Ia a good amp more important than a good DAC?

I have to say that the Leach Superamps I just acquired confirm my position all along that the amp is in fact the most important component.

I have to say that the Leach Superamps I just acquired confirm my position all along that the amp is in fact the most important component.

So you're saying you could hot-wire one of these (using some Purist cable, of course) into your system graced by those wonderful amps and they will make up for any shortcomings of the source!? Plus you'll have a visual option so it can double as HT!!! Or you can Show'N'Tell to all of your friends.

Sorry to make fun at your expense, but it's all important. If you feed any amp garbage as the source it will not be able to compensate for those shortcomings. Period. End of story. Granted, poor amplification ain't going to help anything sound better either, but if it's not there at the source there's nothing you can do (except enjoy the Show'N'Tell feature).

I love the quote Trelja shared: "Nothing is unimportant."

If you feed any amp garbage as the source it will not be able to compensate for those shortcomings. Period. End of story.

Marco, along the lines of my earlier comments, I respectfully disagree with that contention. Yes, garbage in = garbage out. But as Unsound aptly put it, garbage out also = garbage out.

The question is which garbage is worse. And the answer will obviously not be the same for all system configurations and all listeners. But regardless of what the answer may be in any particular case, as I stated earlier it is flawed logic to contend that what is at the beginning of the chain is most important simply by virtue of being at the beginning of the chain. The degree to which each component introduces garbage has to be taken into account, not just its position in the chain.

On another note, happy 2010!

Regards,
-- Al

Thanks, Al. I think we're basically in agreement, which is why I followed up with the statement that it's all important (and the appreciation for Trelja's quote). In my earlier post I also gave a nod to Newbee's POV. Your own point (garbage out = garbage out) is well taken. In the grand scheme of the type of components we're talking about, I'd personally make sure my source was where I wanted it to be before investing in a great amp (vs. a just OK amp). Amp/speaker interface problems notwithstanding. Actually purchasing a product in these realms (I'm just going by the level of products the OP has mentioned) it would actually be difficult to find a product that actually qualified as "garbage", whereas it certainly would easily be demonstrable to create a combination or synergy that qualifies as "garbage," especially between amp and speakers. Hell, yeah, if your using Maggies and are underpowering them that'd qualify as "garbage" in my book. Likewise amping Khorns with a pair of Krells. (Now someone's bound to chime in and tell us how nothing could possibly sound better than Krell-amped Khorns...except perhaps underamped Maggies). A poor acoustic environment (room) could ruin an otherwise entirely brilliant system. It is all important.

For me the source is the foundation - if you build on a weak foundation, like Harry Belafonte sings, it won't stand, oh no, oh no. Is it the "most important" part? Well, if you haven't got that right nothing further on down the line is going to make it better. Screw up any other part from there on in, and again, the bandaids you apply further down the line are probably not going stand comparison to a system that did not require a similar bandaid. So yes, "garbage" could conceivably be introduced anywhere in the chain. Garbage in the form of a poor IC choice, or a factory power cord vs a well designed/constructed one, is not going to have as profound an effect as a crap source, or worse yet, a really poorly recorded/mixed piece of music (even more to the core of "source"). At least that's been my experience. I completely agree that another huge potential for really ruining a good system is the interface between amp and speakers. Screwing that up may also result in no means of correcting it short of replacing one of the components. Chicken? Egg? I'm starting to repeat myself so probably I digress. The thread represents an eternal argument that has representation in the archives under many different titles. Happy searching!

Happy 2010 back at'cha'all!

I guess I must have misunderstood the question. But everything that enters the speakers must first pass through the amp which is their preceding component so does it not stand to reason that in order to receive an accurate example of whatever is behind it, it must be honest?

Amp without one doubt

must first pass through the amp which is their preceding component so does it not stand to reason that in order to receive an accurate example of whatever is behind it, it must be honest?

It can be honest as Mother Theresa, but if all she has to pass on is the lie she's been told by the source your "accurate, honest" amp will not really start benefiting you until you feed it the truth.

I visualize like the childhood game of "Telephone" where there is initially a message written down on a piece of paper. The first kid in a line of kids is allowed to read the message on the paper, then they whisper it in the ear of the kid next to them. They in turn repeat exactly what they said to the next kid. And so on until the message gets to the end of the chain of kids. Most of the time there are 'weak links' and the message is quite distorted by the time it reaches the end. Sometimes it actually made in there verbatim. Your good amp is like having one "perfect" kid, right in the middle of the line, who hears and conveys the accurate message along 100% of the time (not very likely, but lets just imagine). Having a poor source would be as if the first kid in the chain were dyslexic (in which case you would never get an accurate accounting of the message on the other end).

