More a thread for newbies. Speakers. Start with them. Convinced my long searched theory. Start with your speakers first. Once you get ones you like. The rest will have much less impact. Based my system on Cyrus 8 amp. Wonderful sound. Based it on a mid budget Yamaha as 701 - still great sound. So...as said many times before - start with your speakers first. Do not spare money on them. Save some money on source and amp at first. Leave acoustics, jumper links, positioning alone. They do not help drastically. They will not change your sound to the point of liking it. You can play with it only when you're already glad with the system. Later you can start with source or amp upgrade. Look for good LSs to your liking. Never save on them ! Save on other components at the beginning.
HiFi proof is in the pudding
- Thread starter stereoman
- Start date
I'm with you for digital systems, i.e CD technology onwards, but for vinyl-based system there's no substitution for buying the best sounding front end you can afford. Followed by the best sounding phono stage you can afford, be it standalone or built into an amp/pre-amp.. Sure if you fundamentally hate the sound of your speakers then improving the turntable or amp won't make you like them, but I have no doubt that turntable-based systems follow the staid old 'garbage in, garbage out' philosophy, because the quality of the front end, followed by the quality of the phono stage, makes such a huge difference.
It would appear that this has gone full circle in many ways. The speakers first approach was popular for many years with people upgrading their speakers assuming their whole system would then sound much better. Then the advice become source first, and don't worry so much about the speakers as you won't get the best out of them until you upgrade your deck, cd player, DS or what every you play your music on.
I read this post with interest as I believe it was Linn that started championing the source first approach some years ago and to an extent I have followed this advice by upgrading my Linn system with an almost top of the range DS player. However I must admit that the best improvement I have experienced of late was upgrading my speakers. Would they have sounded as good without the initial DS upgrade though I wonder...
I suppose, as with all things a balance is needed and for components to work together : That is the crux of most of the advice given here by the forum members. There is no point having expensive speakers if you are listening through a sub standard source and vice versa.
Still I would agree that speakers that you like the sound of is a good a place to start as any and could well be the factor that most influences the overall sound
I read this post with interest as I believe it was Linn that started championing the source first approach some years ago and to an extent I have followed this advice by upgrading my Linn system with an almost top of the range DS player. However I must admit that the best improvement I have experienced of late was upgrading my speakers. Would they have sounded as good without the initial DS upgrade though I wonder...
I suppose, as with all things a balance is needed and for components to work together : That is the crux of most of the advice given here by the forum members. There is no point having expensive speakers if you are listening through a sub standard source and vice versa.
Still I would agree that speakers that you like the sound of is a good a place to start as any and could well be the factor that most influences the overall sound
insider9
Well-known member
I either didn't get that bit it or simply can't agree.stereoman said:
Speaker and the listening position in the room are the most important factors. Great speakers poorly positioned can sound worse than mediocre speakers optimally placed. Differences can be significant and make you like/dislike speakers.
In the end it's all about balance I guess.
But for example, let's say you gave me £2500 and told me I had to spend £1000 on an amp, however I could could spend the remaining £1500 how I wished.
If I was going to for a turntable-based system I'd spend upto £1000 on the turntable+arm+cart and the remainder on speakers that at least I liked the sound of and could live with, knowing they could stand an upgrade. Switch the budget around and IMO a £500 turntable+arm+cart would not be getting the best from £1,000 speakers at all and I reckon I would be more likely to be dissatisfied with the sound.
But if I was buying a digital system, say a CD or streamer, I'd spend probably as much as £1100 on the speakers and £400-500 on the source.
But for example, let's say you gave me £2500 and told me I had to spend £1000 on an amp, however I could could spend the remaining £1500 how I wished.
If I was going to for a turntable-based system I'd spend upto £1000 on the turntable+arm+cart and the remainder on speakers that at least I liked the sound of and could live with, knowing they could stand an upgrade. Switch the budget around and IMO a £500 turntable+arm+cart would not be getting the best from £1,000 speakers at all and I reckon I would be more likely to be dissatisfied with the sound.
