source, sound , speakers - which triumphs ?

[admin_exported]

I 've noticed an inconsistency in advice given on the relative importance of the source, the sound ( amp) and the speakers in Hi Fi systems when it comes to flashing the cash .

Some suggest that most should be spent on the source others on the amplier and yet others on the speakers

Once the source has put out it's all about as little degradation as possible - so spend more on that initial clarity ?

I wonder what others think and have done in actual fact with their systems and any upgrades that may have followed

 

[Anonymous]

my experience has taught me that a good amp can bring out the best in most speakers ... so I would say amp 1st, speakers second and cdp third ... I may be wrong, but thats the way I see it

 

[Anonymous]

That's not my experience.

You'll always hear the difference between two speakers. Only if the speakers are demanding (or, as some famous audio engineer put it: Badly constructed), you'll hear much difference between two amps. Unless those amps distort the sound, that is, But then many amps do of course.

As for sources, it depends.

There's a recent test showing that 'audiophiles', not knowing what they actually hear, are unable to distinguish between an original CD track and a copy that's recorded from a cheap CDP, through 5 metres of cheap, thin wire, to a cheap PC soundcard...

 

[jaxwired]

Fahnsen: There's a recent test showing that 'audiophiles', not knowing what they actually hear, are unable to distinguish between an original CD track and a copy that's recorded from a cheap CDP, through 5 metres of cheap, thin wire, to a cheap PC soundcard...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, there's always another "test" showing how we audiophiles are fools and all amps, cdps, and cable sound identical. We just can't hear any difference at all. What a joke. You can pretty much divide the audio community into two groups, those that believe all the debunking test results and those that have actually experimented with their own ears. Seems to me 99% of people that actually buy some different equipment and expirement in their own home are convinced that sound quality does change and the expense is often justified.

The big difference between snake oil salesmen and audio salesmen is that the snake oil salesmen know they are selling snake oil. In audio, the experts, reviewers, and sales people (with very few exceptions) are also true believers. If high end audio is a sham, then it sure is an amazing case of mass self delusion.

 

[jaxwired]

But, to answer the question. There is obviously no "right" answer, given the subjective nature of this question, but I would say order of importance:

1. speakers 2. amp 3. CDP

I select this order because I feel that sound quality differences are most audible in this order. Speakers sound the most different, then amps, and finally CDPs. However, any 1 of the 3 could be the weak link that prevents the system from sounding great. So ideally they should all be of a comparable quality level. To me, the most important thing is finding compenents that compliment each other. If someone is willing to spend the time and money to mix and match components, eventually a sound quality can be achieved that seems to exceed the sum of the parts.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree that there is no right answer but..........

I had an oldish set up and wanted to make it better so I bought a new Cyrus amp. Certainly an improvement without changing anything else. Then I thought a new set of speakers is bound to be the next logical step, so in the process of demoing speakers, I listened to a much better quality amp (Primare i30) and bought it home to try with my set up. I would say 50-60% better without any other changes again.

I have since upgraded the speaker cable though just make sure I was getting the best from the amp.

So the point of the story is that I did not buy new speakers as the overall quality of sound was so much better and ejoyable.

I suggest go for a top quality amp first then do nothing but listen for a while. It may actually save you money!

 

[Anonymous]

I have 3 old systems at home ... the 3 sets of speakers are B&W DM2, Leak sandwich 200 ( don't laugh!) , .... and a set of AR2's ...

is difficult to say what component (amp, cdp, or speakers) make the most noticeable differences in sound, as they are all completely different to each other

however, I find that by just switching amps, the speakers sound completely different ( big changes) , so, I would say that the amp has the most influence

Changing the cdp's also makes a difference, but most noticeable is the soundstage and not soo much in the quality of sound

obviously, speakers all differ, but if you look at the whole system, I think that the amp is the most important, with the speakers second and cdp third

There is no clear answer really as the trick ( which is the hardest part) is to match all components (including cables)

 

[Anonymous]

jaxwired:Yeah, yeah, yeah, there's always another "test" showing how we audiophiles are fools and all amps, cdps, and cable sound identical. [...] If high end audio is a sham, then it sure is an amazing case of mass self delusion.

No-one claims that 'all amps sound the same'. What some of us think, is that the difference consist of frequency respons and harmonic distortion (which is easily confirmed by measurements) -- and that many audiophiles actually prefer an uneven frequency respons and high harmonic distortion, to the unaltered sound of the actual recording.

It's a fact, however, that we don't have an accurate memory of sound. So if we don't hear the different sound samples within seconds, we don't actually compare sound, but subjective memories. Not realizing this, you're of course totally open to 'self delusion' -- and delusions are easily shared between people with mutual interests.

