Source first?

[Orb]

To me the "source" is the recording itself. That's the biggest quality factor, and everything else is way less important IMO.

--Ethan

Thats a good point Ethan, and can even apply to CDs.
I find quite a lot remasters to be incredibly disappointing, well dog **** would be a better word.
And then there are those recordings-mixing/mastering that take loudness wars to new levels such as Metallica and others; in these cases it does not matter how great the system or room is IMO
Thank goodness Guns n Roses (example of a mainstream-ish band taking notice) took the opposite view and went with a dynamic album, ironically though Metallica's album won many awards even after being criticised by industry mastering engineers for its loudnes and compression sigh.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

An audio system is limited by the source material. No matter how good the reproduction chain is, it cannot improve upon a poor recording in a meaningful way ( I'm dismissing post-processing: DBX, surround matrices, etc. as not really improving upon a bad recording's quality). So garbage goes in to start, it'll come out well-reproduced garbage.

Lee

Yes, I understand the old adage "garbage in, garbage out." I'd like Miles to explain why he used the rougher version of it in this context.

Tim

 

[Orb]

My source is a MacBook Pro, and only half of its functionality is playing music. How do I count it? Either way it doesn't get close to 40%. I think transducers are where the lion's share of the money should go if you're hoping to get your money's worth.

Tim

For me this highlights how the spending % has become more complex, because would you also consider the DAC as part of the source or its own %.
Same goes for pre and power amp, should these be combined or both be seperate, and if seperate do most find the spend equal or different priority, and for quite a few accessories such as power related components and possibly seperate mains circuitry.

For me, my spending did not take into consideration spending % but focused more on best listening preference combined then with form and functionality, I guess we all have our spending limit theresholds but it has me now thinking how I came to it and whether or how it differs between components.
I would say that threshold is related to if a product is perceived to be overpriced in terms of sound quality/performance or engineering and build.

Cheers
Orb

 

[cjfrbw]

My system is about 50 source, 30 amplification, 20 speaker.
As an analogy, the source is like the image/ light bulb of a projection system. The preamp is like the lens, and the amp/speakers the screen. Ultimately, they all contribute importantly, but the image/light source/ lens tend to be the most contributory to the overall experience and quality.

 

[amirm]

Let's ask this. Has anyone cared about the percentages before buying something?

 

[MylesBAstor]

It seems some members are bent on turning this thread into another analog/digital flame fest. There is a debates section of the forum for that discussion. Please feel free to start a new thread there. Please be reminded of caesar's original post and keep your posts on topic

My comments had nothing at all to do with digital. I was simply referring to the importance of the front-end source be it a turntable or digital turntable/convertor eg. if the source/material is crap, then all the speakers are going to do, even the best in the world, is show how crappy that source is. IMHO one is better off going with the best speaker at a lower price and the best front end at a higher price at the entry high end level. After one passes a certain point, then things begin to get more confusing.

 

[rblnr]

Let's ask this. Has anyone cared about the percentages before buying something?

No, other than the belief that the best bang for your buck SQ comes from spending much more on speakers than anything else.

-- Bob

 

[MylesBAstor]

No, other than the belief that the best bang for your buck SQ comes from spending much more on speakers than anything else.

-- Bob

Yes that is the traditional belief fostered by the idiots at Stereo Review and magazines of that ilk who believed that all the electronics sound the same. The only difference among the different electronics are the bells and whistles.

 

[rblnr]

Yes that is the traditional belief fostered by the idiots at Stereo Review and magazines of that ilk who believed that all the electronics sound the same. The only difference among the different electronics are the bells and whistles.

Don't believe they all sound the same and didn't say that, but count me part of the confederacy halfway if it means believing speakers have more of an effect on overall system sound than any other component. And as noted, at a given price point, they sound the most different, and thus are, the place to start.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Let's ask this. Has anyone cared about the percentages before buying something?

