What in your opinion is the most important part of a good 2 channel system. Or what has the biggest impact on overall sound. For example if you feel Speakers are most important, or Preamp, Amp, Source. I am not looking for a ss vs. tube debate, just what do you feel is most important.
I will start: I feel speakers are the most important part. I know lots of you are going to say electronics, but keep it to one part, like Preamp, Amp, etc. Steve
- The dog (being) has soul (no mind); therefore, it dares (desire without desire) to jump into the water, run through the fire, to save it friend (owner).
- The dog (being) has soul and mind (thinks that the mind is the soul => consfused) that's why it hates the postman. :-)
Damn, pbb, you've become a dry hole...and, thereby, have made me one (!) (fade in: rousing shouts from the gallery!!).
So, if you are not a Tarpon, and dogs have souls, and the orientation of the mind creates the mind that then listens to the next note, hearing the Silence a bit more between the notes, then what "are" you then?
Hmmm.
Hello Muralman! Goodbye 6ch and twl, til meet you fishing next time!
BTW, we have notes and what's between notes, or sound and silence. But, what comes first? Is it an irrelvant question in the context of how we build our stereos, and to what is the most "important" component?
I don't think so, and here is why in the context of what component is most "important" at any given point on the curve of learning to listen better. It isn't sound-then-silence, like flipping from one to the next, because, even using the causality laws of physics, one must precede the other; and, thereby, be the causal ground of the other. It is: notes ARISE out of silence.
So, if silence is prior to sound, don't you think its "important" - as in, determitively important in the first instance, the first causal instance - that silence, or dimension, be a priority of a component?
And, lo and behold, isn't it the feeling of dimension/space/continuity that is the Grail of the best stereos? Maybe one could then counter by saying that the sound is equally important as silence, and that's true, but in the best systems, isn't it the act of INFUSING the harmonic, as its ground, deeper and deeper, which makes it "better"?
twl, when you get a "better" TT and harmonics become "better" within the core projection of voice, isn't it 1) the continuity of the projection through space getting better, and 2) the harmonic progressively infused with a ground of air/space/dimension that has improved to the most appreciable degree, even within the projection itself, and therefore, becomes most "important"?
My suggestion is Audigon should develope a poll for these types of questions if you want some kind of general concensus. But then again, where's the fun in that.
Oooohh! Asa, that was a Hula-popper with a treble hook! You're bound to attract a lot of "objectivist" fish with that one. They have minds like a steel trap - clamped shut!
Pbb, your premise is that "challenge to manufacturer" - as in, design sophistication at the construction level - determines "importance" of component in sound. Again, this is your scientific materialist bias once more on display (and feigning higher maturity with Stevem because of it, i.e. translating your ideology into ego inflation, which is what, not coincidentally, scientific materialism IS because it is motivated by a attachment to power over matter).
In such an attachment, the mind believes that the manipulation of the thing of matter, in this case the construction of a stereo component, is the most "important" determinant of the "quality" of sound produced by that technology. In other words, complexity of construction of technology determines "quality" of output. Again, this is an attachment to the "complexity" - so percieved (see below) - of technology, because the scientific materialist mind is attached to his technologic tools (which are the means of his/her greater power over matter).
This position, yours, in its logical extension - and, you are only using logic, and its all that you believe exists for deriving truth - dictates the worn-out premise, now widely discarded, that a person can look at a circuit and tell what sound comes out. Or - and here's the important part - how that output will effect the mind of the listener in terms of receptivity to the musical message.
Now, back to your "sophistication" premise itself. This, again, is a bias towards complexity of construction in the technologic tool, then transposing that bias into the meaning, "sophisticated" (because, I mean, pbb, you MUST be correct if you are more sophisticated in your arrangement of matter, right?). But let's take a closer look at your premise, which is: more parts, preferably moving parts so we can really see how "complex" the techno-thing is, means something is more sophisticated. In other words, and regardless of the result of an experiment - namely, listening to the importance of a component on the sound and its effects on your mind - your premise dictates that a cable is less "important" because it is less complex by virtue of its assumed lower design sophistication. In other words, you attach determintive importance to technology (matter)at the expense of the result of the experiment. Your attachment dictates that the complexity of the technology determines effect, but regardless of the actual effect, you will ignore that effect if not in keeping with your bias!
Scientists who ignore the results of experiments in default to an attachment to their technology are not being, uh, very scientif-ic.
If a cable-thing, as material condiut, engenders in the mind of the listener an increased receptivity to musical meaning then, per se, it is more important. If a cable-thing engenders a new result, then regardless of how many moving parts you would like to juice your egoic lizard, it is more "sophisticated". The changed result, scientifically speaking, determines the next adaption in empiric method to achieve the next result, not the material technology-thing that was the conduit for the observation of that result. To believe otherwise, is per se an attachment to the material at the expense of the very premises of scientific method it prays allegiance to - and, at the expense of the Music.
Yes, pbb, I know what you like to hear and why you claim digital is superior (assumably without conducting a proper experiment on yorself, relying, unscientifically, on the material "sophistication" rather than a result that would challenge your bias...). You are a scientific materialist, as much a zeolot for that ideology as any other fundamentalist: you see the world as material, through that prism, and, hence you compare objects for your results from matter. You look out at sound as a thing to be objectified; you seek "accuracy" and "detail" so as to further carve boundaries around the sound projection, to make it easier to percieve as if an object. Space as an integral vessel for the sound projection is relegated to a void, because you are focused on the sound-thing and not the space. You create a soundscape that is populated by a near visual experience of sound-objects of heightened detail boundaries, even more in relief from your void background of space, because the visual senses are object-oriented. You choose digital because, as a newer technological thing, you believe it is more "sophisticated", but below that, you choose it because it makes it easier for you to see the sound object. Any transition boundary not delineated is called "euphonic", etc., etc.
pbb, argue for your limitaions and, sure enough, they are yours. You are the man on the ground saying the Earth is flat, needing to say it to stay with all of your things, and the power over things.
My only question for you: Do you believe that dogs have souls? And why?