Don't get me wrong, an honest amp, a clear conduit for the truth, is certainly money well spent. That just ain't the whole story, as I bet we can all agree. On the rest, we can all agree to disagree.

I have always spent more on the source compared to the amplifiers. My recommendation is to spend equal amounts on all components, and I am a firm believer in the weakest link concept of audio.

One thing is that the difference between a $1k and a $2k CDP may not be very much. They may even use the same parts. Notable differences in CDP occur at larger increments in price. There are some great sounding and outstanding values in CDPs under $2k. However, the jumps in quality are probably more in line at $5k, 7.5k, 10k, etc.

As your amp improves, you are likely to hear weaknesses in the chain, including the source. They may not be obvious in the first 30 days, but you may hear them over time.

The OP noted that a more expensive CDP had a slight improvement on A/B comparison. Sometimes, slight improvements can result in a large difference in enjoyment. The opposite may also be true, in that large and obvious differences may not translate into more enjoyment, despite clearly being an improvement. The question more relates to system goals and synergy, and creating a sound that draws you into the music and not into the sound itself.

Another consideration is the type of music. Good CD players excel at unamplified acoustic instruments that have a natural resonance, placed upon a stage of a certain width, depth, and height. Not all music is recorded in this manner with regards to rock, popular, and electronic music. Even acoustic jazz in the 50's and 60's had been engineered to have an unnatural presentation, with exaggerated stereo separation, close miking, filters, and an inflated image size. It takes time for your ears to open to these new details. An inexpensive CDP can convey the brushes on a cymbal or the fingers sliding up and down a fingerboard of a guitar, but they may not convey the spatial details of the performance. The point being that some musical genres may benefit more from money spent on amplification. If you like rock, then yes, the speaker and amplifier are going to be much more appreciated.

Jax' joke (the link to a child's record player) actually brings up a very good point. In the old days, there was a huge difference between a poor record player, a good record player, and an excellent record player. That is when the source-first argument was popularized by Linn. I had a good (not great) record player (Dual 616Q w/ Ortofon) when I got my first CD player (Magnavox CDB650 - one of the first to be declared "musical"). There was no question that the CD was better then the analog. I don't mean to start up the digital vs. analog debate, but I do want to highlight the vast differences in quality of sources in the early 80s. The differences between digital sources is not so great.
As an aside to teh whole Linn HiFi Heierarchy, the shortcoming to my analog was the cartridge, not the table/arm. I did try a Linn Axis w/ the Ortofon cartridge, and heard no difference. Changing out cartridges made a huge improvement, though.

Well, in keeping with the question, the amp is the only component in the chain that every other component is subject to, ie:frequency response, frequency extension, dynamic range,slew rate, rise time, headroom. All parameters that with modestly priced co-components will be realized including speakers.

all the trouble you're causing thomas :)

i'm not surprised you heard little difference between the CA and the bryston. in a blinded test my money is on you, or anyone, not hearing any difference. IMO most 'sources', cd players in this case, over say $300 will sound identical. that has been my experience, albeit limited. and it's easy to do a blinded test with a cd player. i own the 840c. if i had it to do over again i'd get a much less expensive player. and i always hear the mantra 'garbage in = garbage out' and while of course true, the fact is with most cdp's, even inexpensive ones, you don't get garbage in.

amps will mostly sound the same too, IMO. i guess build quality, component longevity and warranty can up the cost, but likely not change the sound much once you're over a certain price point (not exactly sure what that would be). of course there are caveats related to listening level and speaker impedance. there is endless debate on whether amps sound different. see the blinded tests done back a decade or two ago. yes, dated. are there more recent blinded tests? as a statistician by profession, it is amazing and disappointing to me that there are not more blinded tests in audio.

room, speakers and the quality of the recording make by far the biggest differences IMO.

Peace.

Watch out Tanglewood,you'll get accused of not having "golden ears"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tanglewood, clearly your ears are not golden!!!

you guys are making me smile (from tin ear to tin ear)!

The problem is not that there are not differences, but that they are much smaller than you would think given the price differences, and more misleadingly, the definitive judgements for claiming superiority of one product over the another; espcially claims that product A "blows away" product B. Every time I hear such a declamation, I immediately stop listening to whatever that person is saying. I will say that at 52 I can no longer claim golden ears, but I can undoubtedly hear differences, and I would be willing to bet $1 that I could pick out at 40 watt tube amp from a 200 watt SS amp most of the time.

At 53, I believe that old ears are more sensitve to harsh sounds. golden ears or not.