1. Headphones
2. Source
3. Amp
...
X. Cables

I am not a big believer in cables. I'm sure there is a slight improvement in sound quality, but not enough for me to hear. Cables are also very expensive, so I cannot justify the gain/cost ratio of buying expensive cables.

You guys are all wrong.

This is the order in real life:

[size=large]1. MONEY/WALLET

2. YOUR PARTNER
[/size]
3. Either headphones or source.

Therefore I consider myself team money first.

PS: Although from time to time I found that my partner is the prime bottleneck in my system upgrade (headphones, pc, cameras, etc...)

Quote:



Now this guy has just hit the nail square in the head.

Quote:



x2
...
Behind headphones, I think the recording makes the biggest difference. As everyone is such a fan of saying, garbage in = garbage out. If the point of "hi-fi" as a hobby is to faithfully and accurately reproduce a recording, it follows that you would need a good recording for good reproduction.

This is what makes the idea of spending tons of $$ on cables seem odd to me. Recording studios use hundreds of feet of relatively inexpensive and certainly non-audiophile grade cable. Since the signal was recorded in this way, what do you hope to get out of trying to reproduce it with better equipment?
What if you were trying to reproduce an expensive piece of artwork, for example? Say you want to make a copy of the Mona Lisa. You, of course, use the finest equipment money can buy because you want an accurate copy. OTOH, if you're reproducing a crayon drawing by a 2nd grader and you use all that fancy equipment to try and reproduce it, what do you get? An accurate copy - another crayon drawing by a 2nd grader. No matter how much you spend, you'll never get it to turn into a Mona Lisa.

Quote:



+3 on the sound signature (although I might niggle about switching 2 & 3)

Quote:



but I definitely think the recording is #1 for sound quality so just drop each of the above down by 1

Quote:



relative sense, i agree.
but to me, it's more like whatever goes out of my wallet.

Quote:



Quote:



these are sound priorities imo.



Quote:



lol, now talk about realistic priorites!



Quote:



not all good cables are very expensive and not all cables (even $$$ ones) make a significant difference, but there are times when i've heard cables, even power cords, radically change a system, no golden ears needed!



Quote:



hmmm, that's a big if:


Quote:



ruthlessly revealing systems won't make this sort of listener happy. and while this isn't always the predominant view on audiophile sites, it's probably why most of us started down this path. others would take this further and just want everything to sound as good as possible and to minimize warts or the factors in poorer recordings that draw your attention from the music to the flaws.

Quote:



Oh so true

Quote:



I concur. My CD3000s made everything that was put into them sound better, and my panasonic earbuds sounded bad no matter what you put into them. In terms of which component would create the most "whoa, that's different" sensation when swapped out, to me it's gotta be the headphone, or the component that converts the electrical energy/signal/info back to accoustic energy (to borrow another head-fi'ers point. . . ).

Quote:



Good point made. But that said, any part can be copying the record.

Quote:



I've heard this view expressed often, and I can't say I agree with it entirely. Of the recording studios I've personally worked at and worked in, quality varied significantly. I've never recorded anything on a major label, but I've worked at some of those studios and I can tell you, all the cabling is very, very good. But, that's not the point.

The point is that what's on the recording is a fixed quantity. It's not a variable. You can change how you retrieve that information and how you present it, but you can't change the recording unless you have the master tapes, and still you can't change those. The problem with building a system around smoothing out poor recordings is that it can also smooth out excellent, carefully planned recordings.gs were made with extremely tight tolerances on everything -- AC power, signal cables, room acoustics, etc. Building a system that caters to the lowest common denominator of recordings doesn't do any justice to great recordings. It's the equivalent of a teacher giving every student a B-. No one fails anymore, but no one truly shines.

This is just my opinion, of course, but I consider every part of a recording to be music. Pops, clicks, bad tape splices, chairs moving, inhalations, all of it. All of these things depict a musical event, on both sides of the sound booth, and I want it all. I do listen to a lot of john Cage, though, so I would think that way. That's just what makes me happy, what brings me euphony, and that's really the end goal for most of us here.

Quote:



I'm not sure I understand where you're disagreeing with me on this one.

I was saying that by definition, "hi-fidelity" audio is about reproducing the recording as exactly as possible. Thus, if your system is "hi-fi" it will make bad recordings sound bad and good ones sound good. Whether or not you prefer to have your system set up this way is of no importance.

I agree with you. I like a revealing system. I want to hear everything on the recording, which is why you need a good recording, and why the recording is, IMO, the most important step. There is nothing you can do to retrieve details from a recording if they do not exist on said recording.
To go back to my original example, there is nothing you can do to turn a bad recording (a 2nd grader's drawing) into an excellent one (a Mona Lisa). No amount of money or time or cables can accomplish this. This is why a good recording, to me, is the most important part of the chain. Does this mean you should build a system that caters to making bad recordings sound better? No, it means you need a better recording. Again, I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me.

Many people have said on this thread that the biggest impact upon the sound will be the bottleneck, the weakest link in the system. If you're listening to a bad recording, it is the bottleneck. There is nothing you can change on the reproduction end that will make it good.

Maybe I just didn't do a good job of articulating my point.

Sorry to ramble/get a little ot

Whichever is the one your set-up is lacking in

Quote:



This order will then let the recording speak for itself.

it depends what is meant by the word "impact." if people mean change in sound, then maybe headphones, but even here i would still go with source. but if improvement is meant, then i don't see how people can say headphones. going from one headphone to another, unless you are talking about earbuds to HD650 + zu, is not going to give you better sound as much as it will give you a different sound. but different is not the same as better. however going from a reasonably priced dac to a high end dac will show a noticeable improvement or impact to the sound. in terms of sound quality, the amp probably has more impact on the sound then the headphones.