[KevC]

Just reading some threads, and seems like SOURCE is extremely extremely important. I've decided (for myself, not sure if it's completely right) that SOURCE is more important than amplification, but headphones/speakers being the number one greatest contributer of SQ (for the sub $1k/component system).

DAC is extremely extremely important. I think [warning: this is only what i think, not based on any scientific fact] the DAC decides how *detailed* your music will be, and the amp is just "there" to drive the headphones... as long as the amp can drive the headphones (enough power for K1000s etc) then the DAC contritubes more to the sound resolution. I think the Amp contributes more to sound signature than resolution.

Obviously this is just a "feel" and not based on any hard proof... so I throw it out to you guys, is there any truth to this?

A more specific question to start with... If you play decently encoded (maybe iTunes ripped) MP3s or other lossy format through a decent dedicated DAC (maybe the lowly Silverstone EB01 or a nice Zhaolu)... would it sound better or WORSE than a CD being played through not so great DACs? Maybe headphone out of a AV710? Or other soundcard. Or maybe consumer DVD player?

Amplification being the same.

To the SOURCE FIRST camp: SOURCE being what? The DAC more important than the music FILE? (lossy vs lossless... ripped in BURST vs SECURE mode in EAC)

Discuss =)

 

[Jahn]

i dunno about firsts, but in terms of choice, before getting into anything, the type of music i like and the way i like to hear it are my first choices, even before hearing of head-fi.

with that as a basis, now i buy a can. does it need amplification? then i get one of those. if it doesn't, i hold off on the amp.

now let's address the source. it's not going to sound good no matter what with crappy rips, so let's have it re-ripped to a good compromise between SQ and storage space (thinking computer/ipod here)

now, here's where I finally get to source. internal soundcard? external DAC? lots of flexibility here.

ok, found the one i like. time to upgrade/get an amp. rinse and repeat!

 

[fjf]

Source being the file (192 kbps at least, better lossless) and a decent DAC. I use a cheap DVDPlayer, and amplifying directly its line out sounds terrible. Getting its digital out to a good DAC gives a beautiful music. Then you need to amplify (the best you do it the better, but any decent amplifier will be listenable) and, of course, good headphones are a must.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevC Just reading some threads, and seems like SOURCE is extremely extremely important. I've decided (for myself, not sure if it's completely right) that SOURCE is more important than amplification, but headphones/speakers being the number one greatest contributer of SQ (for the sub $1k/component system).

SOURCE first is the dictum of analogue (vinyl / tape front ends). With digital sources it makes a much bigger difference to the end result if you spend the most on your speakers/cans then amplification then source.

"source" is a legacy term from the days pre computer audio so if you are listening to your computer playing a sound file then the file>drive>dac are all collectively the source.

All of the above only holds so long as you are talking about uncompressed audio or lossless codecs like FLAC/ALAC. Once you start to throw away audio information by compressing the music your ancillaries (amp,speakers,headphones) become a lot less forgiving depending on how high quality they are.

But any set-up which is considered hi-fi won't really be acheiving it's musical potential play compressed files. So although your 128kps MP3's may sound half decent on a good quality system they are really best left in your ipod or wherever, if you even countenance such things.

 

[regal]

I won't listen to any MP3's, the technology with Flac makes MP3's obsolete.

 

[ComfyCan]

I think your questions/discussion items as posed have a few too many variables to attack head-on, but in general, my experience has been:
1) The more "lossy" the music file, the more poorly it sounds with a good Dac/amp. This is only logical--the flaws (missing data) are revealed.
2) Lossless music files sound far better with a good dac/amp, *unless* the cd from which they were ripped was poorly mixed/mastered. Again, flaws are revealed. With poorly mixed cd's, they may actually sound better on low end gear.