To really 'experiment with your own ears', and not just nursing your prejudices, you'll need some sort of switch box with all 'candidates' connected, to eliminate the minutes needed to physically switch equipment.
To make anything near an 'objective' judgement (which of course is impossible in the strongest sense of the word, as long as the human mind is involved), the identity of each 'sample' should also be unknown to you. (This will, of course, not mean that you're not allowed to get familiar with each sound sample, or that you're not allowed to switch between them at your own will. Though to get a really trustworthy test, if you're able to switch samples yourself, you ought to repeat the session with the samples rearranged.) Because even when switches are done instantly, faith might overshadow actual listening. In one of the classic speaker wire tests, several people heard, and could actually describe, differences when they thought cables were switched, while no switch were actually made.
It might very well be true that 99% of those who change equipment to experiment with sound actually hear a difference. Because those who do not believe in sound magic don't do that sort of things...

Anyway you have to distinct between equipment that actually make differences, and equipment that really don't. Speakers (and their environment), obviously, do make a difference. Amps do, if they're made to sound different from the source, or if one is powerful enough to drive a certain speaker, while another isn't. CDPs do, if their DACs are made to alter the sound. Turntables do indeed, because there's so many possible error sources involved.

 

[jaxwired]

Oakman, you seem to have drawn the conclusion that the amp is the most important based on your experience. Reading your post it seems that what happened in your case is that you had a weak link and your replaced the weak link. Replacing the weak link first is obviously the best course of action (if you can figure out what the weak link is).

 

[Anonymous]

Yes you are right to some extent the amp probably was the weak link.

However I guess that what upgrading is-making sure the weak link is changed each time.

Dont think the Cyrus was too much of a weak link though, just that the Primare is so much better.

In the end its what sounds best which ever way we do it.

 

[Anonymous]

Fascinating to see how much heat as well as light is generated by this subject. I guess because a lot of us have a heavy investment in our ears being more right than others !

For me there is a high degree of subectivity in it all. Even simple A- B comparisons are fraught with dangers . You need to have the same listening conditions, the same tracks recorded or streamed in the same way, and you need to compare kit in the same price points.

I have been recntly experimenting with listening to the sound produced by an external dac ( Beresford ) into the same system as the sound produced by a CDP( Nait 5x ) and yes there is a big difference but not as much as you'd expect 1000 punds to produce maybe .

This maybe more or less the conclusion as you go higher up the food chain.

I was even able to do a comparison between the sound out of a blu ray player ( Pana bd 35 ) and the other two sources mentioned and was pleasantly surprised that the positive difference between the dac and the bd was not massive although it was real. I know it all depends in that case upon the internal dac quality of the blu ray. But I was trying to compare at similar price points in this case.

What the Beresford gave was more immediacy and attack throughout all musical ranges .

If money is no object margins don't matter as much. It's when you've got so much choice across a generation of so called technological improvements on a limited budget that it can get obsessive. This is where you need to say enough is enough and enjoy the journey

 

[Ant8519]

This line is really interesting:

The big difference between snake oil salesmen and audio salesmen is that the snake oil salesmen know they are selling snake oil.

From which one might reasonably infer that audio salesmen do not know that they are selling snake oil...

The end result is surely the same.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, there's always another "test" showing how we audiophiles are fools and all amps, cdps, and cable sound identical. We just can't hear any difference at all. What a joke. You can pretty much divide the audio community into two groups, those that believe all the debunking test results and those that have actually experimented with their own ears.

Or those that believe in science and objectivity and seeks to explain things rationally and those that believe what they believe and don't appreciate the awesome power of the self delusional subconscious mind.

The tone of the response really demonstrates a defensiveness that highlights the real issue, that is believing something passionately enough to refute any independant opinion that disagrees. Don't get me wrong, I passionately enjoy my music and my modest hifi, and I accept that other brands may be "better" to other ears. But I also believe that most people describe something as better because they already believe it is better and this psychological aspect affects their judgement.

True blind testing would of course remove this self delusion, which is no doubt why very few people in hifi accept blind testing as valid. Interestingly the worlds of science, medicine, engineering, etc seem to accept it quite happily and are busy exploring the far reaches of the universe and curing cancer AND making high quality audio reproduction possible on the strength of this dispassionate scientific evidence.

Strange that isn't it?

 

[Anonymous]

I would love to be able to conduct a blind test with interconnects ... with the WHF people who review the items ...

I would bring a set of 5 different interconnects and let them listen without knowing which is which ... then let them rate them and see what the final results are ... will be very interesting and will be a good challenge to quell all previous disputes? ... so come on WHF, costs you nothing and will make for interesting reading! ...

and I will buy the interconnect that the majority of the reviews claim to be the best when blind tested .... the silver high breed which I currently use (and rate highly) has been rated poorly by WHF, but then again, I don't have 'golden ears' ...

found this on another site:

I've seen the first mainstream review in the press albeit with some pretty poor grammar. This is from page 66 of What Hifi and refers to the SHB Metaphor 2.

"This new name, to us, is a lively listen with a wide sound. It's decent for the price, and the supple midrange and bass work well. But it suffers from a vicious top end, while production subtleties are stampeded over by a lack of cohesion. To pep up a dull system, this might be ideal; those with treble heavy kit should steer well clear."

 

[Ant8519]

Don't hold your breath mate!

After all who would benefit from this? I'm not sure that a magazine that relies on advertising revenue would be too quick to bite the hand that feeds it...

