Learn the secret to musical bliss for 360 pounds. Do you agree that speakers then make the most difference?

shafesk

New member
Sep 18, 2010
136
0
0
Visit site
Hello forumers, I'm in the States at the moment and well away from my beloved hi-fi. I'm spending a lot of my time with my ipod classic and my ultimate ears triple fi 10s. Where detail retrieval, power, scale, pace and timing is concerned it kinda makes my hi-fi seem very overpriced. Another great quality it has that while it is very revealing it can still playback less flattering tracks well enough for them to be enjoyable, I haven't listened to Jay-z in a long time. Maybe the only downside is that perhaps it lacks the final bit of sophistication as my hi-fi mainly in vocal and instrument realism. Instrument and vocal realism doesn't matter for a lot of music genres such as rap, hip hop, trance, dubstep etc. I really would recommend the ultimate ears to anyone who don't mind in ears (and the fit), they sound mind bogglingly good paired with an ipod and not just for the price.

Now think about this, I have what I consider moderately expensive speakers, a well regarded budget dac and an expensive amp along with decent interconnects and the fattest speaker wires I could find. The price of any of these is more than my ipod (except the cables). Therefore, I think the thing that matters the most is your speakers. Dacs, cables, amps can only add sophistican and realism and trim around the rough edges. Do you agree?
 

paradiziac

New member
Jan 8, 2011
17
0
0
Visit site
Not really.

Funnily enough, I have the same UEars (+iPod touch) and recently spent a few weeks away from my hi-fi.

Compared to the hifi, the headphones were OK, especially for the money. But my hifi is a bit better technically and a lot more enjoyable with all kinds of music. My speakers aren't a particularly expensive part of the hifi set up.
 
T

the record spot

Guest
Speakers first, then amps then source for digital. Probably add recording quality to that. Cables being the odd ones out for me.
 

jaxwired

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2009
284
6
18,895
Visit site
Yes. I agree completely with the OP. However, the "sophistication and realism" has a different level of importance for each listener. Some people will rate a system with out it as still being a 9 other people will rate that same system as a 4. The people that say 4 are willing to pay a lot to get that "sophistication and realism" bit.
 

shafesk

New member
Sep 18, 2010
136
0
0
Visit site
paradiziac said:
Not really.

Funnily enough, I have the same UEars (+iPod touch) and recently spent a few weeks away from my hi-fi.

Compared to the hifi, the headphones were OK, especially for the money. But my hifi is a bit better technically and a lot more enjoyable with all kinds of music. My speakers aren't a particularly expensive part of the hifi set up.
It is especially great to hear your thoughts as you have nearly the same equipment as I. From my experience though, the previous ipod touches have sounded much worse than the ipod classic. Having said that, I have not heard the latest generation. Like I said, it might be the sophistication and level of realism you hear from your hi-fi that you prefer compared to the UE ipod combo.
 

shafesk

New member
Sep 18, 2010
136
0
0
Visit site
jaxwired said:
Yes. I agree completely with the OP. However, the "sophistication and realism" has a different level of importance for each listener. Some people will rate a system with out it as still being a 9 other people will rate that same system as a 4. The people that say 4 are willing to pay a lot to get that "sophistication and realism" bit.
Absolutely agree Jax, I think you've found a great angle to look at this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
For me it is the combination. It is true speakers bring the most variables in sound, but if the rest of your system don't match with your speakers you are not on the right track building a hifi system.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
Visit site
I disagree. The amp is the piece in the puzzle that makes all the difference. Speakers present you with what is presented to them, . The source delivers its signal as a whole, a good signal is a good signal, an amps job to amplify that signal, seperate and send the sound out. It is without doubt the most important job. If an amp lacks the ability to present the full frequency range, seperate the individual parts within that range your system will fail to entertain. Cheap speakers sound great on the end of a great sounding and capable amp as do expensive speakers, a rubbish amp will sound rubbish regardless, The amp.
 

MajorFubar

New member
Mar 3, 2010
690
6
0
Visit site
Can't agree really, in the end it's all about balance, not one component being more important than the other. If speakers were the most important component then are we saying that if you've £1,000 to spend you should put £950 on the speakers and throw the remaning £50 at a Bush micro system from Argos? Obviously, no you wouldn't do that. As I said it's about balance. 'Trash in, trash out' is still true, always will be.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
Visit site
Problem is the better the speaker the more revealing they'll be - hence making that micro really sound rubbish even though within its budget that same micro sounds great, the 'weaker' the amp the more it'll be exposed, Regardless of how much it cost.

Like wise you can use any cd player with a digital out as a transport and providing you are using a good external DAC you'll most likely achieve a reasonable result through good amplification and speakers.
 

shafesk

New member
Sep 18, 2010
136
0
0
Visit site
It is interesting to see that some disagree to the theory. Yes, I cannot fully disagree as I also believe/hear the importance of a good source and amp on a daily basis. However, I think that further expenditure on speakers yield the biggest rewards.

When I had my 340a as my main amp, I could not hear the difference between the Hrt Music Streamer and the Dac Magic. That was as much as my system could scale with the amp. So here the bottle neck was the amp. Things changed when I got the Cayin and the differences were readily apparent.

To me I think if the speakers are really efficient, then the amp matters a bit less since the amp has to work less. (This is the conclusion I derived from my efficient UE in ears and the ipod's weak amp combination) As you know an amp's BLATANT flaws are less apparent at lower volume levels.
 

bigblue235

New member
Aug 22, 2007
82
0
0
Visit site
shafesk said:
I think the thing that matters the most is your speakers.

