Garbage in garbage out. Get the source right than build your system around it. Invest in a better CDP or TT and all will fall in place. With all the money spent on expensive racks, footers, shelves, IC's, speaker cables and powercords the front end is overlooked. Stop trying to synergize that BS source with the latest tweak and put that money to better use.
rollo
But if the rest of the system isn't up to the resolution delivered, will it be worth it? :D
It all matters and prior to the source you have to deal with how to keep your power clean and dealing with your room issues.
You can have a $50,000 source with dirty AC with ringing and and a lousy room and it will be wasted.
I think the source is the most important place to get right. If you don't like the way something sounds at the start, you certainly won't like it amplified or more resolved. The trick is hearing a consistent sound you like in a source in multiple systems... then you know what you've got. This can apply downstream as well... If you hear a component in other systems and like what it does in each one... and you can hear the positive effects of its 'voice' in those systems... you can then apply that at home.
If you try to build a system in a vacuum, as in, you can only hear each piece in your own system... and you only have 1 system, then I might agree it's all equally important at that point.
-C
Good point, Carl, and excellent strategy. Unfortunately, difficult to implement.
I have always picked speakers first and then built around those. If your speakers suck, it won't matter what is running them, imo you will still have junk. :lol:
I agree the source is important but like I said, I make sure my speakers do it for me first. After that I'm with LKDog, I make sure that my incoming power has been looked after. Once those two steps are in place...I figure out everything else.
Then I guess I did mine bass ackwards. :rofl:
For me, speakers came first, then amps, acoustics, wires, more acoustics, preamp, more acoustics, now source. I thought it was important to put components in place in order of the influence they have on the sound. Speakers have the biggest influence and are determinant in evaluating all components upstream. They must be matched to amps so that comes next. Upgrading speakers first also allowed me to get the most bang for the buck up front when upgrading mid fi system to high end, one component at a time. Now that it's almost done, I am more frustrated than ever with the acoustics and thinking about starting again in a different "space."
Acoustics are by far the most important part of a listening "system."
Good thread rollo, thanks!
Rich
Not to diminish the importance of source gear, but my vote goes to speakers first. The speakers and their relationship to the listening room really determine the foundation to build a 'system' around. (emphasis on the word 'system').
WEEZ
I jumped into this hobby with no experience, as green as newbie can be, and purchased mono bloc SS amps and a tube preamp. My Denon 3806AVR and DVD/CDP produced horrible 2 channel sound from my Monitor Audio 9i Speakers. I performed just enough research to determine that the Denon 3806 was not a good match for driving the Monitor Audio's for 2 channel sound thus the decision for the amps and preamp. Honestly, I believe I could have been happy if I had not lurked around AC and later joined AN to get totally absorbed in the Nervosa of Audio.
Everyone's situation for compiling a 2 channel system is probably unique and many, like me, don't start out having a real vision about their system. Based on the journey I have taken, so far, I would definitely recommend:
1. Select the speakers and try to fall in love with highly efficient speakers to provide you with both more options and more economical power options especially if you want to use tube amps.
2. Select good amps to drive the speakers.
3 Select the source (Streaming, Turntable, or CDP). I believe this is the second most critical decision to the outcome of the sound from the system. There are just so many choices and decisions that are spin-offs of the basic choice of type of source, ie., will you need a DAC, do you need mods to the source, do you need an improved power supply, should I use a digital or analog connection, etc. etc. etc.
4. Select the appropriate Preamp
5. Do a lot of homework and purchase ICs carefully.
6. Avoid aftermarket PCs until you begin tweeking the system.
7. I have not attacked room accoustics yet but I know it is a must for my room and probably for most rooms to maximize the potential of a system. However, I am reaching a point where I am approaching the 95% + capability of the gear potential of the system. To get the last 5%, gear wise, I will have to purchase $1,000.00/meter ICs and SCs and have expensive upgrades to the wiring & crossovers of the speakers. Personally, I will never (and you are not suppose to say never) and I mean never go there with this system. This means I have to convince Vera to tolerate me rearranging and treating the room. Guys, lets face reality, we like our systems but I, for one, don't like sleeping with it so the WAF is also extremely important to the final outcome.
