Quote:



i agree fully. the tricky thing is when newcomers enter the hobby and don't know what to start off with: my suggestion is to either find a source that gives them the "truest" sound available, or to pick a single component (anywhere in the signal chain) that they love and build around it. however, the garbage in garbage out analogy is a staple in audio for a reason, and in truth transducers should ideally act as a completly passive component: accurately passing all the info upstream.

the magic starts in the studio, nothing we can do about that. however in a home setup it starts at the source, without that foundation its an exercise in futility. every subsequent piece, while equally important, relies on whats before it.

best,
carlo.

You (your "ears" and your "brain") are the observers and are not part of your sound reproduction system. Music and recordings are the software that are reproduced and therefore are not strictly part of the sound reproduction system. Of the actual sound reproduction system, just remember "garbage in, garbage out"; the SOURCE has got to be the most important part!

After that, the most important part has (obviously) got to be the NEXT item you want to buy/acquire . . . .

I agree with the statements that ears/brain are disqualified. Not only are they not really part of the system, but I doubt many of you have been able to accurately compare your ears or brain with a second one to decide which is better. I bet no one here has seriously considered an upgrade, either.

I picked the recording. If I put in a different CD, I've already changed my system more than any component change possibly could. I mean I am literally getting a totally different experience. Alright, so let's say it's a recording of the same event/music and now we're only talking about the QUALITY of the recording rather than different recordings. Let's look at just that.

I'm one of those people who will actually get suckered into buying CDs a second time to get a good remaster. One thing I tend to notice on the remasters when compared to 80s versions of the same recordings is the drums. With rock music anyway, suddenly you can actually hear the cymbals. Suddenly the drums don't all sound identical and have a real percussive sound to them, unlike the synthesizer sound of the predecessor. I can hear this difference in my home system, in my car with blown speaker, in my crappy portable, in my computer's CD ROM drive--I can even tell which version a radio station is playing even after the radio station is done compressing and whatever the hell else THEY do to it. Whatever other bottlenecks you have in your rig, this is where it all starts and this is where you can make the best improvements.

Once you have a good recording, my feeling echo Jude's. It's easier to make mediocre speakers sound good with a good source than it is to make a mediocre source sound good with good speakers.

It's funny to me that while we argue about the rest, most of us seem to believe that the amplifier gets a lower priority--this despite the huge amount of time, money and energy we all put into the amps. For me, at least, the amps are simply the most interesting component to talk about.

Quote:



No? One of the roles of the brain is to "fill in" gaps in perception. A stimulus does not have to be complete in order for us to hear it. Our perceptual systems can and do interpolate missing information, so that we can make sense of weak or incomplete stimuli. Some of this is hardwired into our perceptions. If the brain is altering our perception of the music we are listening to, and in fact it must do so, how is it not part of the audio reproduction system? Ask me which the most important external part is, and I'll tell you the source. But ask me about the entire system, and I'll tell you the brain has a greater influence than any external piece of equipment.

Here's another one for you. IMO the most important tweak you can perform on your system is learning to hear. Training in perceptual discrimination, that is, listening to a wide variety of components, comparing sounds, learning how to focus attention on different aspects of the sound, becoming sensitive to nuance that will simply pass by an untrained observer...all are part of audio reproduction. Sound reproduction is a mechanical/electronic process that occurs in external compononents. Music reproduction occurs in the brain. So, the answer to the actual question may be whether you consider the goal of an audio system is the reproduction of sound, or the reproduction of music.

Quote:



I believe Nick hit this one right. It all revolves around your budget. In a $300 stereo system the source is almost meaningless. But, in a $10,000 system the source plays a major roll.
If someone came to me for advise on what system to buy, and they had $1000.00 in their back pocket, I would not recommend an $800.00 source. This person would be much better off investing most of their money on speakers, and amplification. The more expensive the system the more the source has influence. In a cheaper, or less resolving system the source has almost no meaning.
Sometimes, I just forget that we are all freaks. Most people do not spend anywhere near what we do.

<$1000 Headphone system:
Pioneer 440 DVD player $150
Outlaw PSC 1.2m silver coax digital cable $50
ART DI/O $125
Bolder ART DI/O Type 1 Interconnect $90
Corda HA-1 (assembled) $345
Beyerdynamic DT931 $175

As you can see, I still suggest a quality source, even given a relatively small system budget. In fact, if the budget were increased any, I would suggest the Bolder ART DI/O mods and then the Bolder ART DI/O PSU and the balance would be even more shifted in favor of the source.

