose absence will not preclude the value of good amplification and speakers. Good hifi components will allow the main ideas, or "first order" elements of the music to be communicated much more fully than any inexpensive all-in-one mini system or dock. Just having accurate frequency response, good bass response, and reasonable stereo separation will make things sound a lot better. The trick is to not go too far and start spending lots of money on equipment that will reproduce second and third order effects that are not present in the original source.

Based on this matching approach, I would say that you wouldn't want to spend thousands pursuing better sound until you upgrade your source. But spending, say 500 to 1000 pounds, seems completely reasonable for use with an ipod with 128/256 kbps files.

The NAD C325BEE is a fantastic integrated amp, with a smooth, natural tonality that will not exacerbate the somewhat two dimensional (cardboard cut-out) quality of highly compressed MP3's. Many amplifiers in the NAD's price range tend towards artificial "edge enchancement" of detail that would actually really work against low bitrate MP3's making their musical fascade aspect all the more obvious. The NAD is a noticeable exception to this general rule (but not the only such exception) and as such is highly recommended for your application. You could also check out similar offerings from Cambridge, Arcam, or Rega, but I personally think the C325BEE is something special in this price range.

For speakers, why don't you consider the Wharfedale 9.1's that are currently being blown out by RicherSounds for 119 GBP a pair? These are reported to have a smooth top end that will also help tame the high-frequency weirdness that happens in MP3 files (the dreaded "swishy" effect that garbles the treble information). And the frequency response looks very accurate (see JA's measurements in the Stereophile review). Plus, they are a bargain and as such can save you lots of money, while still getting you a long way towards "first order" accuracy of sound reproduction.

As you upgrade bitrates and graduate to CD/SACD/vinyl, you will hear each improvement you make to your source with a setup like this one. And for about 500 pounds. It will be good enough until you decide, well, that it isn't anymore. Which will probably be after you've spent a lot more than 500 pounds on recordings. At which point, you can revisit the more delicate and individual calculus of how much more to spend to achieve better reproduction of the more delicate "second order" and "third order" effects achieved through your upgraded sources.

Carl Durrenberger
San Diego

Does your laptop have an optical or other digital output? If you plug into your stereo with an 1/8 inch cable the D/A conversion is taking place in the source unit (laptop/Ipod).

Unless you have an Ipod dock with a digital out, the laptop will probably be a better choice. (Assuming it has a digital output to run to an external DAC)

If you don't run a DAC you should look up the specs on you laptops audio card and also on the Ipod. Otherwise just plug them both in and see which one you like better.

The headphone out of a computer can be really noisy electrically. Plus Windows XP is being used as the operating system it changes the sample rate reducing sound quality slightly. An iPod doesn't have either of these problems, plus it's designed for audio. When using an iPod with mini to RCA adapters into an audio input make sure to turn the volume on the iPod all the way UP to get the best signal to noise ratio.

Really I just want to echo what has been said already. Also I would personally (that is, in my opinion, based on my preferences) get a 600 GBP (or so) system and spend the rest on higher-quality media (e.g. CDs or lossless files in your case). If you have a good source for used CDs, this could be a good way to go. But you won't be wasting your money either way.

The iPod can be a pretty decent source. I've gotten decent results from mini-to-RCA plugs (cheapest option), but there are ways to bypass the headphone out, such as Sendstation's Pocket Dock, which is also fairly inexpensive (I can't remember the price, but I think it is less than $30 USD). So, for well under 50 GBP you can get your ipod connected pretty cleanly.

A step up from that is the Wadia, which bypasses the iPod's internal DAC so you can hook up your own high quality DAC. In my estimation, this probably isn't worth it for you until you get a bunch of lossless files, but YMMV.

Quote:

Random question: what is the difference b/w interconnects and cables?

interconnect = cables that run from your sources to amp/preamp/dac, etc.
speaker cables = cables that go from your amp to you speakers.

B&W 684 are a very good speaker for the money. The other products I have no first hand experience with so my opinion would be useless. If you haven't already considered Rotel they work well with B&W speakers as Arcam integrated amps.

While I haven't heard the specific Denon mini system I have heard many of it's predictors. It is better sounding than most mini systems but it comes with one draw back that all mini systems have to a greater or lesser extent. Their upgrade potential is limited so if you are considering this as a hobby that's a bit of a dead end road.

I'd also check with Armor Home Electronics to listen to the PSB Image B25 and Anthem AV Solutions Ltd. to listen to the Paradigm Titan Monitor. Perhaps the Totem Mite should get a listen at Audio Excellence. I'd also listen to the Epos ELS 8 http://www.epos-acoustics.com/dealers.php The Monitor Audio RS-1 suits some people's tastes and should get a chance.

For an intergrated amp I'd also listen to the Music Hall A25.2, the Denon PMA-700AE, and the Onkyo A-9355. But the Cambridge Audio and Rotel are nice choices.

I know that the majority of you collection is compressed music but at least for the audition process you should make sure that you are using loss ess music or CD as that will OBVIOUSLY help you to make the best decisions. Even if you have to go out and buy three of your favorites on CD it will be worth it.

You are bringing back fond memeories of my first real separate auditions which led to NAD 3020 and Linn Index purchases.

There are so many variables when auditioning outside your own home that the question of why would be really difficult to answer.

I would trust to your instincts. If your foot taps more and you feel more drawn into the music; if you find you are more easily able to forget where you are and things just feel right musically: buy!

If you have the time and inclination and the dealers will let you do a home audition of the best 2 combinations and then you can really get into the stuff that other members here are more qualified than I to talk about.

Me, I was just so excited when I heard the NAD/Linn combo that I had to take it home. Since then I have found myself over thinking and over analyzing....but that's the nature of our hobby!

What have you listened to so far? Did you do side by side comparisons?
If they involve the recommendations given above I don't think you can really go wrong...so time to go with your instincts?

First I'd suggest by NOT asking which component/speaker sounds "best" because that's a subjective term that will differ from recording to recording and will change over time. In general it will lead to frustration and confusion because the equipment that makes recording A sound it's best will be at least a little, if not dramatically different than the setup that really clicks for recording B. The main question should be which sounds "most accurate" over a broad range of recordings. By that I mean which one most makes me feel like there are real instruments in real space. That leads to the most well balanced system and the most long term enjoyment.

Acoustic music is better at diagnosing the sonics of a component simply because the listener has had a chance to hear it in real life. I've always felt that if a component could reproduce the tonality of acoustic instruments accurately, their reproduction of the tonality of electronic instruments must inherently be accurate. However, I would agree that if a trained listener had heard a recording of non-acoustic instruments on a system that is known to be extremely accurate because of it's performance with recordings of acoustic instruments in real space enough times that they could then use that recording with some authority.

Don