Ken
Good topic Shep, or at least one that I have been giving some consideration during the last couple of weeks. For the last 30 years I have been in the speaker camp with regard to the most important component. Like many of you I have gone though numerous speakers, some DIY some purchased from boutique shops, and some mass market. They all have had a big impact on the sound I heard in a given space.
I have recently (about 2 weeks ago) been forced to reconsider my position with regard to speakers being the major player in the audio chain. I sent my SB3 into Bolder cables and had Wayne do the enthusiast analog mods using V caps in place of the standard Sonicap Platinums. I received the modded unit and reinserted it into my system. It has gone back and forth a bit between sounding great to sounding OK, but it has started to settle in (a little over 300 hours now). What a difference a source can make! This is by far the biggest positive jump my system has taken outside of speakers/acoustic treatments. I will be completing a more detailed assessment (don't want to call it a review) of what I am hearing once I feel it is fully broken in, but to date I can say that I am VERY happy with the mods Wayne has done.
While I still believe that speakers and acoustic treatments probably make the biggest impact to what you hear, I no longer believe that "bits are bits", the source plays a much more significant role in the audio chain than I had previously given it credit for.
So what conclusion can I draw from all of this? Just that it doesn't matter what amplifier you use, it doesn't impact the sound. :rofl:.....just kidding!
It appears we have two camps here. The Speaker first camp and the source first camp. Obviously the two most important pieces of the puzzle.
Now take a pair of PSB Alpha B1s [ $279 ] or Epos ELS3s [ $329 ] and pair them with a Naim Nait 5i intergrated [ $1495 ] and MBL a CD Transport/1611 e DA [ $44,160 ]. System "A". Now just change speaker to lets say Rockport Technologies Hyperion [ $91,500 ] and source to an Oppo DV 970HD [ $149 ]. System "B"
Do you think the speakers or the source would make most of the difference with Naim as a constant. IMO on paper system "A" would be more desireable. Assuming the room and power are right for these systems. There may be NO right and wrong here just different approaches. Its great hearing all the opinions.
rollo
I would prefer the full range speakers with extremely accurate drivers, even playing the oppo. Getting the distortion down on the speakers is the biggest possible gain. $279 speakers will have harmonic distortion above 1-3%, not counting dynamic restriction, and not counting the bottom octave totally missing.
Great hypothetical! I sure wish I could test it out!!
B
Quote from: rollo on September 27, 2007, 07:33:21 AM
It appears we have two camps here. The Speaker first camp and the source first camp. Obviously the two most important pieces of the puzzle.
Now take a pair of PSB Alpha B1s [ $279 ] or Epos ELS3s [ $329 ] and pair them with a Naim Nait 5i intergrated [ $1495 ] and MBL a CD Transport/1611 e DA [ $44,160 ]. System "A". Now just change speaker to lets say Rockport Technologies Hyperion [ $91,500 ] and source to an Oppo DV 970HD [ $149 ]. System "B"
Do you think the speakers or the source would make most of the difference with Naim as a constant. IMO on paper system "A" would be more desireable. Assuming the room and power are right for these systems. There may be NO right and wrong here just different approaches. Its great hearing all the opinions.
rollo
I guess this is the drive a Hummer and live in a shack senairo! :rofl:
Maybe I am way off base but everytime I want to test a new piece of gear I have to evaluate the impact of that gear through
speakers! Amps, preamps, source, ics, pcs, room treatments all impact the quality of sound from the speakers. The speakers have to be the most critical components of a system because first and foremost they have to have the capability to produce the quality of music you want to hear. A great source may make cheap speakers sound the best they are capable of sounding but will they have the capability to maximize what the source is sending them?
Not Likely! I have speakers that are extremely revealing(demonstrated at Richidoo's with numerous IC and SC changes) and I am currently working with my modded S3 (my source) to improve it by adding a Burson Buffer. I understand the importance of the source but frankly I would not give a darn about the source if I did not like my speakers.
I also believe that expensive speakers driven by a cheap source will sound better than cheap speakers driven by an expensive source. An Oppo will lack the extreme detail of the expensive players but driven by good amps and preamp with DAC, the system will probably produce okay sound.
