Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool2.mu.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: archer%elysium.esd.sgi.com@SGI.COM (Archer Sully)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Cheap Speakers, Expensive Amps
Message-ID: <8805@uwm.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 91 14:19:38 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 30
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In <8769@uwm.edu> chowkwan%priam.usc.edu@usc.edu (Raymond Chowkwanyun) writes:

*Recently Dave (?) posted an article arguing the
*philosophy of "Expensive Speakers, Cheap Amps".
*
*This is an argument for the opposite viewpoint:
*"Cheap Speakers, Expensive Amps".
*
*I have a pair of GNP 210's.  A generic sort of 3-way
*dynamic speaker.  When I switched from an NAD receiver to
*the VTL 90/90 the improvement was not to be believed.
*It was like getting a new pair of speakers.
*

GNP 210's are anything but a 'cheap' speaker.  They are old,
but the internal bracing of the cabinets, combined with the
advanced (for the time) materials of the drivers made for a 
very good sounding speaker indeed, especially when well placed
in a room.  I think what you are seeing here is that you finally
got an amp which was a better match for your speakers rather than
a major improvement in amplifier sound.

Now, if you had been using Radio Shack speakers and heard this 
difference (especially in a blind comparison) I >would< be impressed.

--

"Very scientific.  Very Stupid."   -- Mary Woronov

<archer@sgi.com>  Archer Sully