 

[Patrick82]

Here is my ranking list:

1) Nordost Valkyrja K1000 cable + 192 kbps mp3
2) Stefan AudioArt Hardwired K1000 cable + WAV


1) PS Audio GCC-100 + 192 kbps mp3
2) Krell KAV-500i + WAV


1) Nordost Valhalla interconnect + 192 kbps mp3
2) Outlaw PCA + WAV


1) DAC-1 + 3 step isolation + 192 kbps mp3
2) Cary 303/300 + 2 step isolation + WAV

1) Nordost Vishnu power cord + WAV
2) Nordost Valhalla + 192 kbps mp3
3) Nordost Vishnu + 192 kbps mp3
4) PS Audio xStream Statement + WAV
5) Stock + WAV


I have been listening to a lot of 192 kbps mp3 lately, it's not bad!

 

[lan]

The way I see and experience it:

Headphones = greatest influence on sonic signature
Source = greatest influence on sound quality
Amp = greatest influence on sound detriment

I'd be far happines with KSC35 with what I deem as great source and amp rather than HE90 on a cheap electrostatic amp and ipod.

>>>>the DAC decides how *detailed* your music will be, and the amp is just "there" to drive the headphones...

Everything in the chain decides how detailed the music will be. The amp does get in the way of transparency since it's the largest active part in the chain after the source.

To me a lossy file on a great source will sound better than CD on an ok source will sound better than SACD/DVD-Audio on a "bad" source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn with that as a basis, now i buy a can. does it need amplification? then i get one of those. if it doesn't, i hold off on the amp.

If you dont' get an amp though, where do you plug in the headphones?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComfyCan in general, my experience has been: 1) The more "lossy" the music file, the more poorly it sounds with a good Dac/amp. This is only logical--the flaws (missing data) are revealed. 2) Lossless music files sound far better with a good dac/amp, *unless* the cd from which they were ripped was poorly mixed/mastered. Again, flaws are revealed. With poorly mixed cd's, they may actually sound better on low end gear.

I think this is just a state of mind so it's not really logical. The whole lossy way of doing things is perceptual. You're not supposed to hear the differences much because it throws away things beyond the threshold of hearing. The view is also pessimistic. There are great benefits to the sound when the playback system is better. The fact that you can hear more is a testament in that it's better. That can't be argued but whether you like it or not is a matter of taste.

In my experience, I don't hear that many differences with lossy and lossless files. The realm of differences is smaller than that between interconnects and power cords IMO.

 

[ComfyCan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan I think this is just a state of mind so it's not really logical. The whole lossy way of doing things is perceptual. You're not supposed to hear the differences much because it throws away things beyond the threshold of hearing. The view is also pessimistic. There are great benefits to the sound when the playback system is better. The fact that you can hear more is a testament in that it's better. That can't be argued but whether you like it or not is a matter of taste. In my experience, I don't hear that many differences with lossy and lossless files. The realm of differences is smaller than that between interconnects and power cords IMO.

I agree that a well encoded, but technically "lossy" file with a good codec and bitrate can indeed be indistinguishable from a lossless file to the human ear, which is why i couched my answer in terms of generalizations. A 128 kbps mp3 that my kid downloaded somewhere will generally sound crappy to me with a good dac/amp/phones, but If I carefully rip to wav. and then encode, e.g., at 320kbps as an AAC file, I can't tell the difference between that file and a Flac equivelant on my system.

Lossy codec options have come a long way since the early mp3 days. In other words, I basically agree with you. However, since I have plenty of storage space for music files on most of my digital sources, I generally stick with Flac. The exception is my Nano, where I use 192kbps AAC. These files sound just fine with a line out and an amp.

 

[Garbz]

Some people are source crazy. A friend has a lovely $4500 CDplayer running through $1200 speakers

I chose the other aproach. $5000 speakers, $700 CDplayer (originally).

Both setups sounded fantastic in their own way and we were both very happy, untill said friend brought his expensive toy over here for a few days. Now we are both left wanting.

 

[grokit]

IME, as long as the rest of your setup is at least somewhat competent, the quality of the original source--the studio or live recording of the music--is at least as important as any other part of the "listening chain", if not more so.