But as well as being rational scientific, I admit to being also overly cynical....

 

[Anonymous]

I can only give you my experience. I'm sure how much of a difference one component makes will in part depend on the other components in the system (synergy) and also the room.

I didn't expect such a big difference with source changes, but my Marantz DV7001 sounded much better than the Arcam DV135. Timing wise the Marantz was much better. The Rega Saturn wiped the floor with both of them, however. Timing, smoothness, and warmth especially (bass is definitely much more alive) is where the Rega shines. The other two are DVD players so it's not surprising that when it comes to music they fall short.

I haven't had a chance to compare amps as much. I'm quite happy with what I have now, I decided right from the get go to just buy a nice amp (that was on sale).

Speakers of course make the most noticeable difference (even though in my experience the CDP changes were very noticeable). I'll be upgrading my Tannoy's shortly. I tried Wharfedale Evo2-10's, which just did not agree with me (too bright). Even though the Tannoy's are entry level, I can definitely hear the differences in sound of the various players I've tried. I love these speakers, and will be keeping them for home theatre.

 

[chebby]

I will leave you lot with your 'audiophile vs science box' arguments.

The idea of trying to remove the unreliability of the human mind - and it's inconvenient habit of liking things that white-coats tell us are wrong - is rubbish.

Too many white-coats in this world telling us everything we like to do is wrong/flawed/based on false premises/bad for the planet/bad for white-coats/measure badly etc etc.

Stuff the lot of 'em. Mean spirited people trying to measure the human spirit and get it in a box. Makes me want to commission Sugden to make me a giant 1000 watt per channel pure class A amplifier and strap a whitecoat and an 'audiophile' on the lid and griddle them until their screams can only be heard by dogs and reproduced by a supertweeter!

 

[chebby]

Fahnsen:Not realizing this, you're of course totally open to 'self delusion' -- and delusions are easily shared between people with mutual interests.
To really 'experiment with your own ears', and not just nursing your prejudices, you'll need some sort of switch box with all 'candidates' connected, to eliminate the minutes needed to physically switch equipment.

To make anything near an 'objective' judgement (which of course is impossible in the strongest sense of the word, as long as the human mind is involved), the identity of each 'sample' should also be unknown to you. (This will, of course, not mean that you're not allowed to get familiar with each sound sample, or that you're not allowed to switch between them at your own will. Though to get a really trustworthy test, if you're able to switch samples yourself, you ought to repeat the session with the samples rearranged.) Because even when switches are done instantly, faith might overshadow actual listening. In one of the classic speaker wire tests, several people heard, and could actually describe, differences when they thought cables were switched, while no switch were actually made.

Sounds like you need a lab rat rather than someone who loves listening to music.

It helped me to read your - tortuous - methodology out loud in a well known accent.....

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:

I will leave you lot with your 'audiophile vs science box' arguments.

The idea of trying to remove the unreliability of the human mind - and it's inconvenient habit of liking things that white-coats tell us are wrong - is rubbish.

Too many white-coats in this world telling us everything we like to do is wrong/flawed/based on false premises/bad for the planet/bad for white-coats/measure badly etc etc.

Stuff the lot of 'em. Mean spirited peopl trying to measure the human spirit and get it in a box. Makes me want to commission Sugden to make me a giant 1000 watt per channel pure class A amplifier and strap a whitecoat and an 'audiophile' on the lid and griddle them until their screams can only be heard by dogs and reproduced by a supertweeter!

Hey Chebby ... have you had a bad day?

 

[the record spot]

Digital: amp, source then speakers.

Vinyl: Turntable, amp and speakers.

 

[Anonymous]

dont worry chebby ... those SHB interconnects you bought are not all that bad! ... so calm down!

 

[idc]

All three, as each is usless unless you connect all three together. Overall synergy is way more important. The sum is far greater than the parts.

My £120 B&W DM302 speakers remained consistant even though the rest of my kit grew from similarly £100 priced components to £500 ones. It was because the overall synergy worked. My present amp is twice the price of the source and the headphones, more if I stick on the cheaper headphones. That does not concern me as I have found the synergy that I want. If I had found it with a £400 DAC, £200 amp and £400 headphones, so be it.

 

[chebby]

dim_span:.. those SHB interconnects you bought are not all that bad! ..

What is an 'SHB'? (I probably already know but can't be bothered to remember.) See my sig. Chord and Naim cables.

 

[Anonymous]

I have always worked from the speaker back, I can't say if it has worked but if i bought something and I thought it worked then I grew to love it.

 

[the record spot]

idc:
All three, as each is usless unless you connect all three together. Overall synergy is way more important. The sum is far greater than the parts.

Yes, very true and I agree with all of that. Typically however, I'd still aim to go along with the order of importance - a Bush MTT1 at £50 is not going to do the honours with my current set-up as well as Rega's P3 is going to. In general however, balance/synergy is right up there.

 

[idc]

the record spot:........- a Bush MTT1 at £50 is not going to do the honours with my current set-up as well as Rega's P3 is going to.......

Do you know that for sure? That Bush may have a real synergy with the rest of your kit.