Which part of a playback chain has the biggest impact on sound? (a ranking)

So, in other words, there is absolutely no consensus.

 

Your example is correct, but there's something wrong - it's all system dependent. Let's change that to $200 and $2000. If you took a $2000 pair of speakers and connected a $200 boombox to them, the speakers wouldn't matter much, it would sound like a $200 boombox. If you had $500, then a speaker upgrade is useless, so you would toss the boombox and upgrade the source/amp.

On the other hand if you already have an inexpensive Oppo CD player and a Japanese brand 50 watt/channel amp, an incremental $500 might be felt most in the speakers (inexpensive CD players and amps are the best deal in audio).

But, if your source isn't a $150 CD player but a $150 turntable (the kind they used to sell in Woolworths), then again, a speaker upgrade won't help because the source isn't good enough to allow you to hear the improvements. Buy a decent turntable.

And so on. I do agree that once you have basically decent CD player, amp and speakers, incremental dollars are most clearly felt with improved speakers (although due consideration should go to a record cleaning machine and a Vinyl Flat).

 

But I think that's the point many of us have been making. I know i'm repeating what you said here, but you can get good amps, cd players and even DACs now for a few hundred dollars each. At that point, it's really all about speakers to take advantage of the good sound they put out. If you're talking turntables, of course going low on that can result in really bad sound that nothing downline in the system can fix.

I'm suspecting that people's response to this thread is partly dependent upon where they are now in their own gear, and if they're thinking digital vs. analog.

 

What DRBRYANT said

 

i feel that the best barometer of biggest effect on sound is if someone who doesn't care about this stuff can tell the difference.

 

Hi @Ham Sandwich I'm really pleased that someone who is a headphone user has chimed in here, and also because in 12 years of retail, I didn't have a single customer who was solely a headphone listener!

Obviously without the speaker / room interaction, you are in a perfect position to hear what is going on with the source and headphone amp. I am not surprised with your preferences, but could you please confirm that you picked your system after auditioning your various options?

Thanks!

 

I'd take a slightly different view, assuming a good recording:

1) Most important is that there are no component mis-matches. The amp is suited to the speakers, no weird cable characteristics, no component is broken or introduces gross distortion.

2) Second is the listening environment. Speaker and listener positioning, room interactions.

3) The quality of the speakers.

4) Everythung else.

 

For the DSP effect chain (which I realise is not the intended interpretation) it is probably:
1) Tempo and pitch adjustment
2) EQ
3) Speaker Time Alignment
4) Compression
5) Surround sound for loudspeakers and Crossfeed for headphones

These are what I think about, digitalised heathen that I am

 

Not looking to split hairs but his reference to "All good" was in reference to the paragraph he quoted before going on to explain why the person he'd quoted had in fact been wrong about the AEs. Not that they're bad speakers, many rate them, but they're not actives.

As for me, no offence taken, and I used to be a source first guy too. Time moved on as did the quality of the gear. Paired with the means to use WAV and FLAC files and you've a done deal almost. The seasoning is down to UI and features thereafter in the main IMO.

 

I guess that this is the crux of the matter, "using a reasonably OK front end". This really will mean different things for different people, depending on their expectations.

 

Yes, and for good reason....there is no right answer. Nothing exists in a vacuum and everything is dependent on something else. You can have the best speakers in the world but if your amp can't drive them, they won't sound good, and so on and so on and so on.

For building a system I would start with the speakers and the amp that drives them. You can likely keep them for 30 years giving you plenty of time to build up everything behind that point. I don't know that you can properly evaluate the source components without getting the speaker/amp where you want to have it. At the same time, if you have the best speaker/amp of all time and you feed it garbage, what's the point?

There is really no answer to the question.

 

I was able to audition a variety of amps and headphones by going to Head-Fi meets. Meets like that are almost the only way to hear some of the amps and headphones before buying because they're sold direct and not through dealers.

 

Ah, but I disagree. I think there is a right answer.

The example you provided, where an amp cannot drive a speaker, is a case of a system mismatch and really shouldn't be part of the discussion. The discussion should assume that all components in a system work well together and that they also are set up properly (good room, proper stands, etc.). Then the question can be asked...what component has the largest impact? If you handcuff the system from the start then what are you really determining?

I found this thread frustrating for the following reasons:

1. People spouting vague platitudes that have no real meaning.
2. People not listening to what others are saying. Someone will argue, "garbage in, garbage out. A speaker cannot turn crap into beauty." And others state "feed poor speakers with the best quality signal and they will turn that sound into mush."

