Ia a good amp more important than a good DAC?

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

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.

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

Tanglewood, clearly your ears are not golden!!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Amp without one doubt

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?

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!

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

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."

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.

Markwatkiss,

What's the difference between Tiger and Santa?:

Santa only had three Ho's.

Happy new year to you all.

I wish to chime in that souces do evolve and personally I think it IS evolving now with the new digital trend. Some manufacturers have launched music servers. I believe it will change the industry like what CD did to Vinyl (hey, I'm not talking about quality here :)). Thus, it would be wiser to invest in a good amp to make sure it is powerful and refine enough to match your speakers.

Btw, don't under estimate CA 840c. I use it and agree with reviews that it is a very good value for money!

sources change; reel to reel, cassette tapes, 8 tracks, vhs, radio, sat radio, cd, sacd, hd music, lazor disc, dvd, hd dvd, blu ray, hd tv, vinyl, on and on. but the amp and speakers are always there blasting out what ever they are given!

Or another example - I have a friend who is a dance instructor. Every so often she has a recital in the high school auditorium. THe auditorium has a sophisticated PA system that has been calibrated (for frequency and tme delay) to the auditorium. She plays her music on a $40.00 boom box whic feeds through its headphone jack into a mini headphone-to-RCA adapter into the mixing console. Sitting in the audience, it sounds reasonably good. Not audiophile approved, not like you're sitting at Symphony hall, but clear, powerful, usually non-fatiguing. Does anyone think it would sound better if she used $40.00 speakers and a DCS / Wadia / MBL etc. stack, or a Rockport turntable?

Thanks for the continued input guys, this site is great and I am loving being able to gather all the good info, juggle it around and finally make decisions.

Yes, this room treatment thing has me wondering how many people out there that have good systems but are unfortunate enough not to be able to set up where they like at home. I have moved mine from a room with very low ceilings to a standard height room to one with very high vaulted ceilings and all left their own big mark on the sound. Unfortunately for me the one with the best acoustics (standard 8' ceilings) isn't going to work because of human traffic, but it created a feeling of "big" sound compared to the larger room with 16' ceilings where the system finally ended up. It just shows though that a while back I read a post from a guy using a similar set-up as me and when he moved his into a room with high vaulted ceilings he said only then his speakers really came to life.
After comparing the two sources my mind is at rest that I don't need to go any further with that given the minute difference between the two, however, with speakers I will probably get curious, but for now I will just dial in what I have and start enjoying it.....and all the forum threads.
Thanks guys

ThomasT, I agree with you 100%

1. Room
2. Speakers
3. Amp
4. DAC (even a cheap DAC has amazing specs)

Thomastrouble, it was my experience too that room treatment is a significant upgrade; to the point that if you don't have that handled you never really hear how good your system can be; and as you likely heard, you don't have to strain to hear the improvements brought by good room treatment.

While the garbage in-garbage out argument makes sense, I have a competent USB DAC that has outlasted 3 amp/pre combinations. In my experience the improvement offered by my current $12k amp/pre would not have been matched by replacing my $1k DAC paired with the old amp/pre combinations.

Pubul - That was my point exactly.

Thomas - one thing I've found to make a huge difference is placement of the speakers in the room, even more so than putting acoustically absorbent materials around the room (although my room is fairly dead already).

Well guys, I have experimented a bit since posting the question that has created a good little debate and this is my take so far. Today I swapped out the Cambridge 840 c (CD player) that costs around $1,400 for one twice the price, a Bryston BCD1. Both of these players have glowing reviews. The Bryston came out better BUT I had to listen hard and keep swapping the interconnects to make that decision. What this tells me is the Cambridge seems to be a really great player for the price. They really were very close. As far as the amps go I have been swapping the Pass Labs 250.5 back and forth with the NaimNait5i which costs a fraction of the price. The Pass came out tops but I think it may be because of the high current and extra power that Maggies need but the Naim (50w) was/is very impressive too. Regarding the speakers, I really think these are the most important thing, amp next then source, but what was making a bigger difference than all of these was room treatment - massive variation in sound depending on what I damped and where. With all the different configurations of the gear I was happy with the sound after I got the room treatment under control but until I fixed the room it all sounded miserable, really miserable. So, in a nutshell, I don't think you have to spend an arm and a leg to get great sound. There is gear out there that can take you almost there for a fraction of the price, but regarding the difference between the amps and the players I would have to say that the amp made the biggest difference.....with my set-up, that is.

Isn't Audiofeil point that most of the fish is good, it's the journey to your plate that can be the problem? Well, anyway, I think we have argued the point to death; yes, the source is important, but unlikely to be a problem with most current digital sources, and that where you are most likely to go wrong is to mess up the amp/speaker combo, so focus there and you are likely to be on the right path.

The sushi analogy isn't lame if you're not too illiterate to understand it. The point is it doesn't matter how good the fish starts out if the trip to your mouth destroys it, just like the signal's trip through your stereo system to your ears. Odd thing is, I think Mr. Feil and I agree more than disagree on the question posed.

Thanks, Unsound!

Though I'm in the "amp first" camp in this thread, I still feel the source is definitely important. In fact, critically important.

One trend this type of argument (more commonly: speakers or source) often follows is to dismiss the importance of the other side of the argument altogether. Most of the audiophiles whose opinions I respect would never go down that road.

A personal anecdote, five or so years ago, one of my local dealers hosted a gentleman from Linn at his store on a beautiful autumn Sunday afternoon. Obviously, you know where Linn's opinion lies.

The system this fellow demonstrated for us featured their $20K CD player on one end and a lower end (something in the $1100 - $1500 range, though I've respected their micromonitors that have long slotted below whatever this model was, pricewise) Linn speaker on the other. The Linn amplification used fell somewhere in between those two extremes. He made the usual statement about the source being everything, and to prove it, you could basically use "any old speaker" as a speaker can only reproduce what is passed to it.

The overall goal was to show how divine the result would be in having one follow the Linn philosophy, and spend a disproportionate share of the system budget on the source

Needless to say, the sonic experience of the system was far less ideal than we were being told. Apart from hopefully providing valuable insight into how wrongheaded the Linn approach actually is, I found the entire exercise ridiculous. For the sake of argument, I'll put a $30K price tag on the system, and believe that if I were allowed to divvy that up into 4 $7500 portions, then go around the store and grab a CD player, preamp, power amp, and pair of speakers that individually came in at or less than that $7500, the end result would have walked away from the system that was demonstrated.

My overall point, to quote Kondo-san of Audio Note, "Nothing is unimportant."

The sushi analogy is lame; it's either good or bad.

Not the case with digital sources. Most are good enough for this fellow's application. As I said earlier, there is a plethora of inexpensive digital sources and converters.

I hope that helps.

Regarding source first, would you rather have sushi from the best independant Japanese chef in the big city if it had to be delivered to your house in a biker's back pack on a hot August day, or would you rather go to a Legal Seafood, where your fish could be delivered by a short walk from the kitchen to your table?
Jult - I think we agree. Upgrading parts of the system which are not the weakest link will still yield improvements, but just not as much as they should. I'm thinking of my system's cables. I had changed major components over the years, with some good results, but not until I changed the cables did I notice a huge improvement. Now, I can go back and change out some of the components I have not sold yet, and hear bigger differences between them than i oculd before I changed cables. I think the cabe;s were the weak link, and were preventing my other improvements from having the impact they should have.

Tak the step forward, get the SIM. If you are hooked on Maggies (no reason not to be) you are likely to use SS, and the SIM is a good choice. As has been suggested by most, the amp/speaker combo is critical where is most decent digital sources will do fine for you. The SIM/Maggie sounds like a good long-term combo.

I believe that the source, amp and room are the biggest contributors of sound, which I have recently found out over the past year. If you want to hear this for yourself, go out and listen to some new Rotel electronics and then something tubed or even NAD. There's one for you. Listen to the difference between Rotel and NAD through any speaker. The difference is huge.

Thanks a lot for getting involved in my question guys. I am learning a lot but typical of this hobby I seem to have moved one step forwards but two steps back regarding decision making, but I am loving the debate.

Sorry, I am a beginner and never thought to mention my speakers in the question, - they are Magnepan 1.6s and a REL Britannia B3 subwoofer and I use this for music only. I have another pair of speakers that are much more sensitive , or easy to drive - Dali Ikon 7s. These are quite nice and detailed, a "clean" sounding speaker but to me don't have the "big" sound of the Maggies or the "realistic" sound of the Magnepans. They are also pretty "shrill" and sore on the ears as far as the highs go. My musical tastes range from Jazz/Bossanova to rock to electronic, a bit of everything.
Hope that is enough info.

Even an inexpensive DAC has very low self-noise, low distortion, and no headroom issues.

Can't say the same thing for a cheap amp.

Amps are big analog circuits with lots of components and connections operating in a hot, high-current environment.

A DAC is just a digital processor (a chip) with a line level output stage.

Trelja, thanks for wording it better than I have.

Markwatkiss, "On contrary Al,the rationale for "source first" has and always will continue to make a whole lot of sense irregardless of what is downstream."