Ken
Last evening I thought why not try an experiment. With the Lector CDP as source [A] and Pipedreams as the speakers [A] I played several CDs. Sounded as expected. Very good. Then I changed to a Sony DVD NS775V as the source. Clearly not in the same leauge. The highs were bright and crisp [metallic]. The bass was good. Overall soundstage was smaller. Tonality overall was thin and bright. Digititus.
Now enter 2 sets of speakers. Omega single driver 50 Hz -18000Hz [A] and Heco Horn 3 way 28Hz-20,000Hz. Amplification was constant as well as Preamp and cabling [ Consonance Cyber 211 Amp and Loesch and Weisner Preamp, Tara decade Ic to Amp from Pre, Harmonix Golden ratio from CDp to Pre, Omega Mikro Active Spkr. cables, Omega Mikro active powercords] ].
First up was the Omega with Sony CDP. Still bright and thin. No emotional impact. No bass, connected Sub. Bass was in the house. Quite good bass actualy. Had to turn it off though after about 10 minutes of continuous listening. Digititus you know. Now enter the Lector with Omegas. Very good tonality overall. Bass was limited below 50Hz, reconnected the Sunfire Sub and that weakness was gone. Limited soundstage size compared to Pipes. Great clarity. Satisfying emotional impact. Quite open with VG dynamics. Now the Heco Horns. With Sony not as thin, still a tad bright, great midrange and VG bass [ no sub req.]. Ok sound for casual listening. Still not there. Enter the Lector. Authoritative and rich with extended sweet highs. Larger soundstage with VG depth. Not bright or thin in any way, almost just right. Could listen all day long. No fatiuge. No Digititus here. Smooth as silk. Very natural.
So in a nutshell the source appeared to make the biggest difference in this experiment. With the Lector, no fatiuge, no Digititus, no thin or bright highs. Nada. The Sony with every speaker was the weak link. The Lector with each speaker was an improvement in sound. Not the case with the Sony. Same as with the Pipedreams. The Lector was clearly superior in every way. Did the Sony sound better with the Pipedreams than either the Omega or Heco Horn? No the bright and thin crisp presentation was present with every speaker.
Now don't shoot me for the results. Try it yourself. Just be fair. I am not trying to be confrontational here. Just saying IMO the source has more impact on the listening experience than the speaker. The speaker when better will enhance the benifit of a good source.
rollo
Come to think of it, I could do something like this. I have some Hemp drivers in BR cabinets that are certainly not to the Definitions' front arrays. I have some very nice front ends and also an OLD Technics CD player and a CHEAP DVD player to try. I could keep the same (good) pre and amp.
Hmmm . . . but my amps are going out to Vinnie for upgrading today. This might have to wait for a bit.
The experiment rules over dogma... great work rollo!
Quote from: rollo on September 28, 2007, 09:06:05 AM
Last evening I thought why not try an experiment. With the Lector CDP as source [A] and Pipedreams as the speakers [A] I played several CDs. Sounded as expected. Very good. Then I changed to a Sony DVD NS775V as the source. Clearly not in the same leauge. The highs were bright and crisp [metallic]. The bass was good. Overall soundstage was smaller. Tonality overall was thin and bright. Digititus.
Now enter 2 sets of speakers. Omega single driver 50 Hz -18000Hz [A] and Heco Horn 3 way 28Hz-20,000Hz. Amplification was constant as well as Preamp and cabling [ Consonance Cyber 211 Amp and Loesch and Weisner Preamp, Tara decade Ic to Amp from Pre, Harmonix Golden ratio from CDp to Pre, Omega Mikro Active Spkr. cables, Omega Mikro active powercords] ].
First up was the Omega with Sony CDP. Still bright and thin. No emotional impact. No bass, connected Sub. Bass was in the house. Quite good bass actualy. Had to turn it off though after about 10 minutes of continuous listening. Digititus you know. Now enter the Lector with Omegas. Very good tonality overall. Bass was limited below 50Hz, reconnected the Sunfire Sub and that weakness was gone. Limited soundstage size compared to Pipes. Great clarity. Satisfying emotional impact. Quite open with VG dynamics. Now the Heco Horns. With Sony not as thin, still a tad bright, great midrange and VG bass [ no sub req.]. Ok sound for casual listening. Still not there. Enter the Lector. Authoritative and rich with extended sweet highs. Larger soundstage with VG depth. Not bright or thin in any way, almost just right. Could listen all day long. No fatiuge. No Digititus here. Smooth as silk. Very natural.