Stevem 1960, nice to hear someone with a sense of perspective on things audio. I have no idea of your age, but that may very well be a factor in your views. The source first notion, while appearing logical, is flawed in that it is based on the premise that all the links in the audio chain offer the same challenge to the designer and manufacturer. That's how you get audiophiles to accept that cables are as important as sources, preamps, amps or speakers. Once you put each link on the same footing, swallowing the source first notion is a direct consequence. Could you help me out here? A comment on the archival superiority of digital I made in another thread elicited the response that someone should buy me a pony. What does that expression mean, aside from the fact that my not consistently coming down on the side of analog in the GREAT DEBATE relegates me to the ranks of a tin-eared mid-fier (or worse)? Regards.
Keeping the dogs at bay (I'm a cat lover), and getting back on topic.
SPEAKERS are obviously the most important link in the chain!! For the reason given by others above that they are the most prone to aspects of distortion. All modern electronic equipment after a $1000 price point are generally competent and good at controlling distortion figures, but the accuracy of speakers varies greatly - regardless of price.
Speakers have the greatest 'physical' impact on the sound produced in your house. THEY PHYSICALLY SHIFT AIR AND THEREFORE REACT TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ROOM. All speakers interact differently with different rooms, so the opportunity for error (ie, bad sound) is much greater.
A loudspeaker's response and interaction with a room (and positioning) is one of the biggest arbiters in determining good/bad sound overall. When was the last time you chose a Preamp, Power Amp, a CDP, a DVDP, a DAC or a hi-end turntable because it did or didn't suit your room ?? Not very often I imagine...
While on the subject of turntables, and to give you an historical perspective on this topic. Who do you think was one of the first people to hypothesise that the front end is the most important component? It was none other than Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn Sondek turntable fame, in the early 1970's. Naturally, being a purveyor (seller) of hi-end turntables - he would say this, wouldn't he? The hi-fi press at the time bought this fable and we've had to live with it for the last 30yrs or more. Ivor has a lot to answer for, considering also that his bouncy turntable set-up is not the most accurate transducer either!
Very nice photos, Marco. I have a 135 pound male Rottweiler named Magnum. He just turned 2 years old, and was born on my 46th birthday. My previous Rottweiler was named Thunder and he died at 6 years old from cancer. He was as good as they get. I like the "big dogs" like you do. My dog is scary as hell to look at, but he's just a big baby to me. He wears a 30 inch collar!
My old next door neighbor(who moved away now) was a Pit Bull breeder, and had 37 of them next door. Blues, Red Noses, Brindles, Black and White, all kinds. He had this awesome Red Nose named Chief that was 105 pounds of solid muscle. A perfect traditional Southern Red Nose with a head like a concrete block. A very awesomely beautiful dog.
You guys are getting me crying again! Thank you all for caring for a relative stranger. Twl we are blessed with a second wonderful angel of a dog who was Jax' companion for the past three years. His name is Diesel (appropriate for a 115 lb Bullmastiff). He misses Jax as much as we do and I think keeps wondering when she's going to show up again. Perhaps in the future we may consider yet another to be Diesel's companion. You are right though, there was only one 'Jax' and no other like her. Pardon the digression to a subject far from the topic of the post as well as from stereo gear in general. Those who share my love for dogs can get a few smiles from some pics I've done of Jax on a friends website here She made a whole lot of people smile in her lifetime. Thank you for the latitude and bandwidth to share her with all of you.
Marco, I've been through that recently also. Very sorry to hear that it has happened to you. I thought that I couldn't get another dog, after that happened. But after 3 months, I couldn't live without one, either. I finally got another one, and it made all the difference in the world. You can't replace them, but you can love another one. When you feel like you can, then give it a try.
Thank you for your kind words William & Mark. Rest assured Mark, that through the darkness I can also see how bright her light was. The light lingers even in her absence. I do celebrate her light as well as well as mourn the loss of her companionship. Were I lost in the darkness you would not be reading these words here at all.
You are surely right Mark, they do indeed have souls.
Marco, truly sorry for your loss. Yes, they have souls...
When they pass, that is when we confront the unknown, or what we percieve as Darkness. I understand. But ask, when the "I" defines inside and outside as Darkness, as a postmodern "no exit", what "me" is created?
Trolling, trolling, over the bounding sea! I like the little smiley guys just as much as the next guy Mark. L. Frank Baum was the author of the Wizard of Oz and that series of books. It ain't da big bad words that scare me. "Big" ideas? Huh?! "I think, therefore I.......must ascribe meaning and categorize every last quark, and every subtle nuance in the guise of some fabricated concept of "perfection" that is patently absurd?! You are an "artist" and therefore shall be worthy of more reverence and esteem than the next man who doesn't take life quite as seriously, or address their interests with such a degree of passion and or obsession as to shut off the rest of the world and discount other limitless possibillities. Yes, the coastline can be seen as both a complex and jagged line, AND a straight and smooth line, while out in space it's all just an insignificant spec of infintesmally unimportant dust... as are we. Now I'm getting into some Kafka and Heinrich Boll! The coastline can also be seen as a pipe wrench, a tree, or anything else you care to come up with,.... or not. Yes, I am frowning Marco right now Mark, I am crying, I am not happy right now. My dog Jax, my best friend of 13 years just died on Monday night. That kind of loss really puts all this B.S. into a whole different perspective. No offence intended, but it's really meaningless at face value. We make our own meaning and if you care to complicate it ad-infinitum, have at it.
The Beatles, and countless other prophets, poets, artists, writers, gurus, as well as many other ordinary people (as are all of the previous list as well), they all have said it in so many different ways and in every conceivable language, and it is oh so simple: Love is all you need. And I think it was Steve Martin (as, "The Jerk") who may have added, ".....and this chair, that's all I need is this chair.....oh, and this paddle game,...and this..."
Oh uncle and Marco, don't be spoiled sports. What are you afraid of? Big words, big idea? What makes it look big to you?
Yes, switching to that Rapala floater was a good move...
6ch: yes, of course. Before man = deeper face. Also, though, "level face" = face: Form not different from form-less; form-less not separate from form. I know, as soon as I open my mouth and spat out "level" you/it/Tao hits me with a bamboo! :0) (and another :0) for now frowning Marco who doesn't like symbol ":0)")
But, "level" "flag" "grain" are the floaters...
On stereo, yes, pragmatist, you are right. It is how you make a sauce that determines how it tastes.
Putting together a streeo is an art, which is why I like talking to all of you stereo-artists - some even stereo artist-teachers like twl, and in a different way 6ch. And even those of you who are in the closet about your "art" because it doesn't sound "scientific" enough (to the mirror), or has big words (like big macs and big fins...)
LOL Unclejeff! Yes, I guess L. Frank Baum just doesn't pass muster here on Audiogon.... I should have been quoting Heidegger, Neitsche, or perhaps Sun-Tzu!
For me,the most important considerations are the compatability of the components and the system's fit in the listening room. You could take expensive pieces,mismatch them,have them too large or too small for the room and end up with an expensive mess. You could take value priced pieces,match them properly,attend to their compatability with the room and end up with a good result.
That was very nice 6chac; I liked the bridge one. Is the flag waving or our minds? Maybe both, or neither, all at the same time, but since no "time" only NOW, but since no not-NOW, not NOW either..."The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections, the water has no mind to receive their images."
You know, the hell with all this Zen crap!!! (in the best Judeo-Christian sense of the word...), I'm going with the AMP too! Big Macs, Big fins on cars, more food, more stuff, fill me up, up, up! fill up the space bewteen the singer with her BIG sound, fill it up, up, up, fill up the No-thing-ness that is only Nothingness to me, fill up the bridge/not-bridge paradox, fill it! fill it!...then, finally, I'll be safe and happy with my BIG sound. :0)
Speakers-NO Source-NO the real winner is.............. the amp. Speakers are the personal choice made in a system that not only reflects the sound you like, but also the style you want sitting in your room. The source is only as good as the media put in it. Tell me you can't hear the differences in CDs or records. After you have the personal "taste" in speakers chosen and an array of hopefully top quality sounding media, the amp is the one thing left that can take you other items and bring them to life in a soft-or-small way to a POWERFUL-AND-BIG way. For some, it is the warm and soothing sound of tubes, to others it is the all powerful control of 1000w that grip the speakers and makes them sing like a mad wife with her hands around your balls! The same speaker when chosen can live with both of these areas of enjoyment. AMP AMP AMP
Asa, so true man cannot see people on the ground from orbit. In absolute term, if the man was never on the ground to start with (no preferences/no experiences => no attachments). Therefore, what he sees up there, is (whatever...).He got nothing to compare with nor opposite to nor parallel to (non-dual)... (lucky man!).
How do you catch the wind? Build the windmill! (from nothing to something, or walk out the house)
Say, I catch the wind, today! You got me there :-)
Hmm, water flows under the bridge, or the bridge flows over the water? Or is it all in our minds?
Marco: I know what you are saying. What I am talking about, levels, is not as strict as the structure of this limited dialogue allows. Yes, some are more open from the beginning, and a person like twl, a sales person/teacher, can catalyze growth/opening in that person. But it is the will of the person that is catalyzed, and that will must be orientated to begin with before twl can catalyze it. To assuage, know that all possess the same potential towards receptivity, but many more than not, in the beginning stages, buy Bose; its not just a matter of exposure. As for this venue, SS or not, I consider most here capable of a high degree of receptivity. Which, of course, is why we all have ended up here...and why the high end is so small, relatively speaking.
twl, I think you misunderstood my airplane metaphor, in that you logically extended it past my application in metaphor (you extend a metaphor on thought into matter, an extension that is materialist). Literally, of course, man can not see people on the ground from orbit, but what I was trying to illustrate, via metaphor, was the state-specific nature of knowledge. Applied to you and stereo, we would say that you can hear a SS system running digital and its partiality, but a SS-focused mind will not hear the "musicality" of your system, or of analog, etc. This accounts, of course, for the many encounters between strict digital adherents who claim musical-ity equivelance and those analog adherents who claim something more exists; the former claims "more" as mistaken euphonics, or regressive romanticism, denying other "levels" exist, and the later claims an experience not translatable by words. Hence, your prior posts finding yourself in such positions; your knowledge is state-specific.
On exclusivity, in general: as a teaching device, I'm not sure that was your intent. You are correct that each can grow from the other, but I'm not sure your original orientation was to use exclusivity to engender communion. Again, the orientation of the will determines whether any given position is teach-ing. For instance, Buddhism is a "negative" teaching in that it seeks to show you what is by showing you what the "is" is not.
On physics, lots of fun, but not enough, er, space here to do it justice. I would say, however, that while you speak of quantum level phenomenon, your approach in doing so is still Newtonian. Both "wave" and "particle" are inappropriate words for a quantum state where they are neither; our formal operational cognitition is object-based, and hence our language, so we need to use words that conote an object to describe a phenomenon - especially a scientific one, since science is objected-attached - but that doesn't mean that that contrivance is true in experience. Is a quantum string really a string-thing? What is observed at the quantum level is the arising of Light-energy from the Infinite/Nothing/Emptiness, into quantum energy into energy into matter. The various symmetries cause what are called category errors, which means that systems or consepts used to describe one level may be insuffcient to describe the other; as with quantum mechanics versus Newtonian based systems of explanation.
On probability/Heisenberg/Schrodinger et al, this is another materialist assumption at work; namely, that because I don't observe it, or can't, it doesn't exist, or its only a probability event. As I said in my quote of Elizabeth Bowen - "the mystery is your eye" - the device of observation is the mystery (the mind's orientation changes what is seen), but because when we look it appears like a wave, or then a particle, doesn't mean it was that, or either. As Forest Gump said, "...maybe its both. Maybe both is happenin' at the same time." And even before you looked...The paradox arises at the boundary of Light arising into quantum wave/particle because this is the limit of material observation (or observation through mathematical approximation, which is what mechanics are).
