Its a sliding scale, that's why you are seeing so many good and valid responses from different people. How can that be?
Well, at first, speakers are the most critical. When setting up a beginner system, start at the speakers. You get 'em a nice pair of speakers, a hybrid integrated and a good 'lil CD player with decent but not too expensive wire - so they'll get as much enjoyment as possible, least hassle and no recoil, as in , its great but it sure did cost alot.
Then, in a few months, they're getting the itch and they don't even know what it is yet, you give 'em a few NOS tubes that don't cost too much, a tweak for the same reason, so they can see what is posssible down the road, hear how everything is eventually important, all the while they save for...
Separate electronics. A tube pre - maybe a vintage VTL nice-and-simple, and maybe a tech friend you know does you a favor and swaps some parts to soup it up a bit. Then a SS amp so he/she doesn't get too peeved too fast if a tube output goes - maybe a Pass Aleph 3 at $900 from someone who just wants to sell it - about $1500 total... Yea, that's about right for the second purchase. They're starting to scour Stereophile now and telling you what so-and-so said, all as a pretext for wanting what that pretty picture (of words) says they have-to-have, even though its out of their range, so just hold 'em back abit.
Bring over a top flight PC or IC to hear the difference, see what's down the road, but steer them to the...
Source, upgrade the CD player. Not because its most important, but because they've been reading, scanning this site and see all you AA and Mephisto guys railing poetic and the addiction, becoming formed, says it wants in on the action. They think they know more than they do now, so you wonder whether you should let them make a mistake on what Sam Tellig says, but instead, you get them to upgrade the CD - they feel better - but, at the same time, get em' to throw a couple VD or CPCC PC's in the mix.
Then, amp -its big, muscular - guys like that - you know, everyone's gotta cool amp and the Aleph 3 is so, well, boring looking, and, the engines in cars are the most important, right? So....its a VTL to match the pre. Good resale, won't get hurt much and will learn about the relationship of liquidity and dynamics.
After that, if so inclined, a turntable, and this goes on and on IN SPIRALS OF DEVELOPMENT where the component is inserted to increase synergy towrds musicality as the listeners MIND - not ears - increases in receptivity to the meaning in music.
Towards the later part of the arc (you notice, I didn't say end...), the mind sits up and notices that the room is the "most" important, or the "pre" has become the fulcrum of the system and at that level the pre becomes critical in terms of system-wide synergy and must be the most "important", or that Jena Valkyrie IC is just kickin' that Valhalla in the most sublime way that you can't quite describe, or....
And you are still on the spiral, like a double-helix of progessive, musically exponential, ascendancy.
And at each of these places, because that is where you mind is looking when not listening, you think that your place is the most important, BECAUSE, from where you are at, IT IS.
At the top, the ride ends and you see that the mind that could, that would, go there was always the most important "source". Yet at the same time, each and every component that you've had has been the "most important" for where you were. None of it was "less" important than the last.
You look down, sit back, turn on the stereo and listen to the Music. The spiral ends and the "most importants" end only when you see your own spiral.
But if you are looking at your own spiral, then you are not that spiral, then who is looking?
The same mind that was listening all along.
Muralman, does that sound like alchemy? |
TWL, what would have been really interesting about your little demonstration, is to have run the lp12 through the A40'S. I think that the listeners would still have preferred the A40 set-up. Your demonstration actually only proved that people preferred the speakers being played than the sources, since there is a bigger difference among speakers as there is among sources. |
Your music collection is far more important than the equipment it's played upon. A great system won't make bad music sound good, but great music is still great music even on bad systems. |
You're right, ohn, add that in. |
Inpep, I did run the LP12 through the A40s. I ran the P3 through the Isobarik DMS speakers. There is no question that the Isobarik DMS speaker is miles better than the little $150 A40s. The amps were the same. Are you concluding that everyone that heard this thought that the A40s were a better speaker than the DMS?
If you think that there are bigger differences between speakers than sources, then you need to hear what a good analog setup sounds like. I know that we have widely differing opinions on just about everything, but I am just now finding out how wide those differences are. |
Asa - Reporting in - No detectable alchemy showing up on my nonsense meter so far. ;) |
Yea, Muralman, I must be losing my touch. BUT, just look at the post I just put on twl's "This will be a good thread" in Amp/Pre section (poor twl...). I'm figuring to get roasted alive! Your meter will be off the dial!
Ahhh, just like getting in a warm bath... |
OK, I'm also lossing my mind - its twl's "How could hiend be improved?" thread in Misc. Audio.
I give you permission to go there and beat on me...:) |
From a speakers first guy, as I said above, record playing equipment, ie turntables, tonearms and cartridges can be as inaccurate and as idiosyncratic as speakers. And the bad cartridges and bad cartridge-tonearm interfaces have no charm, unlike some wildly inaccurate speakers that people still like. But, unless you're talking about bad upstream components, which shouldnt be bought at all, rather than less good, which come down to pricing, speakers obviously make the most difference, except for the recordings, of course.
A good recording of a good performance can be made unlistenable through a bad cartridge or a bad speaker. I havent heard a cd player or amp that can do that much damage. |
Speakers make a huge difference in the sound when you change from speaker to speaker, but that doesn't necessarily make them the most critical link in the chain.
I heard a system whose emphasis was on big, expensive speakers and amps but down-played the source with a mediocre CD player. The sound was mediocre. Huge Dunlavys (SC-5's), VTL double-decker amps (750's, I believe), VTL Ultimate pre-, and a cheapie Panasonic CDP. Power in the bass and high SPL's, but muddy and confused sounding.