Both are true. And because of that neither can prove the point the person is trying to make, since the other end of the chain can be successfully argued for just by flipping the first argument on it's head.

I think chervokas and Randoms, in digging a little deeper, gave very persuasive arguments on why the source (in the case of a turntable) is extremely important. It was something I already understood but did not give enough credit to in my argument.

I think a consensus can be arrived at, or close to it, but it would take a totally different setting than an Internet forum to get to it.

I now tend to think:

Speakers
Turntable
Tonearm
Cartridge
Phonostage
CD player
Preamp
Poweramp
Cables

I guess I am a source first guy after all, at least if you start counting after the speakers!

Though I would say all pieces are important and require thorough consideration (and in the absence of that, trial and error!). Because, you absolutely can insert different cables (the part with the least impact) and get a noticeable change in sound.

 

Ah, but I don't disagree. Seriously, I think your list is pretty spot on. If we are assuming all thing are equal.

 

I don't think there is any "right" answer, just as I think there is no "one system" that will please everyone. The question, I guess, gets raised in at least two contexts: where to make the biggest improvement in an existing system or how one allocates money, given a budget, for an entire system "from scratch."
I can see a "source first" approach for someone interested in building a vinyl library, with the expectation that they will improve downstream components as they accumulate records. I also understand the priority of "speakers first" since they vary widely in character which is immediately obvious. But, through all the years I've been fooling around with this stuff, I've come to view this partly as a"dark art" --the mixing and matching of various components that gel to create a lifelike representation of music. How you get there, though, can be through a variety of paths. Speaker and amp matching is critical, and I'd treat those two components as a unit, much as I would table, arm, cartridge and phono stage.
There's an incremental approach that is common in hi-fi; to build from an existing system, tweaking along the way. But, strip away all the tweaks--one fellow I know has gotten rid of fancy cable, isolation devices and conditioning appliances. It isn't a cost-saving exercise, but one which he believes disguises the true nature of the components in play and colors them to various degrees. I know I fall victim to this to some degree- I chose my cable because it works really, really well with my system to produce a great end result.
I think, at the end of the day, there are so many ways to achieve your personal sonic nirvana that the better question is what you think makes a difference based on your ears and pocket book--something that isn't easy to do because it isn't easy to get loans of equipment to try.
There are some tried and true combinations and "schools" of approach that work well and there is often little reason to reinvent the wheel unless you aren't fully satisfied with what you are hearing over a wide range of material over a period of time.
One truth that seemed to come out of the old Linn "source first" school was to trust your ears- you don't need a degree in E.E. or acoustics to know what sounds real to you. (My wife is a great B.S. meter-- she can listen to something and say, "better," "worse" or "no difference.") I'm not anti-gear by any means (I've had great piles of the stuff over the years and cherish the stuff I own now), but I don't think there is any winning formula to system building, any more than there is a way to succeed in life. You have to jump in, immerse yourself, learn from your mistakes and know what you want. (Something that changes over time too, as your sensibility changes- I'm sure my hearing isn't what it once was, but I think I have a better sense of what seems "real" to me and it isn't because of all the years of messing with gear; to the contrary, I think it's just letting yourself hear the stuff without expectations or bias or some investment in the outcome because you already own it).
Very few of us have totally unlimited budgets, so the constraints to "get it right the first time" are even greater. That means a hell of a lot of listening time to a variety of components in a room that you know. (Even then, I'm not always sure the same components in a different room will sound the same). And because of the incremental nature of system building, a change in one area can reveal shortcomings in another. It is a journey that sometimes requires you to revisit the basics or relearn what you assumed wasn't an issue (until a new component revealed it). Punchline, for me: no magic bullet. Some hard work. And a hell of a lot of fun. That's what makes this an interesting pursuit, no? I can hear two totally different systems and come away thinking they are both great.

 

This list is probably a nice guideline assuming the original post's conditions that the current system is all mass-market equipment.

Once you get above that, no one follows a "list" because it wouldn't be useful. For example, if you've got a $10,000 system with CD player, basic turntable with a MM cartridge, a tube amp, and $2000 to spend. What do you do?

1. Trade in your current speakers and add $2000 to get new ones.

2. Buy new tubes for your amp?

3. Trade in the tube amp +$2000 for a new solid state amp with 3x the output.

4. Trade in your existing MM cartridge +2000 for a new high end MC cartridge.

5. Add a phonostage?

6. A new DAC to the existing CD player?

7. Add SACD capability?

All of these and more will be possibilities, all will change the sound, and no list can tell you by how much or whether those changes will be positive to you or not.

 

Me, I'd spend that two grand on music! A $10k system should be just fine, unless there's money to burn or a horrible buying mistake was made.

