What Matters and What is Nonsense


I’ve been an audiophile for approximately 50 years. In my college days, I used to hang around the factory of a very well regarded speaker manufacturer where I learned a lot from the owners. When I started with audio it was a technical hobby. You were expected to know something about electronics and acoustics. Listening was important, but understanding why something sounded good or not so good was just as important. No one in 1968 would have known what you were talking about if you said you had tweaked your system and it sounded so much better. But if you talked about constant power output with frequency, or pleasing second-order harmonic distortion versus jarring odd-order harmonics in amplification, you were part of the tribe.

Starting in the 1980s, a lot of pseudo scientific nonsense started appearing. Power cords were important. One meter interconnects made a big difference. Using a green magic marker on the edge of a CD was amazing. Putting isolation dampers under a CD transport lifted the veil on the music. Ugh. This stuff still make my eyes roll, even after all these years.

So I have decided to impart years and years of hard won knowledge to today’s hobbists who might be interested in reality. This is my list of the steps in the audio reproduction chain, and the relative importance of each step. My ranking of relative importance includes a big dose of cost/benefit ratio. At this point in the evolution of audio, I am assuming digital recording and reproduction.

Item / Importance to the sound on a scale of 1-10 / Cost benefit ratio

  • The room the recording was made in / 8 / Nothing you can do about it
  • The microphones and setup used in the recording / 8 / nothing you can do about it.
  • The equalization and mixing of the recording / 10 / Nothing you can do about it
  • The technology used for the recording (analog, digital, sample rate, etc.) / 5 / nothing you can do about it.
  • The format of the consumer recording (vinyl, CD, DSD, etc.) 44.1 - 16 really is good enough / 3 / moderate CB ratio
  • The playback device i.e. cartridge or DAC / 5 / can be a horribe CB ratio - do this almost last
  • The electronics - preamp and amp / 4 / the amount of money wasted on $5,000 preamps and amps is amazing.
  • Low leve interconnects / 2 / save your money, folks
  • Speaker cables / 3 / another place to save your money
  • Speakers / 10 / very very high cost to benefit ratio. Spend your money here.
  • Listening room / 9 / an excellent place to put your money. DSPs have revolutionized audio reproduction
In summary, buy the best speakers you can afford, and invest in something like Dirac Live or learn how to use REW and buy a MiniDSP HD to implement the filters. Almost everything else is a gross waste of money.
128x128phomchick

Showing 10 responses by phomchick

I don’t know for certain, but I’m betting that these recordings when downloaded in DSD format are not compressed:
https://bluecoastmusic.com/store?f%5B0%5D=field_record_label%3A139

(I have the Mahler 2nd recording and it has a dynamic range approaching 50db.)
And... high rolling audiophiles don’t make me mad or sad. They amuse me, and make me slightly jealous. My original post was about cost vs. benefit. Once you get the basics in place, DSP room correction will make the biggest possible improvement for a moderate investment.
Preamp is likely the weak link in most higher end systems

This is why I got rid of my preamp, which is possible If you don’t need phono.. DAC -> AMP. My presmp is a straight wire with no gain.
“interestingly when I was growing up in the UK in the 80s it was the opposite to the way you describe it. The hifi mags (apparently egged on by the then-almighty Linn) were suggesting it was wise to spend half on the source.“
This was reasonable advice back when the source was universally vinyl.  The most important parts of the audio chain are where something mechanical  changes the domain.  This happens at the microphone, the cartridge, and the speaker. You can tell that these are important and difficult transition points, because the devices at those nodes easily sound different from one another. 

Although the DAC isn’t mechanical, some would say it is as important as the phono cartridge used to be. That isn’t my opinion. I think that DACs are mature technology and above the $800 point they pretty much all sound the same, with only minor differences. 
DACs are mature technology and above the $800 point they pretty much all sound the same TO ME
ftfy
Thank you, but you didn’t have to fix it for me. You only needed to refrain from editing out my disclaimer:

"[**]I think that[**] DACs are mature technology and above the $800 point they pretty much all sound the same, with only minor differences."
Bottom line. If it is not nonsense to you and you believe in it that is what counts. No matter what anyone says or thinks it is still your opinion and your ears and money. There will be thousands of opinions but the only one that really matters is yours. Case closed.
As a principle applied to our weird audiophile hobby this can’t do much harm, other than needlessly part people from their money. But in the real world, some things are true and some things are false, and it makes a difference.
Here is an interesting 10 year old article on active room correction:

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/108tech/index.html

This is the kind of technology that can make a big difference in an audio system. I know that Meyer Sound is doing this for commercial spaces. Does anyone know of a firm working on similar technolgy for the home? If it isn’t out there yet, it eventually will be.

(Dirac and similar systems employ static correction filters using the main audio system. I’m talking about a separate active room tailoring system using microphones, DSP and speakers).
+1 with both @craigl59 and @barrarich

Class D amplifiers, DACs, and DSP processing are all high enough quality and cheap enough that the following high end stereo system should be just around the corner.
It will have WiFi connectivity to something like JRiver or Roon and this will feed the high quality internal DAC. It will be controlled remotely by an app on your cellphone. The speakers will have multiple drivers with each driver having its own Class-D driving amp. The output of the DAC will go into a multi-channel DSP circuit which will have a channel for each speaker driver.
The system will ship with a measurement microphone which will be used to measure the frequency and phase response at the listening position. Using software embedded in the system, the DSP channels will be optimized for each driver in each speaker. Such a system would probably work best with two smaller satellite speakers and a servo controlled subwoofer.
The technology now exists to build this and end up with a very high quality system. The downside is that you won’t be able to obsess about preamps, amplifiers, interconnects or speaker cables, but such is progress.

@playmore give JRiver a try. I run it on a PC into a DAC and from there into the amplifier (no preamp). I’m also using JRiver for room correction, as its 64-bit DSP engine will use convolution filters from Room EQ Wizard (REW). 
@craigl59
You can export your filters from REW and import them into JRiver.
After creating the correction filters in REW, export them as a WAV file
File -> Export -> Export filters impulse response as WAV
Choose "stereo" the right and left filter you want to use, a bit level and sample rate (I use 24-bit and 48000)

Then, in JRiver, import the filters...Player -> DSP Studio
click Convolution, browse to the WAV file you saved from REW, and that is it.
One more thing, I use “Generic” when creating the filters in the REW EQ module.