On Infinite All:, "All" is not defined by a vector, since it includes all vectors. And, teaching not only happens by knowledge bits, but can also happen (be catalyzed) by simply being-to-being proximity. This movement of "learning" is not limited to one vector, or one step in one direction, because the movement moves out like the ripples from a pebble in a pond; awareness expanding inwards/outwards as one movement towards apprehension/immersion in Infinity. To do this, however, one must let go of the attachment of vectors/finite/materialist. Vector paths that use knowledge accumulation or structuring to derive truth from the "what is" give us many truths and their commensurate material powers, but their are other powers/potentials of the mind/being that are found beyond those. Beyond those, wave is not wave, particle is not particle, and yet, still is/are.
In stereo, if a turntable catalyzes receptivity ("learning" without thought), then good; if SS, then good; if speaker, then good. Good at all "levels", but to go deeper in receptivity, the curve of learning, one must let go of the thought, "Which vector?"
In this regard, everyone's potential is Infinite. What could be more radically egalitarian?
Hello Twl, Well said about the airplanes... The guys on the airplanes; both of them illudes about the coastline; it's neither straight lines nor jagged lines. The guy on the ground see the coastline, down to a single piece of dust/sand/air. It's nowhere near lines, neither the word "lines" exist. A "direct transmission" quality I should add.
... Coastline... Twl, so what do you see?
Koan is for penetrating (understood), NOT for thinking... to find the answer. Sean, where are you?
Asa - Your theory as to one's refined/educated tastes being the root of the 'Source' preference don't hold water when held up against one of TWL's original posts on this thread. In that post he mentioned how, as a former salesman in the industry, he would initiate new consumers by demonstrating the same principal to them in real life terms. In that case even the uninitiated were able to discriminate what made the bigger difference and clearly were able to state their preferences (for the source). I had at least one dealer, whom I purchased my first turntable from, do the same demonstration with different gear and the results were the same to my ears: I'd rather put my money behind a good source before investing more in the speakers. Yes, balance is important, but I'm speaking for the sake of the discusstion, which is to point to one component over another. I also had an Audiophile friend with three different systems do a very similar demonstration at home, which turned out to be a demonstration of the same principal, where all listening preferred keeping the source as good as possible.
Asa, as always, you pose some most difficult questions, and I have come to expect this.
I once had a calculus teacher that always gave problems on the test, that included material we hadn't been taught. Everyone failed the tests, but he then graded it on a curve, judging by our abilities to use our previously learned information to approach the problems. Nobody got the answers correct, but he was evaluating our insight into the problems, not looking for the answer. In some ways, I find your approach to be similar. It is always interesting.
Regarding your question about "exclusivity as an originating oriention", that is an interesting question, isn't it? Can we be exlusive, or must we be all inclusive, and are they, in fact, the same? I would, of course, say that they are the same, but at different degrees of focus. To relate to your airplane analogy above, the man on the ground is not even seen by the man in the plane,and the ground appears to be almost stationary to the man in the plane. The man on the ground sees the airplane as moving very slow. In both cases, the actual relative speeds are the much higher, but the points-of-view make things appear different. So this is a case of relative point of view, is it not?
And as we know from quantum physics, the relationship of the observer is a factor in the evidential manifestation of the event. Much like Von Schroedinger's cat. Is it still alive in the box, or dead? The current school of thought is, that it exists merely as a probability wave until the observation is made, at which time there is a manifestation of a single point on the probability wave(for that given relative point of view).
As such, we may look at this phenomenon as a continuum, with events manifesting as observation points, or we may look at it as observation points occurring out of a continuum. Like the particle and wave theories. When we view a particle, we know little of its wave behavior. When we view a wave, we know little of its particle behavior.
It's point of view.
So, now that I have prefaced this with some background for my statements, I do say that exclusivity can be taught as an originating orientation, and still not be ignorant of the inclusivity of the overall context.
To put an eastern philosophical slant on this, one cannot take a step without putting his foot down somewhere. While it can be known that all ways are possible, one way must be chosen in order to move from your spot. One hand clapping is a koan, but two hands clapping is an event. The first is an example of the wave, and the second is an example of an observable event. They are not mutually exclusive, but exist in different ways. The all, and the one. The "all" is inclusive, and the "one" is exclusive. Are they apart? Are they separate? No, they are not, but they are used in different ways.
To go back to science for a minute, movement is defined on a vector. When movement is desired(taking a step), it is possible to take a step an all directions, but only one at a time. When the one step is taken, the direction is an event. That is exclusive. Prior to the step, all directions were possible. That is inclusive. The same, yet different.
Now, for teaching to take place, there must be a defined vector, because without it, there is only "all". "All" can also be defined as "nothing" because the probability wave of "all" is continuous until an event is defined along that wave somewhere. When a student needs to move(on a vector) from his current state, to another state(higher learning), a step must be made, thus defining the direction of the vector. His teacher evaluates the direction of the vector, to show him whether his step was closer or further from the teacher's instruction. So, there is a constant interaction of inclusivity(all), and exclusivity(one) in the learning process. The consecutive steps toward the desired goal along a particular vector can be called learning. It is a process of selecting certain points(events) from the changing probability waves(contiunuum), to effect the desired result.
So I do say that exclusivity as an orientation, is consistent with the teaching approach, inasmuch as the exclusivity is an inherent part of the inclusivity that it is "plucked" from. The consecutive selections of these events from the continuum, that can be called the "learning process" is actually forming a wave of its own, with events selected from other waves, and is only possible by a sentient being,that is capable of effecting his own changes on the ultimate continuum of existence/non-existence.
Whoever speaks that speaker has the most complicated load curve complexity I dare to place a microphone next to speaker. The turntable cartridge follows right-after. CD-players are linear and by default have realy no such complexity as cartridge, microphone or speaker.
twl, yes, we are talking about bottlnecks. I think your position, "source is more importaant" holds more water, so to speak, when couched in the top-to-bottom context, i.e. logically, how can anything be important downstream if there is not sufficient water going downstream? Yes, this is a valid argument, and it is the case in many mid-level systems (this assuming that sources in beginning systems are relegated out of necessity, along with all others in that chain, to the point that strict positions on this issue are reasonably untenable), and it may sound true logically, but it may not hold true, experiencially, in higher level systems - as an argument that is.
