[AS1]

I vote for reversing the order of the categories "Dedicated Source Components" and "Amplification" in the Equipment category list. Poll?

 

[ccotenj]

in my current listening room setup, i have a pio elite dv59, feeding an anthem avm-30, going to odyssey stratos extreme monoblocks and then to b&w matrix 802s (s3) and an paradigm servo-15 v2 subwoofer...

i've had the opportunity to listen to several higher end sources and amps, and while there is (possibly) marginal improvement, it's tiny in comparison to the difference that higher end speakers make... the only OMG! experience i've ever had was when i bought my first pair of b&w's (and they were hooked up to real low end components)...

i didn't say source doesn't make a difference... but (imo) not nearly the difference that others believe that it does... i'm also not saying that others may not "hear" a difference that i'm not hearing... but when someone says they "hear" a "night and day" difference between sources, i tend to look upon that as being a bit of an exagerration, whereas when they say that about transducers, i'm willing to buy that because i can corroborate that with my own experiences...

one of the things i am saying is that the difference between going from a 100 dollar speaker to a 4000 dollar speaker is huge compared to the difference when you go from a 100 dollar source to a 4000 dollar source... i'm willing to stand by that statement... i'll also stand by the original statement that the great majority of what hits your ears is a result of the transducers, not the source or amplification... heck, i'll even go one step farther and say that room treatments/speaker setup has considerably more effect than either amplification or source (not a factor with cans)...

 

[pageman99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccotenj /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... one of the things i am saying is that the difference between going from a 100 dollar speaker to a 4000 dollar speaker is huge compared to the difference when you go from a 100 dollar source to a 4000 dollar source... i'm willing to stand by that statement... i'll also stand by the original statement that the great majority of what hits your ears is a result of the transducers, not the source or amplification... heck, i'll even go one step farther and say that room treatments/speaker setup has considerably more effect than either amplification or source (not a factor with cans)...

Not if you already have $4000 speakers that are properly setup. Then you would notice what a HUGE difference an excellent source or amp would make.

Be careful here, (and I don't mean to be negative), but IMO you're generalizing based on what many would consider limited experience.

 

[ccotenj]

nah, i'm not "generalizing" on "limited experience" at all (and besides, it's just a discussion on an internet forum, it's not like we are solving world hunger here)... while i don't feel the need (or have the memory

) to list all the various combinations i've heard (both well set-up and 'gee, why did you waste your money?'), i'm pretty comfortable in my opinion on this subject...

"can" you achieve a "marginal" improvement by going to a higher end source once you have your transducers correctly set up? sure. but that wasn't the point of the thread (not to mention the point of many posters who stated to spend on source before transducer)... yes, if you already have your transducers ready to go, and your room properly setup, then, yea, the next place to look to spend money is on source/amp... but to suggest that people spend money on source/amp before transducers doesn't jive with my 'sperience...

imo, you can hook the greatest cdp in the world to the greatest amp in the world and feed crappy transducers, and it's gonna sound like crap... but you can hook a discman up to a cheap amplifier and feed some good transducers and it's gonna sound pretty good...

imo, the reason why (most) people spend their money on transducers first is because that is where the greatest "bang for the buck" lives... they spend money on amps second because amps are cool

... they spend money on source last because while improvement CAN be made, you can spend LARGE amounts of money to hear very little...

as always, my opinion, and that and a buck seventy five gets you a medium coffee from the dunkin'...

 

[Mindless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccotenj /img/forum/go_quote.gif one of the things i am saying is that the difference between going from a 100 dollar speaker to a 4000 dollar speaker is huge compared to the difference when you go from a 100 dollar source to a 4000 dollar source... i'm willing to stand by that statement...

When it comes to speakers (which seems to be your transducer of preference) the difference sure is great when comparing lower-end with higher-end. Comparing $100000 systems with $1000 systems, they are worlds apart. No doubt about it.

However, headphones (from my experience) react differently than speakers do from source and amplification upgrades, which may be why you think the impact made from source upgrades is less prominent with speakers.

 

[d-cee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AS1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I vote for reversing the order of the categories "Dedicated Source Components" and "Amplification" in the Equipment category list. Poll?

oh my goodness...

you may be on to something here!!!

 

[vcoheda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccotenj /img/forum/go_quote.gif one of the things i am saying is that the difference between going from a 100 dollar speaker to a 4000 dollar speaker is huge compared to the difference when you go from a 100 dollar source to a 4000 dollar source.

okay. but we're not talking about speakers here. to me speakers versus headphones is a completely different conversation. if someone owns an hd650, a $250 headphone, and then goes to an L3000 or R10, both more than 10x the amount of the 650, i think the difference in sound quality will be minimal if used in a system with an average source. but if that same hd650 owner invests that $2500+ in a source, the difference imo will be significant and far greater than any upgrade to headphones or amplification.

 

[Mindless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif okay. but we're not talking about speakers here. to me speakers versus headphones is a completely different conversation. if someone owns an hd650, a $250 headphone, and then goes to an L3000 or R10, both more than 10x the amount of the 650, i think the difference in sound quality will be minimal if used in a system with an average source. but if that same hd650 owner invests that $2500+ in a source, the difference imo will be significant and far greater than any upgrade to headphones or amplification.

Exactly.

 

[Kees]

I give you two systems I have heard/auditioned.
The first one in a well known audio shop I frequent.
The second at my home.
First system (demo-ed for a customer who insisted he wanted to know what these speakers would sound like in his system. He was very proud of his system, and it isn't bad at all really).
NAD CD: C542 (approx. $600)
NAD integrated C372 (approx. $1000)
Speakers: B&W 802D (approx. $24000)

Second system is my own system when I did'nt yet have my latest speakers and borrowed a pair of Wharfedales to bridge the gap.
Marantz CD12/DA12 ($5000 15 years ago)
AVM V3 ($1500 10 years ago)
Audio Innovations First Audio Amplifier (modded) + Border Patrol PSU (approx. $12000)
Wharfdale diamonds ($400).

Just guess what system sounds better, and the difference is HUGHE.

Right: the second system.

 

[ccotenj]

i would never be presumptuous enough to tell someone what they are hearing, but what you are hearing would be inconsistent with my hearing...

oh well...

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccotenj /img/forum/go_quote.gif i would never be presumptuous enough to tell someone what they are hearing, but what you are hearing would be inconsistent with my hearing... oh well...

Why don't you go to a high-end shop and ask a demo?
I'm shure that can be easily arranged.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFKMan23 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can't speak for others, but I am of the school of thought that the source does have quite an influence on the resulting sound.

Apart from high quality components, the source does have the biggest impact.

Some sources are worth the money but 15.000 is a bit on the high side of prices. between 2000-3000 you'll also have a really good source and not missing anything. For some sources, apperance is more important.

The biggest difference is from cheap, say a few 100 dollars to 2000-3000 dollars, after that, diminishing returns kick in very steep and hard!

Quality in life cost money, if you're long enough in the audio scene you'll know it by now. There's no wonder cable or source or amp that trashes really good quality. But high end prices are sometimes a bit rediculous and way overpriced. some really expensive players don't even sound as good as some 3000 dollar players. some are fooled that high prices always buys the best. Even so, system matching is important. Buying expensive stuff and putting it that way together doesn't guarantee synergy. It still takes a good ear and experience!

Taste is something i won't discuss about. But good is good, has nothing to do with taste, bad is bad. And alot of cheap commercial stuff is bad, as most of the new recordings nowadays. Some are even recorded near clipping and sound distorted.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif I give you two systems I have heard/auditioned. The first one in a well known audio shop I frequent. The second at my home. First system (demo-ed for a customer who insisted he wanted to know what these speakers would sound like in his system. He was very proud of his system, and it isn't bad at all really). NAD CD: C542 (approx. $600) NAD integrated C372 (approx. $1000) Speakers: B&W 802D (approx. $24000) Second system is my own system when I did'nt yet have my latest speakers and borrowed a pair of Wharfedales to bridge the gap. Marantz CD12/DA12 ($5000 15 years ago) AVM V3 ($1500 10 years ago) Audio Innovations First Audio Amplifier (modded) + Border Patrol PSU (approx. $12000) Wharfdale diamonds ($400). Just guess what system sounds better, and the difference is HUGHE. Right: the second system.

Simply because your source is MUCH better and your amp also. The expensive speakers don't compensate for bad source! Cheap speakers however can scale quite high with high end sources! I noticed this myself a few times auditioning systems. An amp with a good source will deleiver much more then a good seaker with low end source and amp. The only thing the expensive speakers do is telling you the source is very weak!

 

[ccotenj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why don't you go to a high-end shop and ask a demo? I'm shure that can be easily arranged.

you are assuming that i haven't heard the type of sources/amplification you are talking about... that would be a faulty assumption...

 

[feckn_eejit]

Source first, amplification second, transducers last.

I am consistently amazed how much better average transducers sound hooked up to excellent amplification and sources, compared to top-tier transducers hooked up to run-of-the-mill amplification and sources, or even good amplification and a poor source. A great transducer hooked up to average equipment sounds like a spectacularly flawless rendering of the equipment's flaws. An average transducer hooked up to excellent equipment sounds like the best that transducer can do (which can often be surprisingly good! great gear has a way of "death-gripping" crappy transducers into startling performances!), and much better illustrates the differences in transducer quality.

Bottm line: You can never fix something down the line that was buggered up earlier in the chain; you can only hear the buggering-up more clearly

On the other hand if we're talking purely value for money, it's certainly the other way around