Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!spool2.mu.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: chowkwan@priam.usc.edu (Raymond Chowkwanyun)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Cheap Speakers, Expensive Amps
Message-ID: <8894@uwm.edu>
Date: 14 Jan 91 14:04:23 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 32
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <8805@uwm.edu> archer%elysium.esd.sgi.com@SGI.COM (Archer Sully) writes:
>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  

Before I hooked up the 90/90 to the 210, I had tried B+K and 
Forte 1a, both highly regarded amps.  While I felt improvements
in certain respects over the NAD, I also felt that in other areas
I preferred the NAD sound.  It was only when I hooked up the
90/90 that I experienced a wholesale across the board improvement.
The music just came alive in an exciting way that the other 3 amps
never came close to achieving.  

I agree fully about matching speaker to amp.  I'm just saying that
the correct match more often than not means paying more for the amp than
the speaker.  In this particular case, 3 times more.

-- ray