And this gets back to my point - that no one here seems willing to address - that as the curve of learning increases, what is most "important" changes as a general rule. Here, twl, I'll prove it to you:
At the similar risk of ruining my chances for a career in the diplomatic corp., :0), the reason you cited analog/digital dichotomies, is the same reason that supports this position; namely, an analog system, and yes gentlemen even at the highest reaches, is superior objectively in harmonic depth and spatial continuity and superior subjectively in terms of increasing the mind's receptivity to the message ("Musicality") when compared to a digital system. In analog systems at the highest present reaches, harmonic and spatial nuance become most "important" because they are the qualities left to strive for; the other components are now ready to tranalate those qualities that analog is capable. In a digital system, these final qualities are still screened at the source, and so an analog devotee - and let's face it, twl, that's where you are coming from, the context for your observations - will say that the source is most important. And, here's the important point, in your context, at your symmetry of observation, you are correct. But for the digital devotee, at his symmetry of observation he is correct; people who have all digital systems will hear a greater "importance" in speakers. And, in fact, in such level systems a speaker may very well be the most important component; because, since the digital source is not translating said qualities to analog's degree, the speaker is to be focused upon as the most "important" source of change (and you will note that this allegiance increases as system spatial/harmonic/musicality decreases, i.e. with all SS/digital systems, and on a decreasing scale towards beginner systems, which is why I said way back when that speakers are most important in beginner systems).
The problem you have, twl, and I surely respect your restraint and evident maturity and poise, is that you are not willing to say what you believe (!). We all are socialized, in our post-post modern world, towards an egalitarianism that, in its attempts at radically respect all others, engenders an assumption into everything it says; namely, an assumption through ommission. In this case, the failure to state expilicitly that hierarchies exist on this curve.
Simply put, twl, you think the source is most important because you are more advanced. And, no, I don't mean just with equipment, because their choices are simply a reflection of the mind that chose them (and for thos knee-jerk radical cultural relativists out there, this is mind related to musical receptivity, not awareness/compassion, although twl seems like a nice guy to me...). You are more advanced in your ability to be receptive to the musical message, and this reflects your choices of gear, its synergical makeup, and your position that the source is most important.
And the second problem for you is a second misplaced assumption; namely, that you can make your argument in the first place (assuming that you make it to persuade/teach - and don't tell me you are not a teacher, twl, I'll hit you ten times with a bamboo stick!). Why do/can I say this? Because knowledge is state-specific, meaning that the knowledge you have at your level can not be translated/transferred/tranmutated, :0), to lower levels; you understand lower levels, but they do not understand you, in logical/language terms. Its like a guy in a plane: at one altitude (one symmetry of observation) the coast appears crooked, but higher it becomes more strait. Both observations are correct at their given symmetries, but the higher has seen and knows both. It is not that one is wrong, one is right, but sliding symmetries of observation.
Twl, you can huff-and-puff all day about "source-more-important", and you are correct from where you are, but all lower levels of observation will hear argument through a prism that hears "lower level is wrong." And their defense from this orientation (and if you look back closely, you can see this is a defense, not an challenge to your position...) IS valid, from ITS symmetry of observation. That position is partial, and in their own exclusivity, they are mistaken, but I have a question for you: are you similarly mistaken in the exclusivity of your position?
How can you teach from exclusivity as an originating orientation?
You do not need to negate all levels below your own to perfect your own; that is the next level. That is how you can teach even more.
Bob- Twl's reference to digital IMO serves as an example only -- I used it in my post for, probably, the same reasons.
IMO, the goal we all have is to achieve balance between components' capabilities in a way that no component reveals annoying weaknesses in another...
In this respect, the changes that analogue upgrades/setting up bring about usually are (IME) more immediately perceptible downstream -- hence the use of this example. To the point where changes are subjectively perceived as being more & more subtle -- let's say that we have made improvements to the point where we reached the limits of the downstream system...
Ultimately, however, speakers are our "primary communication source" with the system, as you correctly point out. So, practically, we can only improve the system to the limits of what these speakers tell us (or don't)-- or, improve upon the speakers... Which MIGHT bring us back to the drawing board, looking for amps to drive said new and better speakers. Etc.
OTOH, I agree that many speakers manage mid-range reasonably well (Twl) and would add that, most speakers err considerably (as you note) when it comes to reproducing info on both extremes -- especially the upper highs. Sigh.
At this point, I've come to believe that the "most important part" is clearly system dependant. However, if I were to set up a system FROM SCRATCH, I would now look at the two ends of the chain first...
TWL, I agree with your statement about good arguements about held opinions to be helpful in gaining more knowledge. I suspect, however, that we are going to continue to disagree on this one - too bad that you had to bring up the digital vs analogue comparison, though. Still, I think that we are both striving to reproduce (or perhaps create) musical moments with our audio systems, but since we start from different premises, we use different means to achieve them.
Bob and Asa, I think I am getting a better handle on what we are really discussing here. I think(tell me if I'm wrong) that we are really discussing whether it is worse to have a signal degrading bottleneck somewhere in the system, as opposed to an information-limiting source item. Am I getting this right?
If so, I will try to address that point, as well as the other ones.
First, Bob, I really don't disagree that often times a speaker has the most difficulty being an accurate component. As I stated in my other post, I feel that all the components are vital to the system, otherwise the system wouldn't work at all. And if the speaker really does suck really bad, then even a great source won't help it. However, most speakers don't suck all that bad that they will mask an improvement in the source. Here is my point: Most speakers will do a relatively decent job at reproducing the majority of the sound. Maybe not great. But the higher priced speakers aim primarily at covering a wider bandwidth, to give true fullrange capability.If your definition of a better speaker means wider bandwidth, then I may agree that going to a true fullrange speaker from a limited bandwidth speaker will give more of a change than improving the source. Notice that I said "more of a change", and not "sounds better" or "more musical". This is an important distinction. I don't have crappy speakers, and I certainly understand the need for good ones. When you make the speakers better, more signal information will be passed, and they will make the system sound better. I have no problem with that at all. I simply make the statement that getting more signal information to the speakers will make them sound better too. But it will do it in a different way. The speakers, when fed a better signal, will respond with a better sound. Also, the signal, when going through a better set of speakers will respond with a better sound.
The question is, which is more important? And this comes back to the point I made at the top of this post. Is the degrading of the signal by the downstream components more critical than feeding the system with a better signal from the source. My answer is they are both important. If you have a real bottleneck anywhere in the system, you have a problem. From my personal experiences and tastes, I find that even lower priced speakers will easily convey the emotion of the music, when fed with a good source signal. They may not give as much detail, or frequency extension on either end, but they will allow the basic emotion of the music to be heard, unless they are flat-out horrible. This is because enough quality information is available to them from the upstream components, that the prime ingredient of the music gets through: the emotional content. When a poor source is used, then often, not always, the emotional content of the music is robbed of its life, and even the best and most expensive speaker cannot restore that, no matter how extended and detailed it is. And this is much more prevalent today than one might think.
So perhaps this is a "chicken and egg" thing, but I still contend that for a given normal system, that the source will provide more "musical" improvement than speakers will. I will grant that upgrading speakers will give more extension, possibly, and greater detail. I think alot of the 2 sides of this discussion relate to the types of source used. At the risk of bringing digital and analog into the discussion, most digital users are more in the speaker camp, and more analog users are in the source camp. This is because there is a greater "delta" in the sound of the source when analog is introduced into the scenario. Up to this point, digital has only progressed just so far. It is not even in the same galaxy with good analog. So for digital users, the differences in source don't seem so great. But when you hook up a turntable, then some shock starts to set in. I hate to bring that into the discussion, but it is unavoidable, and foolish to ignore it.
Asa, I agree, and I stated carefully, that electronics "at best" can pass the signal perfectly, and I did not intend that to mean that the "best" case is ever attainable. It was simply a reference to the best (im)possible scenario, and not the normal scenario. My wording was not intended to imply that the "best" case of perfect pass-through is attainable.
I also agree with your point that system synergy is very important and can be a very large factor in the overall presentation of the music. As are all of the other components, the room, the recording and everything included in the musical experience.
Again, I agree that this may not hold true to all system types and symmetries, especially regarding the case described above, regarding analog and digital sources.
So, at the expense of appearing stubborn in my position, which I probably am, I feel very certain that this position is correct, when all things are considered. I reiterate that the order of importance is the same order that the signal travels through the system, and each component will define what the next component in the chain is capable of delivering, in the "best case". The next component's job is to degrade the signal in the least possible way, and pass it to the next component. Since the source defines the quality of the signal entering the system, it provides the benchmark of what that system is ultimately capable of reproducing. From there on down the chain, there is only a string of degradation, and the job of the downstream components is to degrade it the least amount possible.
Notwithstanding this, I do agree that a horrible bottleneck somewhere down the chain, can destroy a large part of the signal that even a great source is feeding in. In this case, it is entirely possible that removing that offending component and replacing it with a better one can let more of the signal through, and make more of a difference than the source improvement.
Now we come to the quandary. Do we think that average downstream components will pass enough signal to reveal a better source, or do we think that great downstream components will make up for a lesser source? This is the "chicken and the egg". From my experience, the average components will reveal enough of a better source to make a more musical result, than a great speaker or amp passing more information from an inferior source.
I do appreciate both of your interesting comments and points of view, and it has made this a most enjoyable discussion. Bringing any opinion under strong scrutiny is always helpful to one's self-evaluation regarding said opinions.
twl: I agree with your parameters of discussion, here, this thread's context. Simply making a point, concisely as I knew how.
I disagree with you, however, and respectfully, that because electronics are a "pass" through, they somehow are fundamentally different in the context of the value, "important", and even given our parameters here. Your position relies on two assumptions: (1) that electronics only "pass" information, which itself rests upon the assumption that other components do not, and (2) that such "pass-ing" consitutes a perfect transmission from source, or rather, that it should.
First, the only thing "fallacious" is the assumption that any constituancy of matter, any component, can perfectly pass through "signal." While this may be an absolute to aspire to, it does not presently exist in the applications of physics, nor in the practice of construction of stereo gear, the later application dependant upon the limitations of the former. When superconductivity is invented, then we can have that conversation. But, until then, all matter that we rearrange into technology and that we then use as a conduit for energy, in its various forms, is effected by the transference of that medium's transference abilities. In other words, limited transference capability as a matter of course, or a matter of our present limitations of implementation, does not equal "tranmute."
All of our stereo components are insufficient energy transducers, or transmuters, or transferors, or whatever latest action verb we want to come up with to describe the same basic action. We pass signal through these created matrices of matter and that action defines its output. In this sense, all componenets are "euphonic" of actual sound moving through space, in the sense that their imperfect material deviation results in a similar deviation from the voices "accuracy", "musical-ity", etc.
The skill is then in constructing a mix of such deviations into a synergistic whole. And the the question then becomes, if a component is not presently by its nature subtractive towards perfect transfer, then do such "euphonic" deviations that do exist produce an experience that reflects, while not perfectly reproducing the sound absolute, the mind's experience of that absolute; can the whole exceed IN EXPERIENCE NOT MATERIAL THEORY the material limitation of its parts?
My answer is, yes. And I might add, apart from ideas - as in how you put your stereo together towards your eventual experience - my strong intuition is that you do too.
As for source being most important because it does not transfer, the same deviation arguments above apply to it also. As I said, from where you are at, yes, the source change produces the most change, but that does not hold true at all symmetries of system construction.
Yes TWL and it is always the speaker that degrades the signal the most in any system, so it is always the one that needs the most improvement. You talk of the source having to extract the information, but all is for naught when all that wonderful extraction capability (and addition in the case of vinyl playback) is lost in the degradation at the speaker step of reproduction. I don't understand how you can say that speakers have the largest influence on the sound but are not the most important element in the sound system simply because they cannot "correct" any problems (if they exist audibly anyway) in the source.
Gregm, I agree that in many cases, and possibly most cases, there is a single component that is degrading the signal more than the other components in the system. This is obviously the component that needs to be improved first. So from a practical standpoint, as you say, fixing the worst offender can yield a very nice sonic improvement.