While I did not get the chance to switch things around in that same system, I did get the chance to hear a Linn TT (LP12/Itok/Lingo), a Creek Integrated (5050, I think) and ProAc Response 3's. (Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a Linnie; the LP12 is NOT my favorite TT.) I much preferred the Linn/Creek/ProAc set up.
Hardly a conclusive illustration, but it made me sit up and notice the importance of the source.
Asa makes a good point: it depends on your perspective as you navigate your Audio obsession. The trick is to get a workable balance among all the pieces. |
Yikes Paulwp: You must have been privileged enough to have lived your audiophile-life out having auditioned and owned only the best of CD players and amps?! I find it a difficult concept to swallow that a poor CD player or a poor amp "can't do much damage"!!?! Difficult?...why it is utterly ubsurd! Gads man! You must be joking!? I mean no offence here, and much of my response is purely for amusement, but it really surprises me that someone would believe that. The difference in detail, musicality, sound-stage (not to mention all kinds of other nuances and $1000 catch-words thrown around on this site in the name of justifying adding just one more zero to the price tag) between a mediocre CD player, and an excellent player seem to me to be readily apparent to anyone with two healthy ears! The differences an amp can make are also quite profound, especially a poor quality amp to an outstanding amp. More curious to me though is the use of the word "accuracy" when it comes to reproducing music. Paulwp speaks of "inaccurate" speakers and components. OK, granted, the whole idea is to do justice to reproducing the sound of music in a life-like, musical, holographic presentation. But why does "accuracy" have such importance? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the usage here, but I tend to have preferences that tend towards the 'coloration' (there's another one of tham'thar' big words) or warmth imparted by many tube components. Is that "inaccurate" because it is not true to the actual performance of the music, or sound of the instrument(s) being played (I'm pretty sure I'd prefer it regardless)? I'm a photographer by profession, and nothing is more boring to me than the most accurate, precise and literal translation of reality in a photograph (using the tools to their maximum potential to fulfill those goals to that end). It is appropriate, and even admirable in some instances. But far more interesting, in my estimation, is the use of those same tools to express something more personal and intimate (using the tools as a means to a more expressive end, taking advantages of nuances and "control" rather than "accuracy"). I know, I'm straying way off the audio path here, and my example is not entirely appropriate as not many of us really want to distort the music and shape it into something it is not. Here, perhaps, is a better example: I recently heard a violin recital at Benaroya Hall here in Seattle, which is a wonderful venue for acoustic music. It was Vengerov performing the Ysaye violin sonatas. We had pretty good orchestra seats. It was a fabulous performance, which I thoroughly enjoyed, but on the whole, the sound of Vengerov's violin seemed rather thin and a bit distant...not as engaging as it could. It was not his playing, but perhaps the acoustics of the room. I went right out and purchased the EMI recording of those same Ysaye Sonatas. Listening to it on my stereo is far more engaging and even hair-raising at times, if you know what I mean. I don't know that my system is "accurate", nor would I think of using that to judge it. I do find it VERY engaging (hard to walk away from), and very natural, warm and musical (OK, quit it with those words now!). I don't give a rat's rear-quarters whether or not the timber and pitch are "accurate" reproductions of Vengerov's Strad. But if I am compelled by what stirs inside me to remain locked in that sweet spot in front of those two speakers....if the music moves me (inside and or outside) I'm a very happy audiophile. I don't know "accuracy", but I do know what I like when I hear it, and I think I'm rather discriminating in that regard. So is this a case of ignorance is bliss? It certainly is a case of me avoiding my workload and spending far too much time tapping on this keyboard! Back to your regularly scheduled program! |
LOL. Let's see, up above, Onhwy61 says "great music is still great even on bad systems," with which Asa concurs. I'm not sure I would go that far, saying that really bad phono cartridges or really bad speakers can make even a good recording of a good performance unlistenable, whereas I've never heard a cd player or amp that bad, so bad that a good recording would be unlistenable. I've heard lots. Even a cheap portable through headphones is enough to enjoy a good recording. But there are speakers and phono cartridges that do real damage.
Now, if you don't care about accuracy, then you don't care about high fidelity. "Fidelity" - get the idea? Expressiveness is for the performers, and maybe the recording engineers. HiFi components are supposed to let us hear what the recording engineers intended for us to hear of what the performers did.
Paul |
Twl, I do Buddhist chanting twice, 3 times praying, 4 times kowtow, 5 times go to church (Christian/Catholic), 6 senses all ear up to ask One question. So please don't feel offended. Thanks.
"I know that we have widely differing opinions on just about everything, but I am just now finding out how wide those differences are."
How wide are those different opinions?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Asa, I meant; IT IS... NOT, NOT NOT... |
Twl's controlled environment comparison of turntables and speakers leaves me wondering if there was a good match of the Linn TT/cartridge with the Naim and poor match with the Rega.
Was the Rega TT with the Goldring cartridge and the Naim gear the typical combination you used in that store for demos? What were the customers shopping for who heard the comparison and what did they buy? |
Oh, Paulup, did I really say that? Hmmm. Yea, I do jam away on the car radio, and we know that's no good as a component, ie, presumably your "bad". But then again, are we really talking about being that "bad" in componentry? I start out with a hybrid amp with volume control above because I think less than that would be a waste for someone going down our road (my girlfriend is not going down our road, so something more "bad" would be OK; its context dependant, our context being our path).