So in a nutshell the source appeared to make the biggest difference in this experiment. With the Lector, no fatiuge, no Digititus, no thin or bright highs. Nada. The Sony with every speaker was the weak link. The Lector with each speaker was an improvement in sound. Not the case with the Sony. Same as with the Pipedreams. The Lector was clearly superior in every way. Did the Sony sound better with the Pipedreams than either the Omega or Heco Horn? No the bright and thin crisp presentation was present with every speaker.
Now don't shoot me for the results. Try it yourself. Just be fair. I am not trying to be confrontational here. Just saying IMO the source has more impact on the listening experience than the speaker. The speaker when better will enhance the benifit of a good source.
rollo
Rollo:
I have read your post three times. What I gather from the results is what I would expect and correct me if I am misunderstanding (which would not be a surprise). Your information indicates that a good source is superior to a cheaper source, regardless of the speakers. The better source sounds better on three pairs of speakers than does a cheap source. I will agree with you that source is one of the most important pieces of gear but I don't understand how your experiment rules the source to be more important than the speakers.
Thanks,
Ken
I too have been experimenting with some gear... We recently moved into a new house and I didn't want to unpack/setup the big Piega's. So, I bought a pair of Era Design 5's, put them on some stands and spread out my system on a cabinet. I connected my usual source, the Scott Nixon tube DAC. I didn't setup my usual PC so I have it fed by the digital out of the SB3 (with Black Sand's cryo treatment upgrade).
I was using the Musical Fidelity X-150 integrated as my amp and pre. I wasn't in love with the sound plus I had nowhere to safely store the McIntosh 402 amp or 220 preamp. So, I hooked them up in place of the X-150. Wow, holy cow.... super-mega-fabulous improvement in every way. It went from dull and lifeless to detail rich and enveloping.
What's it mean? Nice electronics in front of a $900 pair of speakers can make me smile... big time! ... And what have I learned from this? The amp is actually a pretty key piece.... juice is good. I can't tell you much more at this point... Getting the time to do the experiment and write about it was tough time to come by lately... Good discussion...
-C
I like richidoo's logic, that when doing a complete system overhaul or starting from scratch buying the speakers first makes the biggest improvement right off the bat.
The logical sequence would then seem to me to be to work backwards step by step to the source, so the variables are always upstream.
I have held this as the only rational way of doing things, keeping in mind the notion of working with the most revealing speaker at the outset to make all the other choices easier and more meaningful, but just today, I saw the logic in the reverse way of doing it.
I was pondering Carlman's reasoning about why to start with the source and came to the conclusion that it could work, too, but only if you go step by step through the system. That is source, preamp, amp and speakers, or the same but with wire chosen at the same time and in the same sequence.
What would seem to have much less chance of working, though is to start anywhere but the beginning or end of the system, e.g. to start with pre or amp.
Ivor Tiefenbrun the founder of Linn Sondek first espoused the theory that source was most important part of chain over 30 years ago.
I have seen this demonstrated to my satisfaction repeatedly over the years. If you start with a flawed non-linear source you wind up not asking enough of the components down stream. This can lead to putting into
the system a component downstream from the source with more inaccuracies. When you get to the end of chain you may have a system that has any number of problems from too much bass,aggressive highs,
no depth,and the list goes on and on.
If you start at end the with loudspeakers you will probably chose speakers that sound good with your present system. You have basically decided to evaluate all of your future purchases with the component in the chain that has the most distortion. By doing this you have purchased something that compensates for inaccuracies up stream from it. When you finally start moving upstream all of your choices will be based on what ever the loudspeaker did to the information you gave to it.
If the goal is to assemble a system that presents more information with higher fidelity you have to start
with the most information possible. To state the obvious information not present at the beginning cannot be recovered somewhere down stream after damage is done.
Scotty
"Everything you think you know is wrong" FST
I believe Ivor made a few meaningful observations and upset some long held notions when he first hit the scene in around .....1971, was it?