From a logical viewpoint, there's no doubting the importance of the source, as Twl notes. In absolute terms, garbage in, more garbage out. \ From a PRACTICAL, "systemic" point of view, however, things *could* vary.
Practical as in, "which is the weakest performer in the(my) system?" OR "...in ANY system?" whereby "imporving THAT component will invariably make the MOST PERCEIVED difference"??? I think that MOST 'philes respond to the practical, everyday life, question rather than the absolute...
Possibly because information retrieval, such as it is, is at reasonable level in most of our systems. Note in this respect that in digital, most comments about a player talk about "nuances", musicality, etc, rarely about information per se.
My take is that in many cases our sources are equal if not superior to the task. In order to put these to their best use, we need outstanding components down the line, too.
Are we losing info, or "sonic qualities", along the way to our ears? I think so. If so, a pre-amp and a speaker *could* be doing the most damage...
In this respect, taking care of the pre *could* bring the system to another level, perhpas even surpassing the source, driving the speakers to their limits of resolution & musical qualities... Hence then, in THAT system, the MOST important "component" becomes the source (again) or the speaker, etc.
Bob, that is correct. The performers and recording venue are not part of the sound system. They are part of the recording process. While I definitely agree that these things are important to the overall result of the sound we hear, they are defined well before we ever get a chance to play them. Therefore, from our playback standpoint, our source is the recorded material, however good or bad it may be, and the unit that we play it on. From there the signal travels through the electronic equipment, and to the speakers. Once it leaves the speakers, it is in the acoustic realm again, and is not part of this discussion, as it was "speaker or source" that was the question asked.
Asa, to answer your question, yes there are neural synapse responses, electrical nerve impulses, muscular contractions, etc, in the creation of music. While this may constitute the absolute source of the music, as I responded to Bob above, it is not in the realm of the playback equipment to change that, other than to degrade it. Therefore, I still contend that the playback system consists of the source material and player, electronics, and speaker. I make no claim that these other things have no effect on the sound. I only claim that the reproduction system has a limited, defined scope as I described above. Things that have been recorded are beyond the source player's ability to change, except to degrade, and things that happen in the room and the listener's ear and brain are also beyond the speaker's ability to change. So again, I define the playback system as the parts between, and including, source player and speaker.
I would also like to mention that I disagree with the notion that is commonly promoted that the room is the most important part of the system. It is not. The room is simply the last item of influence on the sound before it reaches the ear. If the sound is not produced by the playback system correctly, the room has no ability to improve upon what has been played. However, if the room is good, then a well played-back recording will have a better chance of sounding the best that it can sound. This is the same idea that I espouse regarding the entire chain. Anything that is lost or degraded in a previous item in the chain, cannot be recovered or improved upon down the line. It can only cause additional loss or degradation. Carnegie Hall will not make a "close and play" sound good.
I state all these things in a context, because I do not mean to imply that speakers, or rooms, or amps are of little importance. They are vitally important. However, they are totally incapable of making up for any losses or degradation that happens to the signal prior to the signal arriving at their input jacks. At best, they can only perfectly pass the signal that they were given by the previous item in the chain. The only item that can actually bring more information into the system is the source equipment, because its job is to extract the information from the recorded media. The more information extracted, and the more accurately it is extracted, BY THE SOURCE PLAYER, is the only way that the system can actually improve the sound that the system puts out. The rest of the system components can only try to do their jobs of amplification and speaker output without corrupting the signal any further. The idea that a speaker can actually improve the signal is fallacious. All it can do is attempt to tranduce what it is fed, with minimum degradation. The entire argument around electronics and speakers improving the sound, is based upon the quality with which these items pass the signal to the next item in the chain. A good amp, or a good speaker will pass that signal with minimum loss and degradation, and therefore is a better component than one which does not do this. None of them improves the signal. They only pass it better. This is the key point. The word PASS. In contrast, a source component does more than just pass the signal. It extracts the signal from the media. When this process is improved, more musical information enters the system, and the system gets a better signal to work with. Then the rest of the chain can do its best to pass it well.
All components are important. But the source component is the only component that can bring more information into the signal. This is why it is the most important component in the playback system.
TWL, Then, again, following your line of thought, the performers being the ultimate source and the recording venue and devices used to record the event, are not the most important element in the sound system either. Kind of ruins the 'source is the most important element' theory doesn,t it?
Yea, I know, Marakanetz, soooo predictable. I'm like a long playing record (sorry, I've been looking for a way to work that in...). I say, bread on the water, but I'm the nibbling fish! You know, all in all, I'm glad the Venomous Ones are gone, but, like Marcos, I like the mixing up too!
I think that "OK this will be a good thread" anticipates active (read: divergent) viewpoints; overdelineation to "ONE COMPONENT" may be a bit of a projection on your behalf, Marco. But hey, if you want to be literal here, not there, just to have fun, then, please, have a good time on your off-manic phases, chemically induced or not...(I hereby insert smiley-face so you know, so you know, that I'm, well...)
As for my preference, I think, from a design point of view, that starting with the pre (an active, hard-wired tubed one) gives the best results (musical results) in the long term. I can not say that it is then the most important piece when the system is fully constructed, but using it as a fulcrum for moving up and down the chain makes it, IMHO, most "important," in that context.
There are many good speakers and it is a very personal choice (which is why some people respond that it is the most important, because it is the most personal), but there are not very many good pre's out there, again, IMHO. As for people who say turntable, when you've got everything else and are looking for that last 'lil bit of harmonic/spatial nuance, you can experience the greatest jump in performance in advanced systems at the front end, and particularly on analog-based systems. Which again, may explain that focus (and, hence, answer).
The god in me is one with the god in you. I bow as well and we are as one, in harmony with the great earth and sky. Oh yes, and I am indeed off topic, undermining my self-confessed, steam-venting post as it were. I do love the verbal jousting, and really do enjoy a personal take on any discussion. It's cooled down now in Seattle and my Prozac has kicked in so I'm calmer and gentler now, but none the wiser (insert little smiley-faced icon here composed with a semi-colon followed immediately by a dash and finally an end-parenthesis to indicate my easy-going state of mind and that the previous statement should be taken somewhat humorously).