I said that something may SOUND great on a great system, but if you don't have a will towards the musical meaning - and hence, presumably, a music collection that is reflective of that will and not just great components - then you are kinda wasting what you built.
On the other hand, isn't this a moot question as far as experience? In other words, do you actually know someone who has a great system - defined as one that involves you deeply in the meaning of the music - that doesn't also have a nice collection of music that can help get you there? What person possesess the will to build "great" in a system and then not build "great" in the medium? I don't know anybody like that, and I think where that problem arises, and why people site it, is from the circumstance where a system is built in an accurate way with accuracy of sound prominent as a will - objectifying sound, even if done well - rather than a system that balances accuracy, provides it sufficiently to enable the mind to go deeper, but doesn't become attached to that accuracy at the expense of the deepening receptive musical experience. In those types of systems, many times we see Stereophile-approved components strung together but no "great" music collection. Again, this is a symptom of the mind focused on things - stereo component things, sound as things - and not a will to let go of the mind that wants to control things and, thereby, deepen into the meaning. The mind like that goes for the more impressive things first and predominantly - the components rather than the music - because such minds orientation is towards the exterior; as in, producing covet-ing in the exterior other person. This is also why you can see a correlation between system character, and egocentricity and materialism in the mind that built the system/musci collection. Or, in the case you cite, an imbalance between system and collection.
Just something to think about... |
I said, "great music is still great music even on bad systems". The emotional content inherent in better quality music is not derived from its sound. |
Asa, all you said was "you're right, ohn," right after Onhwy61 said what he just said. I don't think I disagree with either of you at all. I just said that there are speakers that can make even great music unlistenable, just absolutely destroy it. But, I've never heard an electronic component that could do such damage, which I think is relevant to the subject of this thread.
I enjoy music in cars too. Those little cheap speakers arent trying to do anything creative to the music, just pass it along as faithfully as they can within their limits, obviously FR restricted and dynamically compressed. That's ok, not really damaging.
Paul |
Paulup, really didn't think you disagreed either, just yapping and trolling. Sorry, should have not yapped so much and did more trolling. :)
I think your point is a very good one. How can we enjoy musical meaning on a car radio, and then can't sit down to listen to the same song on our stereos, because it doesn't "sound" good enough?
Context again? In other words, do my expectations of the component effect my ability to "let go" and get into the music? Or, another way, does my thinking mind's attachment to thinking about the gear sometimes get in the way of me enjoying myself? Isn't that a focus on form (component) and not meaning (music)?
Audiophilicus Neuroticus?
On the other hand, yea, some speakers make me scream from the room!! But then again, so do some car stereos. My car stereo, although not sophisticated/accurate in terms of "sound", is effective through ommission of too much distortion (causing my thinking mind to take notice to the incongruency), and gets harmonics pretty good. I agree, some speakers don't do these things even; in search of accuracy and only accuracy they may get distortions reduced but leave a sterile void space and carved images that only the analyzing, visually-orientated part of my mind would be drawn to. These types od speakers don't cause me to run for the door, but, in my disinterest, I do start walking there. |
Hey look guys. I did the TT test a couple hundred times at the store. I sold analog gear. Do you really think I'm not aware of a cartridge mismatch?
We did the demonstration to show the differences sources can make in a system. So that people could get the straight info, instead of the "buy better speakers" mantra from all the mid-fi salesmen. I could just as easily have sold them a $4000 pair of Isobariks, instead of a $1200 TT. But I actually thought enough of these people to show them the true facts, and demonstrate it, so they could hear it for themselves. They made the buying decisions.
These were standard TTs, using standard cartridges and such, that we commonly sold with these products. This was not some kind of trick to fool these people into thinking something that wasn't true.
I swear sometimes I think it's useless to try to bring any form of sanity to discussions like these.
If we used the same cartridge, you'd suspect cable mismatch. No matter what we used, you'd suspect anything except what you want to believe.
I've given you some accurate information. If you want to ignore it, go right ahead. Sometimes I just have to throw my hands up, and say,"Sheesh!" If I said the sky is blue, somebody on here would argue about that, too. |
Twl I understand exactly what you are saying and I cannot fault it one iota the source is the key but you know he who bangs the advertisng stick loudest and longest gets the wallets and that means speakers my friend.Keep on posting the truth. |
Speakers, Speakers, Speakers
I'm reminded of my mentor in highway design. He said the three most important elements of a highway design are drainage, drainage and drainage. |
Twl, I thought the comparison was really thought provoking and convincing in many ways. My post was not intended to suggest you were trying to trick anyone. If you had used the same cartridge I would not question the choice of cables, phono section maybe ;) Did the righteous indignation help close deals with the customers who might have had similar questions? :) |
Twl, the sky is red, my friend. It is red.... Hahaha... HAHAHAHA... HAHAHAHAHAHA... HAHAHHAHAHHAHA... Sorry could help it. |
Actually, I'm just having a very trying day, and I had to let some steam off.
I never sold anyone anything in audio. I always let them buy. All I did was to demo the equipment and explained how things work together.
Quite often I would let the customer walk out of the store with no sale, when I could have sold him something at a low price. And also quite often, that same guy would show up at the store 6 months later saying,"I've been saving my money for 6 months to buy that high end rig, because after I heard it, I knew it was what I wanted." I never jammed anybody into anything, and they always got a fair demo from me. I spent the time to educate them on audio principles, and showed them that those principles held true in practice.