But if I was buying a digital system, say a CD or streamer, I'd spend probably as much as £1100 on the speakers and £400-500 on the source.
insider9 said:
That is the reason why I started this thread. In my personal experience, in your room, the speakers that you are dissatisfied with will never ever change their sound character no matter how you much you gonna try to position them in the best place. You can only improve and apply this rule to already good sounding speakers by finding better acoustics. I had a couple of good and bad speakers, the bad speakers could never ever be improved by room acoustics. Whereas good ones are in the worst case acoustics-neutral. I also estimate speakers by off-axis listening as much as I can.
*of course I'm not saying that acoustics is not important. It is. Stands, cables, racks etc. are also. I mean it (they) only supports the sound characteristics but never to the point of changing the whole system's sound character. The system sound is in about 20% malleable. This 20% is anything additional, especially system run in, stands, cables, acoustics.
insider9
Well-known member
I wholeheartedly disagree but I appreciate it's your experience.stereoman said:
The same speakers pointed across the room's length as opposed to room's width can sound completely different. Shifting listening position by as little as 20cm can make an absolutely massive difference. It's not just the bass response but everything from clarity, tonal balance to soundstage and imaging. And I'm not even talking about extremes like changing listening position from close to a wall to middle of the room. Neither am I taking about also important toe-in or
sometimes useful tilting nor mentioning stands, spikes, furnishing or room treatment.
I appreciate the post and in essence agree that the speakers should be a priority. Where our opinions differ is that with enough care correct positioning of speakers in relation to boundaries, speakers themselves and the listener can have a huge impact on what we hear. Too often this aspect is neglected as convenience takes precedence and people are shoving speakers inside cabinets, push them right against the wall, place them too close to one another, etc. the list is extremely long.
This leads to continuos unhappiness. As often no matter what speakers are being used the conditions they're being used in are well against them sounding good. And it's so simple just to say the previous speakers were rubbish, boomy, bright, didn't image well, etc. where it was all down to incorrect use. So people go out and buy another pair that in a shop sound good but sound only slightly less horrible when brought home.
It's a sad state of affairs that people expect improvements just because more money is being spent. But will not consider that a free solution is all they may need.
I think that Stereoman is talking a lot of sense. As with so many aspects of hi-fi there's a lot of "it depends".
It depends whether you have a room that's modern or traditional. Bare, stark, modern rooms are harder to get good acoustics in than traditional, well furnished rooms.
What you get with different room acoustics is different amounts of echoes at various frequencies. The worst acoustics I've ever had turned speakers that were a couple of dbs lean in the bass into bass monsters where the bass dominated the midrange and treble. It sounded bad. That was in a large empty room at a hi-fi show. Outside of hi-fi shows I've never had an acoustics problems that couldn't be fixed with a bit of tweaking to the speaker positions. My rooms at home have always been traditional. And my room layouts have always revolved around my audio equipment.
Room acoustics can affect the tonal balance. They do not affect the dynamics and clarity of the speakers. These are two important areas where speakers differ a lot. And as Stereoman quite rightly says the basic lack of dynamics and clarity in bad speakers will remain, regardless of the room they're put in.
I think it's highly likely that some people are more sensitive to dynamic compression than others. For example, some people have praised albums for their great recording quality that to my ears have sounded flat, undynamic, over-compressed and therefore relatively poor recordings. Maybe some people don't mind, or even like speakers that are dynamically compressed? Making this another "It depends".
Stereoman's advice to spend as much on the speakers is generally good. I would modify it by saying that you don't get what you pay for, especially when buying 2nd hand. So that, for example I've found speakers at £500 that I've really liked. And the only speakers that I've found so far that I like more typically cost over £5000. And then beyond that I've found no speakers, regardless of price that I prefer more. So therefore there's no way I'm going to spend as much as I can on speakers. I'm either going to spend £500 or £5000.
It depends whether you have a room that's modern or traditional. Bare, stark, modern rooms are harder to get good acoustics in than traditional, well furnished rooms.