I'm surprised that more discussion hasn't taken place on the use of "irregardless", as opposed to "rationale". We ALL make typos, but "irregardless" is a horse of an entirely different color.

As for me, I'm in the amp first camp, but understand a lousy source is also a dealbreaker. Just that I've tried both ways on many occasions, and I usually wind up getting more enjoyment with an amp that meshes well with my tastes and system.

Bill makes a most cogent point - to have meaning, an amp must reference the loudspeaker it's being paired with.

I just very much disagree with the statement that a "system is only as good as its weakest link." As I have upgraded components that are not the weakest link, the sound of the system has improved and hasn't stayed the same, as implied by the statement. I wonder if people writing this are trying to say something different.

My advice would relate to marginal cost/marginal benefit. Where can you get the biggest bang for the buck?

The question "is a good amp more important than a good DAC" is only meaningful when discussing the system's speaker.

A great amp can sound lousy with great speaker. It's all about matching properly.

That being said, I would choose the amp for this discussion.

Good digital sources and DACS are a dime a dozen in today's market.

I agree with the amp argument, since I think the amp/speaker is the most important match when choosing components and like others, I think the differences between $500 and $5,000 CD players is much, much smaller than the differences between $500 and $5,000 amps. The source is of critical importance, there is no disagreement there, it must be good or you will get garbage in, but it is not so difficult to get a good digital source for not too much money (not saying they are as good as EMM, Esoteric, dCS, Wadia, etc). Get the speakers and amp right, and most decent digital players (the Cambruidge is much more than decent) will be pretty good given the medium. There was alot more difference between the Linn Sondek and a $79 turntable - so getting the source right in those day was critical and Ivor Tiefenbrun was right about the importance of the source, there is a lot of logic in thinking you don't want to amplify garbage - and there were big differences in performance between turntables, not nearly so with digital IMHO.

I know it's a word, but I haven't seen the "rationale" presented.

"rationale"?

Yes, that's correct. "Rational" is also a word, but it has a different meaning.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationale
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational

Mark -- I don't question that for many people "source first" may be the best approach. My contention is that the explanation/justification/rationale that is commonly offered for that approach is flawed.

Best regards,
-- Al

"rationale"?

On contrary Al,the rationale for "source first" has and always will continue to make a whole lot of sense irregardless of what is downstream.

Honest1: I have found the system sounds no better than the weakest link.

I agree. The often stated rationale for "source first," that the imperfections of what comes first in the chain cannot be undone by what comes later, makes no sense because it ignores the MAGNITUDE of the imperfections in each link of the chain. Although that is not to say that for SOME listeners and some systems, the choice of source component will necessarily be less important than the choice of what comes later.

The most influential early promulgator of that philosophy, btw, was Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn, ca. 1980. Of course, it just so happened that his major product was the LP12 turntable.

Freediver: The HIGHLY respected speaker designer Bill Dundleston(I hope thats right)of Legacy Speakers once stated in an interview that the importance of the individual components in a music reproduction system was:Recordings-Speakers-Amplification-Source-Cables.I agree completely.

FWIW, I agree also.

Regards,
-- Al

I'd first establish what kind of sound you like, SS, tube, SET, Mosfet, mega-watt SS and find the best match for the amp/speaker combination. This cold be a really simple process: walk in and walk out of the dealer with a plug and play package. Or, really complex like tri-amped horns driven by different esoteric low-watt large tube amps.

Once you know what you want then you can make significant moves to upgrading the source - which is ultimately the most important element.

Gregg

Unsound said it best, in response to the source first camp. I have found the system sounds no better than the weakest link. It doesn't matter how much beautiful music your source is putting out if your amp mangles it on the way to the speakers. And cast my vote for there being a bigger difference between great and mediocre amps than great and mediocre digital. I also suspect that the real differences in sound of digital gear has more to do with their analog sections than their digital sections.

Its a chicken and egg question, one is not much good without the other. Good does not necessarily equate one to one with expense. It depends to a large degree on your system, if you have inefficient speakers with a difficult impedance curve the the amp will cost a lot, K Horns, not so much. But all things considered it is easier to get a good cheap DAC than an amp, their job is easier to do. I have just got a V-DAC and it is close to my $2K+ ones.

Freediver hits the nail on the head here. Yes you do need a good source and a good amp. But it seems to me that you can get a better source that is closer to the sound of a very expensive source for 1/10th the price than you can get an amp. If anyone here knows of a 500 amp that sounds close to as good as a 5000 one I'd love to know about it. I know of DACs that do fall into this category. I've personally just never heard the huge disparity between DACs that I have between amps, price wise that is.