I never had a returned sale, in all the days I worked in audio, because I made sure that people got what they wanted,and took the time to make sure they were comfortable with it. I often sold Rega, with the customer fully knowing they would come back for a Linn in a year. Because that was what they wanted to do. I showed them the upgrade path that made sense to them, and that they could hear for themselves. After that, the sale closed itself. I never had to close a sale like that.
You can give somebody a fish, and they have a meal for one day. If you teach him to fish, he can feed himself forever. That's what I did. I taught my customers the principles of audio, so they would never be hooked again by a mid-fi shoe salesman working in a audio store. Our store sold products that adhered to the principles of audio, and we knew that if the customer knew them, he'd be back. We had a very happy clientele, and it was a very friendly atmosphere in our store. We'd have lunch with the customers and spend time talking to them, not because we had to for sales purposes, but because we became friends. We didn't have to jam them into a sale, because they knew what they wanted. If they wanted something that we didn't sell, we didn't bad mouth that product. We just worked around that to make sure that he got what would work well with it.
I try to do something similar to that, with what I post on this forum. It's of no matter to me what people buy, but I'm trying to help people to understand the basics, in a world full of hype. I don't know everything, but I do know some things, and I try to make that info available to those who will listen. |
Twl,your posts have caused a renewed interest in vinyl for me.
Thanks for taking the time to share from your experience. Since I have only used digital front ends in my current system, I'm curious if anyone has done a similar comparison of highend digital with good speakers and entry level digital with great speakers. |
Tom,you make me feel as if I would like to buy something from you...whatcha got for sale?? ;~) |
I really like you guys. Just have a good time with your systems.
Eagle, the same thing holds true for digital as it does for analog. The basic system concept is to get the most information you can into the signal chain, and then try to preserve it on the way to the speakers. Even a modest speaker can sound very good when fed a quality, coherent signal. Of course, great speakers will sound even better when fed well. I don't minimize the importance of speakers. I just try to point out the need to feed them well. Once the information enters the system, it can never be improved. It can only be altered, jumbled, or have losses. If you can do the best job of getting the info off the disc and to the speaker, then you can get the best out of those speakers, whether they are modest, or super high end ones. When you get a really good coherent signal to a great speaker, then great things happen to your sound.
Hi David99. I don't have anything to sell, but I always try to have something to offer. I guess we all just do what we can. Glad you liked my post. :^) |
Eagle i do like this question about comparing digital
source to speakers. Let me share you my experience on
this because i have 2 system at home, I will respect
every opinion you have.My experience tell me that when
i went to my friend house the first time it was the
wadia 860 source andra speaker, sounds very good but
my cec transport $1700, and my msb $350 combination
it almost equaled the sound, at times the cec will do
things that i like better.I guest the the sound on wadia
is good, but i dont find it involving compare to the cec
and msb combination. Probably my cec and msb are matching
well. I dont know. Thats why Robert Harley is right,
expensive wont automatically perform better. Thenks to
all of you,it give a lot a happiness when i read thread. |
While my "source" cost more than my speakers in my own system, the reasons for placing speakers highest on the chain are born out not only by my experiences. It is also supported by accomplished designers of audio componenets, some of whom I have the luck of knowing, who have had the greatest struggles designing really accurate speakers. Of course you can't have crap in the chain and get there. But if you have speakers that are "voiced" with a particular frequency drop out, you can't get there with the source, either.
Of course, one would need to know what music really sounds like. You are more likely to know that by going to your local symphony rather than your local hifi shop.
Charlie |
Danvetc is correct. I use what works with high standards, regardless of price. I found a relatively inexpensive CDP that does everything I expect from listening to live performances. I bought my speakers for little more, but are sublime. Then I had to shell out the big bucks for an amp that can power 1 ohm. I suppose I was in a rare field where I knew exactly what speaker I would use. The amp followed out of necessity. The CDP is just plain great. It is a hold over from a less expensive system. |
TWL, if I can hear differences among all speakers, but can't tell differences among CDP's, is it because the speakers are more important for a good system or is it because the speakers aren't good enough to resolve the differences among the CDPs? The answer to that question(no matter which) proves that it is the speaker that is the most important element. If it isn't good enough, then one can't appreciate how good the source is - good stuff in, garbage out. |
OK folks, If you hook-up cheap headphones some Coby stuff or so with descent headphone amp let's say Grado and start swaping CD-players or analogue setups the difference will be much more audiable than if you would change speakers for a pocket CD-player. There is a point where for a particular room there can't be better speaker and amp and anything invested onto these components will just produce no positive result. And here we have a debate or arguments what goes first egg or chicken. Everything is variable and needs multi-variable understanding. I would draw the following curve(s) and describe them by words: 1st point. Let's say I have $100 pocket CD-player,Nad 50W/ch receiver and starting with Boston Acoustic speakers. 2nd point. I upgrade speakers to B&W CDM1 and somewhat shure that it would be better upgrade rather than investing to a new CD-player or amp(meaning and always meaning smaller investment for a better sound) 3rd point. That's where the curve might split or at least take a different direction where non-speaker investment will be more appropriate than spending on speaker?... 4th point. ...might bring you either back to the 2nd or realy towards non-speaker upgrade i.e to the 3rd point. The so called importance curve of the system components can be represented very similar to the output tube or transistor characteristic as a family of curves. The orts are Performance(vertical) as function of Money Spent(horizontal) with only ONE constant component which is ROOM. The only exception i guess will be the source especially if it's analogue. While Speaker, Preamp, Amplifier will have the curves(parabolic forms) exactly as shown here similar to output characteristics of bipolar junction transistor are introduced: Page 4 Fig 3 the SOURCE will have a straight line (Performance = C*Money Spent where C is a room constant or let's say tangent of horizontal corner of the function) towards an infinity or the most expencive source component ever produced. Please, note that there might be exeptions or different even improvised jumps of such curve family(just like in reality) and you might visualize just by only drowing the curve of your previous upgrades that while power amplifier can be considered as if it were an ideal match to the speakers. Thus there can be upto many speakers of a different price range that perfectly matched to the amplifier and will produce significantly larger improvement if the money spent for the amplifier. On some point source reaches the speaker curve and that's where money spend onto the source will produce much higher results than on speakers or any other components. |
Inpep, my answer to that is, that I can hear the differences between the CDPs, even on mediocre speakers. If I can't hear a difference, then I doubt there is much if any difference between them, and one would not represent an upgrade over the other. I realize that it is harder to tell the differences between similarly priced CDPs, because there really is not much difference between them, and the digital source material is so limited, that the primary differences will be fairly expensive to get, such as a quality analog output from the DAC and low-jitter mechanisms. This is why the Linn CD12 and others are so much more expensive.