What you get with different room acoustics is different amounts of echoes at various frequencies. The worst acoustics I've ever had turned speakers that were a couple of dbs lean in the bass into bass monsters where the bass dominated the midrange and treble. It sounded bad. That was in a large empty room at a hi-fi show. Outside of hi-fi shows I've never had an acoustics problems that couldn't be fixed with a bit of tweaking to the speaker positions. My rooms at home have always been traditional. And my room layouts have always revolved around my audio equipment.
Room acoustics can affect the tonal balance. They do not affect the dynamics and clarity of the speakers. These are two important areas where speakers differ a lot. And as Stereoman quite rightly says the basic lack of dynamics and clarity in bad speakers will remain, regardless of the room they're put in.
I think it's highly likely that some people are more sensitive to dynamic compression than others. For example, some people have praised albums for their great recording quality that to my ears have sounded flat, undynamic, over-compressed and therefore relatively poor recordings. Maybe some people don't mind, or even like speakers that are dynamically compressed? Making this another "It depends".
Stereoman's advice to spend as much on the speakers is generally good. I would modify it by saying that you don't get what you pay for, especially when buying 2nd hand. So that, for example I've found speakers at £500 that I've really liked. And the only speakers that I've found so far that I like more typically cost over £5000. And then beyond that I've found no speakers, regardless of price that I prefer more. So therefore there's no way I'm going to spend as much as I can on speakers. I'm either going to spend £500 or £5000.
mond said:
I also heard about this theory and checked this up. Connected a good digital source to the system. In general I like the digital sound i.e. from Spotify through DAC etc. This kind of sound is simply devoid of noise and gets much less harmonic distortion I think what makes it more clean throughout. That is why some bluetooth speakers can sound so good in comparison. Try Spotify with Sony SRS XB20 - it will blow you away, that good it sounds for the price. The sound processing is being digitised with no mechanical parts noise. BUT still it will not change the core of the sound. It will simply "beautify" it. So I just crossed out the source as top priority stated by LINN. Nonetheless source is very important. But look at this. Connect a simple 200 € turntable to your system. It can sound great. So according to LINN you would have to connect at least 10 times more expensive TT to get the top source - but it is not the case, right ? But this theory is very ineteresting. New CD players offer great DACs and the sound is great but still, even when you connect Wadia CD player to "wrong" speakers - it will not help that much I believe. In studios they use digital sources but also on rather profi and expensive amps and studio monitors. Source is also mega important in mobile audio where on average the speaker quality is almost always worse than those from HiFi systems but still sounds great. Still this LINN theory is very ineteresting. LINN theory can be reflected in radio music, which no matter on what device is being played, almost ever sounds good. Due to dynamic sound compression coming from good sources in Radio stations I believe. Still at home environment all counts with speakers just topping the other components I believe. Also please notice that many users here have great separate DACs and expensive sources, still they change their speakers.
MajorFubar said:
tino
Well-known member
stereoman said:
insider9 said:
I wonder how much a modern active speaker that incorporates DSP e.g Kef LS50W can alter its sound signature and frequency response to accommodate positioning, room acoustics or listening preferences. There would seem to be much more flexibility in tailoring such a speaker's characteristics than through conventional passive means.
I'm not sure there is a right way to put together a system...and I'm not saying that anyone is dogmatically saying there is.
FWIW. My thoughts are as follows:
- If using a TT, then it soaks up a much higher percentage of the budget (back in the day, it was up to 50%)
- If you want Valves or Class A at the heart of the system, then you need to start with the Amp, and then get suitable speakers.
- I like to keep the balance of money spent on Amp and Speakers about the same, as good speakers need to be well driven and controlled. If push comes to shove, I'd rather have cheap Speakers driven by an expensive Amp, than vica versa (but there is wiggle room).
- The importance of the Source is often underestimated....which (imo) has to be comensurate with the rest of the system. In the digital age, you can get away with spending a lower percentage on it....but a poor Source will hold back a dcent system.
FWIW. My thoughts are as follows:
- If using a TT, then it soaks up a much higher percentage of the budget (back in the day, it was up to 50%)
- If you want Valves or Class A at the heart of the system, then you need to start with the Amp, and then get suitable speakers.