I think his most important notion was the importance of reducing analog timing errors like wow and flutter an order of magnitude lower than had previously been thought to be necessary - and being able to demonstrate the significance by the relatively unusual, for the time, technique of relatively (2 hours or so) long exposure to the DUT (his turntable) followed by quick change to the control in which wow and flutter was now perceptible where it had not been before acclimatization to the new "norm".
I feel many of his other "rules" were as much about effective selling practices favoring his product. At first he marketed only turntables, so it was convenient that this be the most important item in the reproduction chain, and in some ways it could be argued that it was - at least until CDs, then for all their flaws at least there was suddenly NO wow and flutter and the source argument suddenly became much less convincing.
But Ivor was creating something akin to a religion, it seems to me. Adherents would have to suffer a little for their faith. Sticker shock created the requisite sobriety. There were rituals. Thou shalt not have more than one speaker pair in the demo room. Thou shalt have none other than Linn branded cartridges, arms, turntables, CD players, preamplifiers, amplifiers (one for each driver) and speakers. Thou shouldst upgrade thine turntable with the latest improvement, and everything shall have a "k" in it!
To me, Linn turntables are somewhat reasonably priced, but everything else in the Linn line now and in the past has consistently been at least twice over-price. Linn speakers have been hideously over-priced, almost always, and seldom better than slightly above average.
Sorry, I stopped respecting Ivor about 25 years ago.
My indoctrination, though, was so nearly complete that it was not until I did a really careful re-think about 20 years ago that I came to the conclusion that the old-timers were right - nothing is as important as the speaker, followed very closely by the acoustic environment. Next, the power amp, next the preamp and DAC, if separate, and (blasphemy of blasphemies) finally, the source!
However do not, as you seem to, _Scotty_, think I advocate starting by finding the speaker that sounds best on the end of your existing chain of components. No, I mean find the best speaker you can afford, judged on much better equipment than you have, in an acoustically superior environment if possible. If you must, go by the word of someone whose taste you know and whose judgment you trust.
Unless you enjoy the constant process of system evolution and change, and many do, the object is to get a great sound and live with it for as long as possible, so you can forget it and get into the music.
As a recording and mastering engineer acquaintance says:
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong".
Having good loudspeakers may allow you to get the most out of even a mediocre source.I find in my experience that the Amplifier/Preamplifiers are just as important as a good source and a good pair of loudspeakers. you can spend lots of money and if you dont have synergy between the components it will be frustrating.everything matters!....WCW III
miniminim,
I like the quote, "If you notice the sound, it's wrong".
I have found that to be true way more often than not. Thanks for that one...
WEEZ
Quote from: Bunky on September 29, 2007, 03:11:49 AM
Having good loudspeakers may allow you to get the most out of even a mediocre source.I find in my experience that the Amplifier/Preamplifiers are just as important as a good source and a good pair of loudspeakers. you can spend lots of money and if you dont have synergy between the components it will be frustrating.everything matters!....WCW III
IMO, the source and the speakers are the most important. If the source isn't right, you can only get so far as you're amplifying and converting a sub-par signal. If the speakers aren't right, no matter what you feed them with, they'll only do so much. That said, over the years, I've personally found that I'd rather have middle of the road speakers fed with a good source and an amp that has the power and control to get the best from them rather than a really nice set of speakers fed by a sub-par source and average electronics.
Bryan
Guys:
If you have read the previous posts to this thread then you know that I believe the speakers are the most critical choice one has to make for a system. However, while I believe it to be true since I have received the Timepieces all of my upgrades have been to improve the Source and I still want to further upgrade it (power supply and mod the Buffer). Since I have decided to pursue this hobby I have formed an opinion that people tend to find a pair of speakers they like and upgrade components to maximize the sound produced from those speakers.
Recently at the G2G at Rich's I was really surprised to hear the impact of different sources, different DACs and different SCs have on the sound produced from speakers. What this experience clearly demonstrated is that each link in the audio chain definitely has an impact on what you hear from a system.
I will end by asking a question: Does anyone involved in this hobby ever get satisfied that their system is as good as they can make it sound?