However the main problem with digital sources is, that even if they get the sound off the disc and into the system, it is far lower quality than a similarly priced analog source. A large percentage of the musical information never got onto the disc in the first place, due to the sampling technology that is used in all digital recordings. A "sample" means that the whole wave is not used, only little sections chopped out on a regular timing structure. If you think that this can give equal performance to replaying the entire wave, then I can't help you with that.
The main challenge of analog systems is recovering the massive amount of information off of the record, and this is why improving your TT can improve the sound so much. No TT has ever been able to totally extract all the info from the groove, but at least the TT gets a continuous waveform to work with. The better it does at recovery, the better the sound is. The real source is the recording and a continuous wave recording with all its warts, is still a better source than a sampled wave recording.
With digital systems the challenge is to make something decent sounding out of a sampled and chopped up waveform that left a good portion of its information on the recording studio floor. Even if it recovers 100% of what it can get from the disc, it is not enough. A five minute comparison of a $6k TT vs a $6k CDP will tell you more about this fact than I could explain in a term paper.
The speakers are an important part of the system, just as all parts are important. I don't take this lightly. But I have done comparisons, and understand the factors involved, and even a modest speaker that you might call "unresolving" will still tell the tale. It might not give the 20Hz lows or even the 20kHz highs, but the musical presentation will be audible, and will reveal the better source.
I have never heard any speaker in any decent audio store that had any speaker that was so bad that it wouldn't show the quality of what was in front of it. And if there is such a speaker, why would anybody who owned it care at all about anything else in their system?
I get the feeling that you are being argumentative for argument's sake. Yes, I agree if you unplug the speaker, no sound will come out. If you have a speaker that makes any decent kind of sound, the front end will be easily discernable. |
You guys amaze me, some thing as obvious as the necessity for a superior source first gets lost on you!That is like saying the film you use in your camera is more important than the quality of the lens for christ sake.I don't know what to say Twl, I'm at a loss to explain man. |
Bruce, I'm still trying to give everyone a fair shake. Sometimes, I just can't get anywhere. At some point, I'll just give up. But, I'm still trying at this point.
I'm not saying people should have crappy speakers. I think they should have great speakers. But to realize the potential of those great speakers, you need a great source. I don't think that is such an outlandish idea. |
For all those people who think you start with a superior source.... I have one question.
How do you know you have a great source if you are running it through a jambox?
Crappy electronics will screw with the sources signal to such a degree that you have no real way of knowing what that source sounds like. Add crappy speakers on top of that, and it just emphasizes how bad the electronis are even more.
One may argue.... well you DEMO sources at an audio store first on good systems to hear what they sound like. This could be ideal... and this may even be a so-so route to go. BUT WHAT ARE YOU TO DO IF THEIR ARE NO GOOD AUDIO STORES IN YOUR AREA? And you are making the purchase online. How do you know if you have a good source when you get it or if it is crap (if all you have is a rack system to run it through)?
I will be the first to admit that the source's signal is ultimately what you want to hear from a musical system. But to be able to hear how good your source is, is going to take good speakers matched well to a good amp matched well to a good preamp matched to a good source.
Does anyone see how much trouble one can get into starting with the source of a system and moving component by component downstream from the source?
You start with source X. You think it is a good source.... But you really have no clue because you have been running it through your rack system which you are trying to replace.
You buy preamp Y to hook into your preamp ins because you read somewhere that this preamp was the best value for the $$$ and you got a great deal on it. Unfortunately this preamp does not have as much gain as your preamp in your rack system because you cannot get the kind of volume you want. You also bought preamp Y because your source has a high output and preamp Y is passive. The sound of your system improves a little, but do to lack of volume it is difficult to tell how it sounds.
You buy amp Z because you have read that it is an ideal match for preamp Y. It is very sensitive and very powerful and able to drive almost any home speaker in the world. You hook amp Z up to your rack speakers and all of a sudden your system sound is totally transformed. Yeah it is a lot cleaner... but you hear ever freakin fault that your speakers have. They appear to resonate (in the bass) when you play certain music and their trebble is giving your ear fits...