Speakers/headphones. Absolutely no question about it. All the experiments I've done so far clearly point to that. Other components have minimal to moderate influence but spekaer/headphone difference is noticeable immediately, to anyone, and they give to sound a characteristic signature that is always prominently there.

DAC/source? No, in fact I have to concentrate hard to hear any difference from these once you're past certain level. I agree stuff that came out 4-5 years ago sounded clearly worse but anything coming out in last year or two that I heard, and that includes Sony discmans - sounds roughly the same. DAC chips are so good now that even the low end ones do a good job of redbook. There is a caveat though: this is true as long as you buffer them well -

and that leads to what for me is in the second place, and that is amplifier. It can have very large influence on sound. If I use my own amplifier (in portable dac), every source from Discman to high end DAC takes on its signature and sounds good. At that point differences between DACs are like differences between cables. If I connect headphones or power amp/speakers directly to source, differences are much more noticeable.

My advice, if anyone cares, is to get the best speaker or headphones you can afford, and then get a good amp, not necessarily the best but again use the rest of the money. After that use extreme caution, and settling for decent mid-range stuff will yield great listening satisfaction. $40 cable instead of $10 and $300 source instead of $100, and you should be in heaven. If you get addicted to component auditions though, God help you. Unless you have a deep wallet in which case you'll simply get the best of everything (well, not simple as you'd probably audition everything, such is the curse).

And I'm still waiting for 500+

Quote:



Absolutely! In a headphone system a $1000.00 budget is a respectable amount. Certainly not in a speaker system. I think this is another advantage of headphones, over speakers. The cost of good headphones in relation to good speakers doesn't compare.
Comming from someone where his source is the most expensive piece in his system, I still believe that the transducers tell more of the story that we hear.

Crescendo
For a home audio enthusiast, I don't know that I could recommend a rig costing much less than the configuration I suggested. At a lower cost, I don't know that we're still talking about hobbyists.

For my personal home rig, the source is also the most expensive piece. Worse though is that even though the source is a good performer at its price, it's still the component at which I lodge the greatest complaints. Yes, it's hard to find a headphone that is comfortable, has high resolution and a relatively flat response. Yes, it's hard to find an amplifier that does not sacrifice texture, decay or extension to achieve good bass performance, a low noise floor and smoothness. Despite these things, it is the compact disc signature that grates on me the worst. Maybe I am an exception to the rule in this priority ranking--at least among those of us who choose to persue the digital.

Kelly, looking at your profile, with equipment you have, you are probably 90 to 95% of best level you could ever achieve. An upgrade to your source will benefit your system. But, to get that 1, or 2% more your looking for, you probably would have to spend more on the source than the rest of your system combined.



Quote:

I am only intereseted in portable sources at this time in my life so I could never justify the cost of purchasing a good home rig. This is why I would put headphone > amp > source > cable, for equipment because the difference in sound between one pcdp and another is not that big compared to headphones/amp.

Biggie.

Quote:



With the Modwright mods planned, the total source cost will indeed be slightly more than any of the headphone+amp configurations under consideration. Of course, part of this is because I'm not satisfied that the amps and headphones that cost more are worth more. That's another debate altogether, though and I shouldn't say more lest the Blockhead and R10 pushers come out from the woodwork. I actually do believe the Orpheus is a clear step above everything else, but I'm not yet that far gone.

Hirsch: No argument from me on your distinctions or on the art of listening. In practical terms, however, the divisions between observer, hardware, and software make good sense so as to consider the effects of each as singly as possible. Kelly makes a good point as to the upgrading and tweaking of the observer (perhaps a Q-tip cotton swab is the tweak that gets the wax out?) as being beyond most of our abilities.

The term sound system clearly indicated hardware for me, although the poll choices introduced ambiguity. How can you ever get good sound out of bad source, bad amplification, and bad tranducers? Answer: You can't. Good source, amplification, and "air engines" (be they headphones or speakers) will reveal the software differences. I, too, have no trouble going with new re-masters of CDs with their increased smoothness and resolution over earlier CDs.

A question: how come the analog-only folks, with all the countless cartridge/arm/turntable/cables/phonopreamp combinations available, never seem to get involved in discussing "bad" analog products and combinations? (stalwarts all in opposition to the "digital devil")

Quote:



One might argue that there are no bad analog components, merely shades of good. Upgrading can make good better and they'll happily advise you there. By cotnrast, digital sources are bad and can only be made less bad.

Haha, "shades of good." Best phrase ever.

kerelybonto