 

True.

 

@Dream On The great aspect of a forum, is if we approach it with an open mind, we can all learn from each other and question our beliefs.

I have discovered and greatly enjoyed music I wouldn't have otherwise come across, here. Snippets of information is another plus for me. Threads about music, tend to be fairly non-argumentative.

Which pressings to buy or avoid can be extremely helpful, avoiding really bad remasters, and yes, bad originals. There is very rarely consensus here!

Choosing components, or ranking them for importance are threads that can end up being a minefield - as this thread proves. They tend to end up as basic arguments, with opinions pole apart.

Most people are going to recommend what they have bought! It takes a lot of courage to admit you have spent money (possibly following a recommendation, and not using your ears) on something that could be bettered for less. I have bought both a highly recommended amplifier and tonearm, on the strength of many great reviews, against the advice of my dealer. Ok, I rectified this a few months later, but I could have saved money and got better sound earlier, if only I had been open-minded, and listened for myself!

What I hope I bring, is not a persuasive argument to believe everything I say, but a persuasive argument to maybe question your own beliefs, and listen for yourself, however extreme the suggestions are.

One aspect of working in Hi-fi shops full time for over 12 years, is that you have a fair amount of time to listen to all the equipment you stock. You have hours, over days, over months, over years to listen. I chose to work and manage shops that stocked equipment either I owned, or aspired to. If I believed there was better equipment, I'd want to own it! A very basic business model, that the shop could demonstrate and sell by (in our own eyes, we are all biased!), telling the truth!! No hard sell.

Every few weeks a magazine would call wanting us to advertise. Every few weeks an amplifier, cable or speaker manufacturer would want us to stock their equipment. "We sell ABC, is it better than that?", I asked. No, but it would offer your customer choice, we'll give you 5% extra and it has just had a great review in these three magazines!

So, three magazines having been given six months of a full page colour advert, gave a product a good review! It must be good. Dealers certainly used to make a far higher margin on speakers and especially cables, than amps and source components. I'm sure it's a coincidence that a number of shops push expensive cables and speakers.

Back to source. After many years of reading about how good the Logitech Squeezebox Touch is, I was given one. Is it a good source? Yes! Is it one of the Hi-fi bargains? Maybe. Is it the only digital source you will ever need? Maybe.

However good the Touch is, it is not cutting edge, and as much as it pains me to say it, a rather excellent £15,000 network streamer is actually better!!

Does the £15,000 unit sound better through a £2,000 amp and £1,000 speakers compared to the Touch through £20,000 amp and £50,000 speakers?

Listen for yourself! The importance of source, including digital or expensive speakers, in a top end system can be heard in seconds. I know which I would buy - if I won the lottery!!

Happy listening.

 

Sadly a good deal of folks thinks automatically more $$$ = better sound. That misguided notion is the farthest from the truth versus any other notion folks try to claim about audio reproduction.

And please don't put the comparison of a $9 ceramic phono cartridge against a $300 MM/MC one like a few folks have.

The point of diminishing returns rule kicks in faster in purchasing audio components moreso than most likely any other area of life purchases does.

Big bucks does not automatically equate to big prefect sound.

And news flash, even a multi million dollar system of the best sorted out components does not sound very "accurate".

It's all a mind game to fool ones audio senses in the end.

"Reproduction" in audio is the most inaccurate use of the word "reproduction" it could ever be used in.

As Frank said, "shut up and play yer guitar."

 

As Supertramp said, "Bloody well right". There is absolutely no guarantee that spending more will lead to a better sound.

Having worked through a couple of recessions, it is interesting how much more selective people are with their money, tending to buy good value products, and good sounding items. In boom times, all kinds of expensive rubbish sells!!

 

Yup. I've heard some darn astonishing mega buck systems and just as many WTF sounding mega buck systems as well.

 

And I've heard loads of great sounding "budget" systems.

Sure you have diminishing returns, the real problem is a product not being 10 X better, sometimes the more expensive, is not even better at all.

When a top end system is good......... wow!!

 

You have just.............................

LOST .... ONE MILLION... POUNDS!

 

Look, the reality is this ...

The difference between a cheap CD player/MP3 player/streamer and an expensive one is small.

The difference between a cheap amp and a comparably powered powered expensive amp is greater than the source, but still small AT REASONABLE VOLUME.

The difference in speaker design .. regardless of price .. can be HUGE. Going from an 8" 2-way to a 12" 3-way .. no matter what the quality .. is going to have FAR MORE impact on the sound than anything else in the chain. That's just physics.

BTW, I listen to music, not 'the source'.