Now you have heard that you really must hear speakers first before you buy them.... So you make a trip to the Big City to visit all of the audio stores in town to select speakers. You walk into an audio store which carries many of the brands you are interested in (because you have done your homework and read every Stereophile and TAS issue for the last 10 years). The first pair of speaker you listen to totally 100% blow your mind. They are of the horn variety and are about 106db efficient. You want them and the sales guy asks what are your electronics? Being very helpful, the Salesman indicates your system would have problems with these hors speakers. He says that you have way too much gain and your amp was just way too sensative. Darn! Ok, so you listen to another spair of speakers this time planer speakers.... and whoa! These speakers sound really freakin good and only 84db or so sensative. However the salesman points out that although your amp is seemingly very powerful, you just would not have enough gain for these speakers with the preamp and the size of room you have you have. This is very bad because you like to listen to music lound... This day of speaker shopping is not going as you had planned. Next you listen to a box speaker, and you are impressed by the sound. Actually it sounds freakin amazing. And after to listening to several more speakers, you come back to these... One thing you forget to ask is what sort of electronics are driving them. It is tubes, but you have no idea about the manufacturer of the electroncs.
You get the speakers home... Hook them up to your system eagerly... AND the speakers do not sound 1/10th as good as they sounded in the store you went to. HOWEVER, your system does sound a lot better than your rack system and it took you about 2 YEARS FROM GETTING YOUR GREAT SOUNCE TO GET TO THIS POINT.
Basically, you are stuck speakers that you thought were pretty good at the store (with other speakers at the store sounding better to you). You have an amp that really does not match the speakers you got well. The amp can theoretically drive the speakers, but the speakers would be better suited for a little more refined amp than you have. YOu have a preamp that kinda matches your amp. And you have a source which you think is good.
Lets run this scenario the RIGHT way.
You want to upgrade your rack system and you have been told to start with speakers. You plan a big trip into the city to buy speakers. The speakers you really love are horns. You buy the horns and get them home. You hook them up, and they sound so-so (maybe even not-so-good). You have gain issues, but at least you can listen to music (although only at loud volumes). BUT YOU KNOW YOU CAN GET THESE HORN SPEAKERS TO SOUND AMAZING BECAUSE YOU HAVE HEARD THEM SOUND AMAZING BEFORE.
Several months later you take the plunge and buy 8wpc SET monoblocks. All of a sudded sound quality goes up 100 fold in your system. Your gain problem is resolved due to the low sensativity of the SET amps. all I can say is you are in HEAVEN with the sound. It still is not as good as the audio store sound, but it has been so long since you have listened to that sound, you really could not care less.
Six month later you buy a nice tube preamp that has been noted with going well with the 8wpc SET amps you have. Placing the preamp in your system, you CANNOT believe the differences preamplification makes in a system. Your mind is boggled, and the sound you are getting seems heavenly. All gain problems are gone, and you are in a high state of audio happiness.
Many months pass, and digital technology has progressed A LOT. Great digitital sound can be had for less than $3k, and you are ready to finally get a great source. You spend $3k on a CD player that has gotten all the rave reviews (and has an output that would go with your other components). YOu get the CDP and you are utterly blown away. It IS the final piece of the puzzle in your quest for sonic Nirvana!
Right up until a good friend of yours brings over some aftermarket ICs, PCs, and SCs............
Anyway, I will be the first to admit that it takes a great source to make a great system; however, if you want to enjoy your system as you are building it (the most), and if you want a well matched system after you have built it, ONE MUST SELECT THE SPEAKER THEY WANT FIRST.
And this is why SPEAKERS are more important than sources.
Nuff said.
KF |
|
Tok20000, I get what you're saying...but still say the source is the foundation of a great system, and without one you may have a great-sounding system, but it will fall way short of a system where one, or more of the other components are compromised. Your scenario only goes to reinforce that in my mind. It shows how all of the downstream components are far more interdependent upon one and other to sound their best, whereas the great source will remain a constant, and relys only upon the material (CD's/LP's etc.) you play on it (as well as your two good ears and the room, room treatments, electricity, achohol consumption, ambient temperature, and the phase of the moon, for all those who insist on pointing out details beyond the original question). The great source will remain a great source no matter what downstream components you put with it, and you can tailor the sound specifically to your tastes by altering those downstream components, especially, and yes then I would indeed START with the speakers. A great speaker will not necessarily remain sounding like a great speaker, and is very dependent upon the upstream components you match it with. I agree, it makes little sense to spend your budget way out of balance and buy a great megabuck source, only to play it through Fisher Price components. Balance and synergy are key here, as I'm sure you'd agree! If I take your scenario, and throw it out of balance the other way, and spend megabucks on some fabulous horns, as you suggested, that sound great at the dealer, but like crap on your high-school summer-job system....Well, then you could just as likely spend time and money mismatching and misunderstanding the potential of those horns, and maybe even find out that horns don't necessarily match up with all of your musical tastes, or to your room treatment, etc. You are locked in and your only option is to sell the horns for something else. But spend the same megabucks on a Wadia, or an Audio Aero, (simply examples and not a standard) and you will likely keep that component no matter what you end up with downstream. Yep, digital technology does change rapidly, but, at that level of performance, there is little out there that I'd imagine you wouldn't be happy with in 5-10 years time. Unless you are one of the hopelessly obsessed, in which case you will never be satisfied anyway, so enjoy what you've got if you can! With the best digital approaching, if not equaling analogue at this point (OK, that's a whole other thread which does not bear repeating) where else can you go in two channel? The most higlhly rated and raved about AudioNote DAC, which some hold to be a reference standard, is simply playing Redbook CD's and is outperforming all those oversampling "developments" that have been dominating the current market. Of course one could argue that the AudioNote is a "development" itself! Coincidently, per the Tok20000 example, I do happen to own and enjoy a similar system as you describe: Quicksilver 300B SET mono amps putting out 8wpc driving Klipsch LaScala horns. My source is certainly not state-of-the-art, but it sounds damn good, and when I did a direct comparison to much more expensive (and more contemporary) Wadia and Cary units, the differences were not siginificant, nor impressive enough to warrant the huge price difference (IMHO). I use a Muse Model 5 transport and Model 2+ DAC with a Muse proprietary L2S connection between them...decent units, but old news in todays market. Still they hold their own against current offerenings, and even with analogue I'd say. Now I could use that same Muse source/DAC in virtually any system and be assured that it was moving all the information I wanted it to to the downstream components. Synergy with a source is seldom a problem (though it can happen, I'm sure). If I didn't like the sound I would much more likely look at one or more of the downstream components than I would the source. But take those LaScala's and put them with a megabuck, megawatt SS amp and it may likely be a waste of some good horns and a good amp to no good ends (again, IMHO, and YMMV).