- I like to keep the balance of money spent on Amp and Speakers about the same, as good speakers need to be well driven and controlled. If push comes to shove, I'd rather have cheap Speakers driven by an expensive Amp, than vica versa (but there is wiggle room).
- The importance of the Source is often underestimated....which (imo) has to be comensurate with the rest of the system. In the digital age, you can get away with spending a lower percentage on it....but a poor Source will hold back a dcent system.
CnoEvil said:
WRONG. Believe me. The sound from a good amp with worse speakers will always be worse than the sound from a worse amp with good speakers. Have been trying that. Connected Accuphase to average floorstanders the other way. I could hear how excellent Accuphase was ( really Accuphase make amazing amps ) but I could hear how the speakers were taking up to 50% from the sound of it. Could not enjoy it.
insider9 said:
I couldn't agree more with you insider9.
Just think about how many times the subject of bright speakers comes up on audio forums. And it's loads of makes and models. I wonder why. The relationship between sound and acoustics should be pretty obvious but apparently not in the hifi world.
Now, of course we don't live in studios or anechoic chambers but placement of speakers and making the most of our spaces shouldn't be overlooked.
From my own experience I agree that gear-wise people should start with speakers.
davidf
Well-known member
I'm thoroughly enjoying listening to speakers in the space I'm in at the moment. After 11 years of hearing speakers in a 'flexible' timber framed building with soft walls that absorb bass, I'm now in a concrete floored and ceiling building with brick walls - the difference between speakers in these two environments is huge. I can appreciate a speaker's control and timing much better now, and hear far more of what they're doing, with less interaction from the room, particularly with lower frequencies. It also helps me appreciate the high frequency dispersion of speakers too - some deal with the solid, bare faced walls better than others.
As for the point of the post, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the speakers should be the first thing to choose, as the accompanying electronics needed for some speakers might not offer other aspects that the listener might need. If it is found that £3,000 worth of amplification is needed to make the speakers sing, that might be more than the buyer is willing to pay, so they may never get to hear those speakers sound the way they have been designed to.
But I do agree that choosing the speakers first cuts down on trying to find the right sounding speaker for an existing system. It's no good finding the right speakers sonically, only to find you hate the looks of them. The customer has to feel at complete ease with what they're buying or have bought - electronics can be hidden, speakers can't. The majority of people nowadays tend to choose speakers on their visual looks first and foremost, and it doesn't matter how well a speaker matches any system, if the 'other half' doesn't like the look of them, theres no way they're getting through your front door.
So by all means, choose the speakers first, but make sure you don't have to spend more than you bargained for to get them to sound as they should.
As for the point of the post, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the speakers should be the first thing to choose, as the accompanying electronics needed for some speakers might not offer other aspects that the listener might need. If it is found that £3,000 worth of amplification is needed to make the speakers sing, that might be more than the buyer is willing to pay, so they may never get to hear those speakers sound the way they have been designed to.
But I do agree that choosing the speakers first cuts down on trying to find the right sounding speaker for an existing system. It's no good finding the right speakers sonically, only to find you hate the looks of them. The customer has to feel at complete ease with what they're buying or have bought - electronics can be hidden, speakers can't. The majority of people nowadays tend to choose speakers on their visual looks first and foremost, and it doesn't matter how well a speaker matches any system, if the 'other half' doesn't like the look of them, theres no way they're getting through your front door.
So by all means, choose the speakers first, but make sure you don't have to spend more than you bargained for to get them to sound as they should.
stereoman said:
It can't be wrong - for me. I've heard cheap speakers sound amazing on the end of an expensive system....and expensive speakers sound horrible, when put in a cheap system.
As an example, I've heard LS50s sounding great on the end of a 6k amp; and Ref 205/2s sound awful on the end of a 1k amp.
Saying that cheaper speakers were holding back an expensive Accuphase amp will have been true....but it is a different argument to the one I was making....and why balance (as people have said), is vital.
Personally, I think a system should be in balance....and there are arguments / situations where either "Speakers first" or "Amp first" is the right way to go.