As far as the scenario I proposed, I had thought it was a rhetorical question myself. I'd go with the "Source" system needless to say. I wasn't suggesting mixing Calix with Radio Shack, those systems are exclusive of each other. The contrast of the two is exactly the point. As far as the specific choice in cost-no-object speakers, go ahead, choose your own, I'd still go with the "Source" system.
Yes, yes, weakest link in the chain, all components and interconnects are important. Balance....synergy..and all that! I agree with that, but that wasn't the question Mark. At least not how I interpreted it, and I am THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ, let's not forget! Which ONE SINGLE component is most critical in reproducting music well in a 2-channel system? Since the overwhelmingly common response falls into one of two camps, that is where I staged the scenario. Indeed, as I think you infer in your post, perhaps the question is just ludicrous, perhaps the hobby is ludicrous?! Heresy, I've gone and committed Heresy right here on Audiogon. Yes, I did enjoy your 1/13 post Mark, thanks for referring back to it to give me that reference.
If you laughed at my previous post, check out the link to the humorous piece I wrote a while back (which goes to the point of my committing heresy). I'll refer you to the recent thread here since it contains the link to the piece and a disclaimer/warning for reading that piece as it may offend the feint-of-heart, and or rigid-of-morals....you've been warned! Keep in mind that I'm poking fun at myself here too...I'm a self-confessed audiophile, but I am in a twelve-step program to quit!
Marco, damn, no bites. I bow to you; man out from behind the curtain.
And thank you - very funny, I laughed out loud.
On what you say, its content, it is a staw man not deserving of the cognitive agility applied to it - but I do get your point and will respond there.
[First, please see my 1-13 response as context.]
Yes, it is true many people choose things, and here stereo things, to impress other people (actually to induce covet-ing), but we can't let their decisions decide ours, speaker-first or not. That disposes of scenario #1. Second, we can't let bad judgement, or the inability to learn, be a reference point for our decisions either (Calix horns wouldn't be my choice to illustrate your point #2, but anyone who pairs them with Radioshack has a pers se learning disability...) - which takes care of #2.
The answer: the middle path; neither and both. At each level of learning the most "important" component changes. What your response reflects is that you exist where you believe all components are important. But that is the response of someone who knows what Calix's are (BUT, have you tried the cryo's versions?!!). What produces "important" in your mind is not what produces "important" in someone coming off the Radioshack curve.
Each person is different, of course, but, generally speaking, different components become more important at different places on the learning curve. Personally, I think that every component is important - while also recognizing your point that many poeple use this argument to compare the twice cryo'd Whale versus the thrice - but, finally, as for purposes of discussion, I can't let that person's orientation act as a delimiter my own, as I'm sure you don't either, in practice.
Oh, by the way, you went off topic there. :0) That's called a performative error in an argument; meaning that your response undermined the premise of the point you were originally trying to make. But, you know, it doesn't bother me. As I said, iterations can be fun...
Cute Marco---and highly eloquent. Still, I don't know if you bringing psychology, literature, your aim,steam vents is even a greater departure from this thread or some kind of oblong mirror held at all of us, reflecting our own digressions.
Speaking of threads, perhaps another thread can be started relevent to how people treat threads......
Asa - Do not arouse the wrath of the GREAT and POWERFUL OZ! You may just think you were outing a mere mortal the likes of all of you, but you are sadly mistaken: I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ!!!!
So let me try to pose the original question in an entirely different way....let's take this to the extreme: You are destined to live out your life on a desert island. You have your existing collection of music, be it vinyl, digital, or both. The island happens to have 120V dedicated power service, and a centrally air conditioned "Listening-Hut" custom built by Rives and equipped with dedicated circuits and cryo'd Porter-Plugs. You have absolutely no one to impress with your expensive and fancy hardware, your exquisite obsessive taste, your pride in ownership of the very 'best of the best'. It is just you, your music collection, the island and the listening hut for the rest of your days on this earth (we'll assume the rest of your life is catered as well....no, the caterer doesn't see or hear your system either, meals just show up on the beach). OK, so here are your choices:
You get a system consisting of Walker Proscenium Turntable, An Audionote DAC5 with some suitable transport, your very favorite amplification of choice (the choice of amplification remains consistent through the two choices), and a pair of vintage 1976 Radio Shack speakers to listen to all that on. We'll call this the "Source" system.
Your alternate choice is headed up with one of my all-time favorites, the Kenner Close-and-Play turntable (suitably wired to run through conventional power and amplication and graced with a BMI Whale running power from those incredible Porter-Plugs), a bone stock original 1984 Sony Discman D-50 with the stock RCA cord adapter and AC transformer, feeding into that wonderful amplification you chose (Lamm perhaps), and this time running through a pair of Calix Phoenix Signature speakers. We'll call this the "Speaker" system.
OK, so your doomed to listen to one of these two systems for the rest of your natural life.....which one would you choose? Remember, it's just you and your music.
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ HAS SPOKEN!
.....oh, and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!
Oh Marco, Marco, you've found what you were looking for...
Threads, like all iterations, change, and particularly when they go along this long. I don't detect that much divergence from the original inquiry, at least not one that would require your police-ing, and particularly given that there was a recent and significant time gap since, er, last YEAR. What's the matter, Marco, got up this morning and just thought you'd found a nice egg to crack, and so took the chance, just to juice that lizard (you know, the one in the R-complex part of your brain), just to make you feel more like a "me" today, because its anonymous here and you feel like you can be more of a "me" absent your peers' physical proximity? Did it make you "feel" better?
Marco, a seed for your search...
twl, what chemical-electrical "signal" derives from a synapse firing in the mind of the singer, into the electrical "signal" of the mike, through the electrical "signals" via stereo components, to the chemical-electrical "signal" in you?
Energy transference, or tranduction, or transmutaion, or iteration, et al, by any other name...
Fear of Change; desire to make others conform to your ideas; the ego juice when you vent on that egg. Does that sound a little closer to the originating causal "signal" for your, er, help, Marco...?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