Perhaps what is breaking apart this thread into two predominent camps is that there are two questions being asked here. I'm not sure here, but perhaps more would agree on this scenario:
1. What is the most important part of a good two channel system?
Answer: The Source
2. Or what has the biggest impact on overall sound?
Answer: The speakers.
That is, if "overall sound" is to be taken to mean the way the kind of overall sound the system produces (for example Euphonic vs Analytical).
Does that all make any sense, or am I beating a dead horse at this point?! Giddyup!!! |
No Twl my friend, don't give up. You know you are right. Keep walking. Walk till the end and then turn back to tell us. Screw you. ;-) |
My horse has probably long been dead....
I will wholeheartedly agree that EVERY item in the chain from the alternating current to the speakers is very important in the sonics of any given music system. In some ways, ALL OF THE COMPONENTS ARE EQUAL. They are all equal in the sense if you are missing any one area of component, you get NO sound at all. No power cords, no sound... No source, no sound... No preamplification, no sound (or you get just BLASTING sound.... and I consider CDP's with volume controls as HAVING preamplification built into them).
So in a sense at the MINIMUM extreme, all of these components are equal.
Now when dealing with World Class music systems, I would argue that all of the components are also equal at this MAXIMUM extreme. In these systems you hear every weak link. This may sound like Voodoo, but in World Class Music systems, AC, Power Cords, ICs, Speaker cables make HUGE differences. Same with preamps, amps, and sources. Having a weak link in a world class musical system can detroy the sound compared what it would sound like without the weak link. If you do not think I can get a world class source to dramatically change in sound quality with the change of a power cord, you have not done enough experimentation with power cords in a world class system with a world class digital source. You have to hear the effect to beleive it.
So in a sense, at the MAXIMUM extreme of hi-end components all of the components in a musical system are equal.
What we are dealing with is somewhere between the MINIMUM extreme and MAXIMUM extreme. In this area we are dealing with degrees of GREY exist.
In my last post, I was dealing with the most apparent example that could show that speakers are what one should build a system around. One does not build a system around a source per se... because most sources will at least match most amps and speakers. Most of the trouble with sources is matching them with the right preamp.
In any given system, a source or speakers or whateve can be one of the most critical components for the high sound quality. This is what most of us have... pretty good systems, and we are not starting from scratch. So in our systems it is really a judgement call as to what component is most important or plays the biggest role.
On a side note, I firmly beleive that PREAMPLIFICATION determines much of a systems end sonic signature. Does this mean I think the preamp is most important? NO. But I would argue that most systems have their sound screwed up by their preamplification. Too many folks do not really see the value of having a world class preamp. In a lot of ways the preamp is MORE important than the source. Why? Because the preamp controls what signal ultimately gets to your speakers. Combine a world class source with a crappy preamp and you will get crappy sound. Combine an average source with a world class preamp, and you will get much better sound than combineing a world class source with a crappy preamp.
Anyway, because Sources are not nearly as system dependant as speakers or amps or preamps, I cannot rate them as being the most important part in a system.
However, anyone who says that sources impact a system sonically more than any other component (thus are more important), have not done much experiementation with preamplification. Because with a low quality preamp ANY SOURCE is going to sound bad (no matter what AMP or Speakers you have).
I think I have buried my horse.
KF |
Screw it, get a Bose Wave Radio and let the mind take over and enjoy the music. Maybe that's the only way only one component can get us anywhere near where we want to be.
Wow, there are a lot of perspectives here and it seems most are correct given their underlying assumptions. Twl, if the rest of the system is decent, I believe the front end makes a huge difference. If any one part is insanely bad (per your point KF), surely nothing else matters but replacing that part. Great speakers can make a very good system sound better (and, by the way, speakers are a good place to start if you hate buying and selling heavy and bulky things and/or if you are aiming for a specific "sound" that is characterized by a specific speaker). For me, the most important part is the one I want to upgrade next. In other words, so much depends on the system already in place. To paraphrase, if the a**hole works and the brain works and the heart is in trouble, the heart is the most important. |
WOW. I just got back from CES in Las Vegas. I had a National Sales Meeting, that is why I got home on Wednesday. The show was over on Sunday. I knew this was a good thread. 91 posts.
