"amplification"

It's very hard to put "right and wrong" on this....it's also unwise to make definitive judgements based on the experience of a couple of examples.

FWIW. Here is my very personal perspective:

The Source plays an important part, but it takes good amplification and speakers to allow a really good source to fully shine. As for percentage of budget it should take up - A TT takes up more, with a CDP less and a well designed Streamer even less. A good £1800 streamer can hold its own in a £50k system.

For me, the amp is the heart of a system and should not be skimped on. I take a different view to some on here, where I would rather have cheaper speakers driven really well, than expensive ones under-driven.....though it is hard to generalize for situation and taste. ie. There is leeway.

The system as a whole needs to be in balance and have synergy.

Agreed.

thank you for your reply

first of al i don't agree or disagree with any statement ....i am trying to find out .......but i read reviews on whats hifi for example on blue ray players 

for example on the latest marantz blue ray they conclude that why should anyone buy a 1000 euro one when the sony 150 euro is 

a state of art in his price range .....and then matching him up wit kef r and pioneer lx 86 it is worthy ....so this blue ray has a sound of his own 

details to his own ...so my question is more ...what should a very good amp added to these ???? 

if he is just transmit that exellent sound than his work is done ....

or am i seeyng this all wrong ??? i have tested the kef r wit a entry amplification stereo model from nad and the sound was incredible 

what could a higher end amplifier bring to the sound  ??? 

It is up to the amplifier to drive and control the speaker properly, but it can only pass on the signal it is given by the source component. The system's quality will all depend on the quality of the source component and the software it uses.

Everybody has to find their own individual "value for money" level......and also decide whether 2 channel or AV is more important. ie. where is the compromise going to be.

The only way to really understand what a better amp brings to the table, is to go and experience it. It is worth noting that the various Classes (A, AB, B and D) and types (Solid State, Hybrid and Valve) all sound different.

The first thing to do is discover the type of sound you like and go from there (ie. More forward and analytical, or smoother yet detailed...both presentations can be exciting but sound very different).

I'm being picky again, though not really disagreeing per se; but for example, if you had £14k to spend on a system, it is unlikely to be a Linn Klimax DS + BrioR + RS3, good and all as it would sound. I think the OP has a feeling that spending most of the budget on a source is a good idea.

With my convalesence, I've too much time on my hands.

Onlystyle, I'll turn your question around: if you have a good amplifier, why would you want to spend more on a blu ray player with superior sound? Just get your amplifier to decode audio.

It'll be system dependent. If the decoding is taking place in the AV receiver/pre-processor, then the Bluray player only has to read the disc and pass it on - in this respect, it would be hard to justify a more expensive Bluray player. If the decoding and D-A conversion is being done by the player and then sent analogue to the AV receiver/pre-processor, then that's a whole new ball game, and should be treated like buying a new CD player. Quality will count.

Even if your situation is the former, a more expensive Bluray player will be better built, and in turn won't be as noisy when playing discs. This is something I've noticed having used a Sony BDPS5000ES/Oppo BDP103/Panasonic BDP60. The Panasonic is noisy, the Oppo is far better, and the Sony is silent.

And to add to that, the DVD playback of a Bluray player generally boils down to its internal video processing, and again, the difference in playback can be huge. My old Pioneer DV737 plays back DVD's better than the Pana BD60 does, but I eventually went for the Sony to do away with the Pioneer as its DVD playback is excellent.

As above, if the signal is being read and passed onto the SCLX86 to decode, then what you have left is the amplification stage. Good quality speakers really like high quality amplification, so the better the receiver you use with the R Series the better they'll sound. Treat the AV receiver/speaker combo like a hi-fi one and see which works best for you. Listen to a few AV receivers in 2-channel mode with music with the R Series and you'll soon find out which work best together.

Obviously each system has to be taken on its own merits, and I agree, you wouldn't spend £13k of a £14k budget to get the best sound you can. As I've said many times before, the speakers can only produce what they're given by the amplifier, and the amplifier can only pass on what it is given by the source. It's a case of balancing the system.

Years ago, at least half that budget would probably have been spent on a vinyl source, but nowadays with all this new fangled digital stuff, much less can be spent on the source and a clean signal is still guaranteed. I'm not putting a figure on anything, just stating that the source is still important as it determines what the rest of the system can sound like

We are certainly in agreement here, as hinted at in my reply on post 1.

It was the OP's original statement about matching a £3000 CDP with a £300 amp that had me worried that he would take your advice in a way you hadn't intended.

I wasn't agreeing with his specific situation, just commenting on the importance of the source. Apologies if I gave the impressions to the contrary

Don't worry, I'm probably turning into Mr. Pedant.

Eh? 8-bit CD player?

what was happening that if i understood hit the sony fractioned my music in 16 samples and the denon in 8

so the detailling from the sony was much greater 

if that had something to see in the overall sound who was much better from the sony i don't know ....