Agree

Dacs, cables, amps can only add sophistican and realism and trim around the rough edges. Do you agree?

Disagree

shafesk said:
From my experience though, the previous ipod touches have sounded much worse than the ipod classic.

Disagree

Learn the secret to musical bliss for 360 pounds

Disagree

:)
 

MajorFubar

New member
Mar 3, 2010
690
6
0
Visit site
When I said 'I disagree', I don't disagree that speakers make a huge difference, clearly they do, but I'm very much a follower of the garbage in garbage out philosophy.
 

DavieCee

New member
Aug 19, 2010
54
0
0
Visit site
All items in a system are equally important. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

That said, the single item that will alter the sound most in a balanced system is the speakers.
 

Overdose

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2008
279
1
18,890
Visit site
MajorFubar said:
When I said 'I disagree', I don't disagree that speakers make a huge difference, clearly they do, but I'm very much a follower of the garbage in garbage out philosophy.

But the reality is that there is very little in the way of digital sources that actually produce garbage (certainly in the context of hifi), to the point that the source can be considered negligible in the equation.

The main limiting factor will always be the speaker/amp combination, with the speaker alone having the single largest effect of the sound of the whole.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
1
18,890
Visit site
The word 'garbage' is used to make the point, rather than actually inferring that garbage will be coming out of the speakers. Whether it be in the digital stage or the analogue output stage, there are marked differences between digital sources/DACs.

My own outlook is that all stages of the chain are equally important. One stage can't give it's best without the preceding stage giving it the best base to work from.

To answer the initial post, I've been used to a pair of Sennhesier CX300's for the past four years or more, and they've been good enough during travelling. I've recently borrowed a £300 pair of in-ear headphones, and while it has taken me a while to get accustomed to them, they are noticeably more detailed with much better separation between instruments. But the biggest difference was the bass. I was very surprised to experience how low they can actually reach in comparison to the CX300's. I'm enjoying music like Boards Of Canada all over again, and yes, there are speakers that don't have bass this good! But I would still prefer to use loudspeakers as a main system though.
 

shafesk

New member
Sep 18, 2010
136
0
0
Visit site

But the reality is that there is very little in the way of digital sources that actually produce garbage (certainly in the context of hifi), to the point that the source can be considered negligible in the equation.

[/quote]

I agree that almost all digital sources sound decent, their effect can range from negligible to immense depending on how much you prefer the polish I was talking about. I do reckon that most people should be able to leave with a comparatively weaker digital source than weaker amp or speakers.
 

shafesk

New member
Sep 18, 2010
136
0
0
Visit site
FrankHarveyHiFi said:
The word 'garbage' is used to make the point, rather than actually inferring that garbage will be coming out of the speakers. Whether it be in the digital stage or the analogue output stage, there are marked differences between digital sources/DACs.

My own outlook is that all stages of the chain are equally important. One stage can't give it's best without the preceding stage giving it the best base to work from.

To answer the initial post, I've been used to a pair of Sennhesier CX300's for the past four years or more, and they've been good enough during travelling. I've recently borrowed a £300 pair of in-ear headphones, they are noticeably more detailed with much better separation between instruments. But the biggest difference was the bass. I was very surprised to experience how low they can actually reach in comparison to the CX300's. I'm enjoying music like Boards Of Canada all over again, and yes, there are speakers that don't have bass this good! But I would still prefer to use loudspeakers as a main system though.

I do agree to that, I would prefer loudspeakers over headphones too. However, the thing you mentioned is that with your borrowed in-ears you are enjoying some music all over again. I'm sure if it is a portable setup than your source isn't very good (by hi-fi standards), yet the headphones make it sound very good. Hence the point of this thread-you can get a very musical setup by spending most of your budget on your speakers. Hope you forgive me cheekily editing some of your quote ;)
 
I know I've joined this discussion late but...

Yes the speakers are important when it comes to shaping 'the end' sound. My view is pretty simple: If the speakers are really good and the amp and source are rubbish then you won't achieve a satisfactory outcome. Likewise you can have a brilliant amp and/or source but it won't sound any good if your speakers are tosh.

IMHO, hi-fi is a fine balancing act, get one element wrong and it could ruin the whole effect.

I believe what the OP is hearing isn't necessarily better, just different.
 

Ryan92

New member
Dec 8, 2010
21
0
0
Visit site
Okay, perhaps we could get an idea of how much people value each component with this?

You've got £1500 for speakers, amp, and a source. (not bringing cables into this as I really don't want another of "those" threads)

How would you separate it?

Personally, I'd say £500 amp £700 speakers £300 source. Plus or minus £50 if I thought there was a really good buy somewhere.
 

DavieCee

New member
Aug 19, 2010
54
0
0
Visit site
Slightly out of price limit but my current set up was £650 each for speakers & amp with £250 for DAC.

Already owned laptop for source.
 

fr0g

New member
Jan 7, 2008
445
0
0
Visit site
Source and amp technololgy is so good that small money buys you a player or an amp that measures well and will provide a clean signal and amplify it cleanly. The weak link is the moving bits of paper, wood, metal etc at the end.

All this talk of matching is irrelevant provided you have a reasonable (CD player say), an amp that will deliver the watts and current that the speakers need and bits of suitable wire in between.

The speakers make all the difference providing you aren't silly and are where the greatest technology and sound quality advances will be made in the future.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts