[Redo]

Having crappy headphones, or good headphones improperly amp'd is a massive killer. No source will ever fix the chain, it's just money thrown away. Once the headphones and amp are taken care of, the source upgrades can occur.

It seems as if there's far more amps around than sources anyhow.

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindless /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is because high-end amplifiers are so hyped. Sure, amplifiers add further detail, depth, clarity and whatnot to the music, but it dosen't render the music (or so to say) like the CD player (or DAC) does.

I keep reading this paragraph and am obviously misinterpreting something that you're trying to get across.

An amp can only subtract detail, clarity, depth, and "whatnot" from the signal fed to it by a source....it can't add those factors. Lesser amps subtract more, better amps subtract less, but no amps increase those qualities, otherwise they would be adding "anti-distortion"...not possible.

Are you referring to a comparison of the headphone output of a DAP, for instance, versus the line out from that same DAP into an external headamp? In that case, the external amp isn't actually adding anything.....it's just taking away/distorting less than the internal headphone output.

 

[vcoheda]

i think he is saying that better amplified signals allow you to hear more of the music than worse amplfied ones, but that both are limited by the extent to which the source can render or play the music. an ipod connected to a hornet or a singlepower may sound very similar because the source exhausts its potential way before the single power has a chance to show what it is capable of.

 

[rincewind]

Further to GIGO: A poor source (compared to the rest of the system) creates a bottleneck in the system that no amp or transducer can ever correct. Personally, I'm glad to see there are some ppl here who appreciate the important of source - I thought it would be less.

If I was buying a system, and someone put the limitation on me: "you must spent 50% of your money on one component, 30% on another and 20% on the remaining component", I would choose 50% for source, 30% for amp and 20% for transducers. I would follow this rule regardless of budget. There are 'neutral' enough amps and transducers out there at ALL price points to sound fantastic, given a fantastic source.

Having said that, if I was then able to upgrade again after buying the system, I'd get new transducers. Then amp after that. It really is a matter of keeping your system components 'on-par' and minimising the inevitable bottle-neck while upgrading. But if your buying all in one go 50/30/20 from source to transducers is where I would put things.

Note: this isn't saying B&W speakers etc are no good! Only that I'd try to get a ~70k source and a ~40k amp for a set of 25k speakers (although I would never spend that much on a total system hahah)

I think my current system stands at: ~1000USD src > 600USD amp > 360USD cans (when my new DAC arrives)

I'm keen to know what other ppl's systems look like in this respect. I suppose RRP would be the best price to use for this because once u talk about second hand and out of date models, it all goes whacky and becomes apples and oranges WRT price!

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rincewind /img/forum/go_quote.gif Further to GIGO: A poor source (compared to the rest of the system) creates a bottleneck in the system that no amp or transducer can ever correct. Personally, I'm glad to see there are some ppl here who appreciate the important of source - I thought it would be less. If I was buying a system, and someone put the limitation on me: "you must spent 50% of your money on one component, 30% on another and 20% on the remaining component", I would choose 50% for source, 30% for amp and 20% for transducers. I would follow this rule regardless of budget. There are 'neutral' enough amps and transducers out there at ALL price points to sound fantastic, given a fantastic source. Having said that, if I was then able to upgrade again after buying the system, I'd get new transducers. Then amp after that. It really is a matter of keeping your system components 'on-par' and minimising the inevitable bottle-neck while upgrading. But if your buying all in one go 50/30/20 from source to transducers is where I would put things. Note: this isn't saying B&W speakers etc are no good! Only that I'd try to get a ~70k source and a ~40k amp for a set of 25k speakers (although I would never spend that much on a total system hahah) I think my current system stands at: ~1000USD src > 600USD amp > 360USD cans (when my new DAC arrives) I'm keen to know what other ppl's systems look like in this respect. I suppose RRP would be the best price to use for this because once u talk about second hand and out of date models, it all goes whacky and becomes apples and oranges WRT price!

I agree with ya. A good source and good amp can sound fantastic with relatively cheap speakers or headphones. The other way around would never be satisfactory! The only thing you create there is that you'll hear much easier any limitation in the system.

That's why older high end equipment is best bang for the buck; you can get it much cheaper then it was at that time yet it is still today compatible in many ways, sometimes still even better.

Same quality today will cost you severe.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif i think he is saying that better amplified signals allow you to hear more of the music than worse amplfied ones, but that both are limited by the extent to which the source can render or play the music. an ipod connected to a hornet or a singlepower may sound very similar because the source exhausts its potential way before the single power has a chance to show what it is capable of.

An amplifier, the name says it all, can only boost an incomming signal. That is a signal comming from the source, being a tape, record or cd. The better the dac can render the music, the better the amp is able to perform. The better the equipment becomes, the more obvious the differences get in recordings.

I heard some very satisfactory cheap transducers, although better speakers also can produce quite a big leap in performance, the difference in a bad source and good source is at least of the same magnitude or even bigger.
I think you'll never hear that much difference going from a bad source to a higher end source, the differences where night and day.

Example:

a 500-1000 dollar speaker kan sound really good with a good cdplayer and amp, but a 25.000 speaker with a 500-1000 dollar amp and cdplayer won't be as satisfying, simply because you'll hear the limits on the 25.000 dollar speakers much earlier.

High end equipment can be ruthless and tells you immediatly what's wrong in the system.
The problem is that if you have equipment that is capable of extrating every bit of detail, you have to make sure every link in the system is up to the same level!

In other words, buy the best source you can buy, the other elements in the setup will only take away, if it's not up to a high standard.

 

[Redo]

Honestly, I don't know how you could have a good source without a respectable headphone/amp first. It's all about balance, and source is the last in the balance change.

Sources also hit very high prices before anything else. One could get so many different flavors and varieties with headphones, then experiment with amplification. Source upgrades though, besides going from the very cheap end, are only refinement. Those expensive refinement upgrades come last!

 

[rincewind]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Honestly, I don't know how you could have a good source without a respectable headphone/amp first. It's all about balance, and source is the last in the balance change... One could get so many different flavors and varieties with headphones, then experiment with amplification.

You answered your own question there. We're (at least I'm) not talking about 'horrible' speakers and amps with a 10,000 source. I'm merely saying that as long as your amp is relatively transparent, doesn't actively cut or boost or EQ the signal, and plays loud and clean, AND as long as your headphones are nimble enough to follow fast bass lines, have enough resolution to reproduce high treble, and they have an inoffensive midrange (ie they perform reasonably competently), then the thing which WILL (no questions asked) give the biggest 'revelation' in terms of sound quality, is the source. If you are after different 'flavours' as you put it, I read that as overall sonic signatures (ie this much bass, that much treble etc). Which in my opinion isn't a 'better' or 'worse' thing, just differences (with some being a less realistic recreation of the music than others, even if some find them more enjoyable).

BTW, I wouldnt call the difference I heard simply going from a 0404 to an external NOS DAC (at least the one I chose, I'm sure some wouldn't give the same kind of improvement) even remotely close to a refinement. It was a revelation. I dunno what you've heard to date, but maybe you need to hear some significantly better sources to give a better idea of the economy of scale (or change) a source can give.

 

[Duggeh]

This thread has got some frankly brilliant discussion going on and I feel that I would like to contribute my own perspective. There are a great many posts with worthy arguments and information and stories however I have picked this one to precede my own.

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.

With this as a context I will elaborate on my own experience...

I presently have a Stax Omega 2, an Ergo AMT, a TakeT H2 and the only headphone remaining which I would seriously consider adding to this stash is an AKG K1000. That's going to be in the end, four different driver types, each of which is a seriously difficult and demanding transducer as far as amplification is concerned.

I currently run the three I have from my digital source which is an Audigy 2 ZS soundcard. Now I appreciate that some of you source first philosophers will find that to be quite painful reading.

The reason that I have gone so heavily into the transducer first camp is because I believe that one should establish the character of sound that one likes best, prior to anything. Even though they are all getting garbage in, each of these headphones sounds absolutely nothing like the others and each is incredibly musically enjoyable in its own right.

Because they are such very difficult electrical loads, compared even to tier headphones like the HD650, K701 or DT880, amplification is of much more importance to making them sound correct in that character than is normally the case. Three of them need a speaker amplifier and one a very ballsy electrostatic amp.

I want to get the transducers firing as best as possible in order to maximise the potential of their sound character, before I finally cap off the whole lot with a really good source, in order to then fill out their ultimate potential as far as detail and accuracy and musicality is concerned.

It will also serve my wallet best ultimately to do this, because the amps I pair them with will still be excellent matches, many many years into the future. Whereas sources, particularly digital sources: CDPs and DACs, are advancing technologically far more aggressively. By the time my headphoning and amping is satisfactory, there will be a better CD player, at a better price point to match them with, than there is now.

I recognise the importance of the source in the chain of things. However I find that is it the transducer which is the most ultimate importance in a sound character which is euphonic to the individual, and with some transducers, amplification really is massively important.

I agree that if you are using a DR150, HD595, all the way to K701 or RS-1, you are probably better spending on a source than on an amp within that price context. These headphones though are peanuts to drive compared to what I like the sound of, and want the best from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...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.

To requote and to comment. I've made that jump, you are I regret, incorrect in your postulations, the TakeT H2 sounds better from my average source than the HD650 can ever hope to.

 

[rincewind]

Some good points! But... there will always be sources worth a lot more than what you deem appropriate for your system! Plus, as many on here know, good tech is still good 10 years from now. BTW, the technology used by the DACs I seem to like most is from the 80s - the first generation of CDPs.

Lastly, yeah - you did the same as me - aiming to get one aspect of my rig 'right' or as best as I could affordably (or is that justifiably?) achieve at the time... But OH BOY, are you gonna be in heaven when you feed those cans with the a better source hahaha

PS go Piltdown man hehehe

 

[Morph201]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Having crappy headphones, or good headphones improperly amp'd is a massive killer. No source will ever fix the chain, it's just money thrown away. Once the headphones and amp are taken care of, the source upgrades can occur. It seems as if there's far more amps around than sources anyhow.

I'm sorry Redo, no offense, but that makes NO SENSE! I understand everyone is entitled to their opinion, but just from the name "source" it shows you that it's vital to a decent sounding system. Unless you want to spin your wheels colouring everything via the amp\phones... Amps become meaningless after a certain price point, due to the fact that most upper level amps strive to be neutral (wire w/ gain) since an amps ONLY objective is to accentuate the SOURCE material... get a mid-fi amp\phone (both neutral) with an UPPER level source and it will amaze you. I find too many people on this site preoccupied with the latest amp

.. IDK maybe it appears sexy or something.

But, once again all of this is futile if the RECORDED SOURCE sucks, nothing not even the best CDP will correct it, nor would you want it to. Be true to the source!

 

[vcoheda]

all this discussion is good, but i suspect the reason people neglect their source or upgrade their source last is simply because it is generally the most expensive component in the chain to upgrade.

 

[Morph201]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif all this discussion is good, but i suspect the reason people neglect their source or upgrade their source last is simply because it is generally the most expensive component in the chain to upgrade.

Quite the reason to get it first!

 

[meat01]

Quote:

But, once again all of this is futile if the RECORDED SOURCE sucks, nothing not even the best CDP will correct it, nor would you want it to. Be true to the source!

I agree. You are at the mercy of the recording. You can have the best CD Player, amp and Headphones, but if the recording sucks, you are screwed.

The recording makes the most difference in the overall sound followed by the headphones or speakers. CD players really don't vary that much in sound quality like Speakers and Headphones. DACs have been around for years and the designers have pretty much figured out how to design them and produce them cheap. Even the crappiest DAC still sounds good.

Speakers and headphones however have a lot more factors and you can't make high quality sound with cheap materials. There are still some really cheap speakers and headphones made with sub par materials that sound bad and impact the overall sound more.


Quote:

all this discussion is good, but i suspect the reason people neglect their source or upgrade their source last is simply because it is generally the most expensive component in the chain to upgrade.

I don't think there really is a reason to pay a lot for a source. The difference between a sub $100 CD player or MP3 player and a $3000 source is not as big a difference as sub $100 speakers and $3000 ones. I would much rather spend my money on good speakers or headphones.

Hmmm, a $60 DVD player through K1000s, or a Meridian through Sony MDR-600s?

 

[vcoheda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meat01 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think there really is a reason to pay a lot for a source. The difference between a sub $100 CD player or MP3 player and a $3000 source is not as big a difference as sub $100 speakers and $3000 ones.

well that is the debate and from the above you clearly are in the source last or not at all camp. if my source was an ipod and i could never have something better, i would probably get out of audio entirely.