[Jeffreybar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cantsleep /img/forum/go_quote.gif crappy source+good headphone = good source+crappy headphone

Maybe, but I think average source+great headphone beats great source+average headphone any day. I'm sure someone will produce a counter-example.

 

[rapier84]

1) Headphones
2) Source
3) Amps

In that order

 

[cotdt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by granodemostasa /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the sound sig: 1. Headphones 2. Amp 3. Source 4. cables On the Sound quality 1. Source 2. Amp 3. Headphones 4. cables.

+1

 

[fordgtlover]

I can't provide a decent answer because to me it is like asking which component has the biggest impact on the performance of a PC - the answer is always "the part that is causing the biggest bottleneck at the time and for your purpose".

The components work together.

 

[Contrastique]

1: Headpone
2: Amp
3: Source

With most important no.1
Crappy earbuds with a good source will sound bad. Good hps with a less source (like ipod) will sound better imo.

 

[cantsleep]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contrastique /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1: Headpone 2: Amp 3: Source With most important no.1 Crappy earbuds with a good source will sound bad. Good hps with a less source (like ipod) will sound better imo.

sources (like ipod) cost much more than crappy earbuds

good headphone with $2 (like am/fm radio) source will sound pretty equally bad.

 

[dissembled]

Source will have the most impact. With a superb source, all of your phones will be at their upmost potential. From the $30 ones to the $300+ ones. And that in my opinion, is what should matter most.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cantsleep /img/forum/go_quote.gif sources (like ipod) cost much more than crappy earbuds good headphone with $2 (like am/fm radio) source will sound pretty equally bad.

That's a lousy analogy. Each of these components has a relative price. The money for a good source and a good headphone are not necessarily equivalent. $2 is not indicative of a low level of quality for all parts. You can spend $2 on batteries, or on one capacitor, or on one cd, etc. This sort of thinking leads to the "I have $1500 to spend, I'll split it equally between cables, transducers, sources and amplification" mentality, which is the wrong way to look at it. A $2 headphone is far better than a $2 source. $300 buys you an average cd player, an excellent set of headphones, or a very low end set of speakers.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissembled /img/forum/go_quote.gif Source will have the most impact. With a superb source, all of your phones will be at their upmost [sic] potential. From the $30 ones to the $300+ ones. And that in my opinion, is what should matter most.

So, in your opinion, how much should someone save up for a source before they buy a pair of headphones to go with it? Do all headphones merit a reference level source?

 

[sleven]

Headphone
Source
Amp
Cables

 

[Nailzs]

If the recording isn't good it won't matter what source, headphones, amp or cable is used. It'll sound bad.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nailzs /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the recording isn't good it won't matter what source, headphones, amp or cable is used. It'll sound bad.

I think accounting for recording quality is what separates audiophiles from just music lovers.

I'm really just a music lover. I make my system as good as it can be, and then I play all sorts of recordings on it. I play some really poorly recorded stuff, and I can hear all the flaws. That's just fine in my book.

 

[AS1]

1. recording
2. headphone
3. source
4. amp

 

[jdimitri]

The cd

And then, headphone,source,amp,cable

 

[tbonner1]

Quote:

1. Headphone 2. Source 3. Amplifier 4. Cables

The transducer has the biggest impact, headphones or speakers. If you are looking to build a system, I would start there and build around it.