Anyway after taking the time to read the replies I think JAX2 is right. Also he actually read my initial post and saw that I asked what was the most important part, and what had the most impact on the system.
Steve |
The initial question or questions are somewhat ambiguous for me. Not because the question marks are missing, but you can take the first two sentences two ways.
1."What....is most important..."
2. "OR what has the biggest impact...."
"OR" can mean "instead of" or "more specifically".
3.Further down seems to clarify the previous questions, "....JUST what do you feel is most important.(?)" indicates the question may be looking for a single component.
4."...but keep it to one part..." seems unambiguous.
Sometimes the intended meaning of a post is misunderstood for any number of reasons in this type of forum and it's often because the post is not read thoroughly. Even that does not guarantee you will understand the intent of the original post. |
1) Room. Speaker placement within the room and room treatment will have the biggest impact on sonics.
2) Amp-speaker interface. Matching the right amp with the right speaker is more important than just buying a great amp and a great speaker.
3) Speaker. Spend alot of your money here.
4) Front end. This used to be higher up on the list but I believe digital has plateaued in terms of improvements.
5) Don't forget power conditioning. It makes a big difference. |
I do not draw a distinction between the most important component and the component that makes the most impact on system sound. To me they are one in the same.
KF |
Ozfly my friend. Ego = Heart. I knew, I was not wrong. Cheer! |
Jeez guys, didn't anyone read my first post above. You are both right and are both wrong - that's why everything each one of you says is true sounds true enough. What is most important changes with context, namely, system sophistication in terms of accuracy and musical involvement and the sophistaication of listener.
Here's something interesting that may also be effecting your debate, namely, which type of rendition you favor. People who put together accurate-weighted systems can get away with a source that is less musical and tend to favor speakers as the dominating lens in the system. Moreover, although most beginners (assuming a beginner listening mind and pocket book) should look at speakers first - for the reasons I cited above - and people who are interested in accurate-weighted systems tend to stay with that perspective even as the accuracy of their system increases. On the other hand, someone who eventually ends up valuing a system that is "musical" as a factor that overrides considerations of surface accuracy will tend, as his mind becomes more able to experience the music deeply and discern the spatial/harmonic properties of sound that catalyze that progression, will begin moving away from a speaker-is-most-important viewpoint. This person, in a system that is optimized to produce this effect, will find that the source is critical in the final system. That said, he/she will also find that IC's, PC's, room, and, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, their integration is tantamount (synergy).
If your orientation towards synergy is weighted towards accuracy, then you will most likely stay with speakers as your main way to increase that quality - because speakers like Dunlavy's et al mated with SS electronics and a digital source gives you that - it is a quantitative progression and this grouping of components serves that purpose. If your synergy is towards transcending a bias towards accuracy in favor of musicality, while still maintaining accurate sound, then you tend to branch out towards other components BECAUSE your synaergy requires it. The former is a quantitative approach that focuses on pieces of a system as seperate pieces, staying with the piece that was most important in the beginning and that still is the piece that accentuates accuracy; the later is a qualitative approach that is integrative, focusing, by necessity, on other components and their integral relationship.
Its like two flyers in two airplanes at different altitudes. The one flying lower sees a coastline that is jagged. Higher, the other flyer sees a staighter line of the coast. Both lines are different but they are the same coast. The problem arises when each tries to say that their view is the only truth. The one lower we can understand why he would think so because he has not been higher. But the one higher knows the lower too and, so, should understand why the lower flyer would think the way he does, and should know that that knowledge is altitude specific and that he can keep taliking tuntil he's blue in the face and it won't matter.
You're blowing in the wind twl. You should know better...
People stand on islands in the river arguing about what branch is the truest river. |
TWL, I know that you have given up, but all you have explained to me was that since there are such large differences in vinyl sources, it is obvious even over poor speakers. If I am trying to spot more subtle differences that are hidden by the speakers lack of resolution, how can I not say that the speakers are the most important component.
I am disappointed that you brought up the old arguement of sampling cannot represent the whole, and then admit that even the analogous signal does not contain the whole. So you are really talking of sample size, where analogue has a sample size of 90% of the whole and, statistically, digital's sample size is 98% of the whole, 98% of the time.
Salut, Bob P.
PS. I tried your suggestion to disconnect the spring on my Rega 300 and set the tracking force by weight imbalance and it did reduce the noise floor on my BPS (there was a very low level resonance noise, detectable mostly on thin vinyl discs. Thank you. |
Twl my friend, desire-without-desire, keep going/jumping/blowing... Free yourself. :-) |
Anyone: At what junction would you place your best interconnect? If you had only one superior pair of interconnects and one serviceable pair of interconnects on hand, and you had to choose to place them between your front-end and the pre-amp or between the pre-amp and the power-amp(s), where would you deploy them?
The way you answer that question might help guide one's priority of audio gear importance.
Try the experiment to find out what happens.
I recently had to figure this interconnect deployment issue out. My system had vastly improved performance when I placed the better interconnect between the front-end and the pre-amp; only marginally better (than my usual ICs) when placed between the pre-amp and the power-amps. In fact, some performance characteristics were worse when the better ICs were in used between the pre- and power-amps (and the serviceable pair had to go after the front-end).
I believe this experience was instructive in the source vs. speaker debate. Try it. |