Ken
I have had some very fine sources that sounded like hell when the speaker and speaker/amp mix was wrong. I still think in my experience the hardest thing to get right is the power amp/speaker synergy, and how that works with your room. So, my heuristic is to get the best speakers you can, but stil allowing enough for an amp that really works well with them for your room, then put the rest into the best source you can, and then keep looking to the source as the place to upgrade from.
I agree with miniminim's take on the whole thing -- and way back when I was a big Linn fan too, though never had the money to buy in. Then at RMAF 2004, I have to say the Linn room was the one I had to run screaming from, and I didn't even know what it was until I was outside and asked "What was that??!" Then I found out the price tag and just shook my head.
Anyway, my thinking is that whatever approach works best for you, is by definition, best for you, and in my case, getting the amp/speaker/room synergy has always proven to be the most difficult task.
-- Jim
Hi Guys,
Bigfish8, wow for a newbie you seem to be heading in the right direction. My preference is as follows:
1. Speakers; build you system around a good quality pair.
2. Amplifiers
3. Source
4. Preamp
At this stage I haven't experimented with good quality cables as I'm always upgrading my components. I current use axon speaker cable and bolder interconnects in my sytem.
Regards
Rod
I pretty much agree with Rollo, but in My particular case, I would say the preamp/ics (they have to handle small signals as well), then souce/amp/speaker combo. This procedure eliminates several variables in the system, making my job of matching the source/amp/speaker that much easier.*
(Disclosure: I am a manufacturer of preamps.)
I think improving the source is Rollo's point and I think my procedure will help in this endeavor.
*As a side point that may be helpful pertaining to the quality of the source; I performed a complete bypass of the analog gainstage(s) in an old Rotel player I own (comes standard with blackgates throughout). (I do not do player mods.)
What an improvement in sound. If there is any digitalis, it is very little. However, I still think higher sampling might improve the sound even more. (And for years I really hated the sound of cds and players.) Another way of thinking is in terms of adding a '$40.00' preamplifier (probable analog section parts costs in a player) to a 2+ grand system.
Even with a tube gainstage, there just is not enough physical room to do it right,.
Hope this is helpful.
Some of Steve's comments made me think of a sort of grouping of important synergistic areas...
As in, these are combinations of gear (or groups) that folks try to find synergistic matches within:
General:
1 Amp/Speaker Cable/Speaker/Room size and type
2 Preamp/Amp/Interconnect/Tubes, etc.
Source/Cabling:
3 Transport type/DAC/Digital Cable/Interconnect, tubes, etc.
4 Turntable/Cartridge/Arm/Interconnect/transformers/preamp, etc.
So, those are 4 big areas where I see folks working generally. There are numerous ways to get it wrong but there aren't a lot of unbreakable 'rules' either. You can get good reproduction in a number of ways. And while we work on these things independently, each area is dependent on the other. So, a blanket statement that any one area is the most important can't be made of a system with several components. You'd have to define a 'source' anyway... is it a system of synergistic parts itself? If so, which part of the source group is the most important? ;)
The only thing defining what is most important to us is what peaked our interest the most... And that's the most important part of the system... The one that makes you smile. :)
-C
Very nice Carl. :clap:
Thanks
Quote from: Carlman on October 08, 2007, 08:12:20 AM
Some of Steve's comments made me think of a sort of grouping of important synergistic areas...
As in, these are combinations of gear (or groups) that folks try to find synergistic matches within:
General:
1 Amp/Speaker Cable/Speaker/Room size and type
2 Preamp/Amp/Interconnect/Tubes, etc.
Source/Cabling:
3 Transport type/DAC/Digital Cable/Interconnect, tubes, etc.
4 Turntable/Cartridge/Arm/Interconnect/transformers/preamp, etc.
So, those are 4 big areas where I see folks working generally. There are numerous ways to get it wrong but there aren't a lot of unbreakable 'rules' either. You can get good reproduction in a number of ways. And while we work on these things independently, each area is dependent on the other. So, a blanket statement that any one area is the most important can't be made of a system with several components. You'd have to define a 'source' anyway... is it a system of synergistic parts itself? If so, which part of the source group is the most important? ;)
The only thing defining what is most important to us is what peaked our interest the most... And that's the most important part of the system... The one that makes you smile. :)
-C
Carlman,
Very good explanation. Makes alot of sense. Now were getting somewhere.
rollo