Now there is a defining question! I've never done the math to make a purchase decision and doubt that anyone has.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

Don't believe they all sound the same and didn't say that, but count me part of the confederacy halfway if it means believing speakers have more of an effect on overall system sound than any other component. And as noted, at a given price point, they sound the most different, and thus are, the place to start.

Didn't mean to imply that you thought that Just the origin of that ridiculous statement!

 

[rblnr]

No prob Miles!

-- Bob

 

[RBFC]

When I got my big Apogee panels, I could only afford a pair of Belles 400 stereo amps to biamp them. I then substituted 4 Krell monoblocks and the sound was vastly improved. Same preamp.

That said, I don't think that going straight to Krells with a much lesser pair of speakers would have produced the same sound quality with which I began. Upgrading poor speakers to the big Apogees [with the Krells in the system) would have made a bigger difference than changing amps on the big Apogees.

Lee

 

[MylesBAstor]

When I got my big Apogee panels, I could only afford a pair of Belles 400 stereo amps to biamp them. I then substituted 4 Krell monoblocks and the sound was vastly improved. Same preamp.

That said, I don't think that going straight to Krells with a much lesser pair of speakers would have produced the same sound quality with which I began. Upgrading poor speakers to the big Apogees [with the Krells in the system) would have made a bigger difference than changing amps on the big Apogees.

Lee

Don't you think you're going to realize more of a lesser priced speakers potential with better upstream equipment than the reverse situation?

Much in the same way that a master tape will make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

When I got my big Apogee panels, I could only afford a pair of Belles 400 stereo amps to biamp them. I then substituted 4 Krell monoblocks and the sound was vastly improved. Same preamp.

Was there a big increase in headroom with the change to the Krells?

Tim

 

[RBFC]

Don't you think you're going to realize more of a lesser priced speakers potential with better upstream equipment than the reverse situation?

Much in the same way that a master tape will make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

I think it depends upon the magnitude of the imbalance, Myles. Average electronics into great speakers will probably sound better than average speakers with great electronics. Not discussing source material here.....

Lee

 

[RBFC]

Was there a big increase in headroom with the change to the Krells?

Tim

Oh, yeah. They could deliver a lot more current than the Belles. Of course, they had 4 dedicated 20 amp lines and heated the room quite effectively too. The Apogee panels are notoriously current-hungry, with the midrange ribbon at 0.1 Ohm.

Lee

 

[jadis]

To me the "source" is the recording itself. That's the biggest quality factor, and everything else is way less important IMO.

--Ethan

I agree wholeheartedly here. To me, the recording is the source of the source. I learned that very early on in the 80s when I was just a beginner in the hobby and I just bought my first RR - Professor Johnson's Astounding Sound Show via mail order. A seasoned audiophile visited me, he was at least 30 years my senior and had a big head start than me on audio and record collecting; and I played the RR-7 for him and indeed, he was, well, astounded no end. He said he had never heard anything quite like that before and he copied the title for a future hunt. I though that my system was basically a starter kit compared to his vintage tube electronics and name brand speakers - yet, a good recording like that surprised him no end. Since then, I've regarded and treated software as the source of the source, very important, and probably most important in my hobby. We change audio gears when we feel something is better, I believe in changing a pressing into what Gary Koh calls a 'hot pressing', I call that 'upgrading' the software.

 

[ack]

I am having trouble breaking up by percentages... reason being, what is "source"? The analog turntable rig, digital front end, R2R, all of the above?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I am having trouble breaking up by percentages... reason being, what is "source"? The analog turntable rig, digital front end, R2R, all of the above?

to me a 'source' is any gear related to the software spcifically......'plays the software' or 'outputs the signal'. so tt/arm/cartridge/phono pre, transport, server, dac, RTR deck or i-pod....they (and related gear) are a part of a source.

software-->source gear-->preamp--->amp---->speakers/headphones. some gear combines steps, but you still need each step.

cables/racks/power cables and grid are involved in all the various steps but i don't include them as being step specific.