I totally accept that opinions differ.
davidf said:
Absolutely ! The good speakers need to be fed with great electronics. The results will be obvious. The sound will gain much more than with a worse amp, no question. But the gist of this thread is also to emphasize and make an analysis as to which component plays really the most important role. It is a bit of a sound dissection that actually makes only my own "theory". In fact all the components need to be in synergy with each other. But still, there is some hierarchy.
Mainly because I've experienced what he's stated when I had passive speakers. Equally I'm not discounting the opinions of others and their experiences. As mentioned in an earlier post regarding the Kef Wireless LS50 speakers, DSP I believe will become an ever more important feature either built into this increasingly popular wireless/active approach or other source components. Anyway I don't think one size fits all in Hi-fi so WRONG's don't really apply. ;-)
You can chuck all the DSP equalisation you like at a speaker, but it won't overcome the sonic limitations of the drivers and cabinets when it comes to dynamics and clarity.tino said:
Using DSP to adjust the linear phase response can provide a nice little tweak to the clarity, but is no substitute for using the finest, best engineered drivers and cabinets.
Every modern active speaker I've come across has used mediocre - at best - drivers and cabinets.
luckylion100 said:
...of course. That's why I explained in a thread above
And regarding, what about WRONG from a technical perspective ? A bad amp sound can be ALL entirely expressed in good speakers whereas a good amp sound can only be restrained in bad speakers CnoEvil said:
I'm glad you wrote this because it poses and brings back one of my favourite paradoxical psychological questions. I always refer to my favourite example of a wine tester and a customer. The wine tester , tastes the wine. He is paid a huge amount of money for his occupation and sets up wine standards. He says that this particular bottle of wine is excellent and should cost 350 € a bottle. There comes over a customer, and says to him - sorry, I have bought my bottle of another wine for 12 €, have a try. Tester takes a sip and says it is terrible. The customer says I have tried your 350 € wine and I hate it. I love mine ! The question - who is right ?
insider9
Well-known member
I agree regarding dynamics but not regarding clarity. You said yourself how wrong positioning could impact on bass. This would hugely impact on bass clarity. Muddiness, boomyness these are all clarity related.
Next is something I've not yet mentioned in this thread but only another reason positioning is so vital - reflections. These would have an even greater impact on clarity as they'd cover the whole of the spectrum. How many times you see speakers obstructed by a sofa with racks in between, coffee tables etc. Sadly these are all contributing factors. And should be considered when planning for a system.
Regarding DSP there's only so much that can be done using DSP. Having spent the last couple of months playing with it I'm realising it more and more. I do find it very useful though. And yes there's no substitute for well engineered speakers that use good quality drive units.
The fact is the first consideration should be the room that a speaker is a part of then the speaker to suit the room. That's the basis of any system and the bit that if gotten wrong won't matter whether the amp/source go into many thousands.
So often based on living acceptability the correct advice should be to invest in headphones based system but we all think we can cheat physics don't we
Next is something I've not yet mentioned in this thread but only another reason positioning is so vital - reflections. These would have an even greater impact on clarity as they'd cover the whole of the spectrum. How many times you see speakers obstructed by a sofa with racks in between, coffee tables etc. Sadly these are all contributing factors. And should be considered when planning for a system.
Regarding DSP there's only so much that can be done using DSP. Having spent the last couple of months playing with it I'm realising it more and more. I do find it very useful though. And yes there's no substitute for well engineered speakers that use good quality drive units.
The fact is the first consideration should be the room that a speaker is a part of then the speaker to suit the room. That's the basis of any system and the bit that if gotten wrong won't matter whether the amp/source go into many thousands.
So often based on living acceptability the correct advice should be to invest in headphones based system but we all think we can cheat physics don't we
If it's found that £3,000 of amplification is required to make the speakers sing then that tells me that the buyer does not know how good an amplifier can be bought for £10 to £500.davidf said:
Is this like buying a 6 berth caravan and being told that you need to buy a £50,000 brand new Audi Q7 to tow it? When a 12 year old £5000 Toyota Landcruiser would be fine.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram