More fodder for the source vs speaker debate... [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : More fodder for the source vs speaker debate...



E-Stat
06-23-2008, 05:00 PM
as rendered on the small screen. I travel frequently and my Palm Treo and Shure E3cs are my constant companion. On planes and at night while away. Recently, one of the channels on the Shure went out and I returned it for warranty repair. I resumed using some ten buck Sony earbuds I've had for a while. Though they are better than the standard iPod / player fare, they just aren't in the same league in two respects: isolation and resolution.

When sitting twenty feet away from a 100k HP turbofan (or even closer to a screaming kid), good isolation is a beautiful thing. Enhanced resolution is always a welcome favor. Today, I received a new boxed set of the current SCL-3s. I really missed them last week.

rw

Luvin Da Blues
06-23-2008, 05:04 PM
More fodder for the source vs speaker debate...


......You just like to stir it up dontcha :D

Good to know your enjoying your tunage again.
:0:

bobsticks
06-23-2008, 06:06 PM
True talk going on in that post, but then again I've never heard a $24k cdp http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=27231

I've tried moving my universals, a Mac, a Krell and a PS3 between my computer system (Onkyo605 and KefQ7) and my main rig (Mac and Martin Logan). The difference was, of course, night and day...and, yes, I grant that the differing nature of the speaks has something to do with this.

Do I believe that source matters? Of course, but I think the limitations of the source are significantly downplayed by the quality or lack thereof of what's doin' the singing.

Mr Peabody
06-23-2008, 08:07 PM
First off, I believe your system has to be balanced. I wouldn't put a $3k CD player on a $300.00 receiver nor would I put a $300.00 pair of speakers on my CJ system. However, the fact remains that if you want to hear what is on a disc you have to extract it from the disc the best you can with the source, AND, then maintain it throughout your system the best you can. If your source don't retrieve the info, nothing you do down stream will bring that info out, it's lost never to be heard until it reaches a capable source. What I mean by balance, is now that we have the info brought off the disc, it must be maintained, transferred by quality cables, to quality amplification, to quality speakers, to a good listening room. All of these are important but if you miss the first step you fall all the way down the stairs.

My AN DAC recently went out, so I brought my CJ DAC into my main system will the AN was in the shop. I had to use the internal DAC of an old Denon player in my 2nd system that I was using as a transport. Talking about night and day, I was very thankful to be able to bring the CJ DAC back into that system.

So the moral of the story seems to be any time you replace a quality component with a budget piece, where ever it's at in your system, you are going to hear the difference and appreciate where your money was spent.

Hyfi
06-24-2008, 04:32 AM
First off, I believe your system has to be balanced. I wouldn't put a $3k CD player on a $300.00 receiver nor would I put a $300.00 pair of speakers on my CJ system. However, the fact remains that if you want to hear what is on a disc you have to extract it from the disc the best you can with the source, AND, then maintain it throughout your system the best you can. If your source don't retrieve the info, nothing you do down stream will bring that info out, it's lost never to be heard until it reaches a capable source. What I mean by balance, is now that we have the info brought off the disc, it must be maintained, transferred by quality cables, to quality amplification, to quality speakers, to a good listening room. All of these are important but if you miss the first step you fall all the way down the stairs.

My AN DAC recently went out, so I brought my CJ DAC into my main system will the AN was in the shop. I had to use the internal DAC of an old Denon player in my 2nd system that I was using as a transport. Talking about night and day, I was very thankful to be able to bring the CJ DAC back into that system.

So the moral of the story seems to be any time you replace a quality component with a budget piece, where ever it's at in your system, you are going to hear the difference and appreciate where your money was spent.

You don't even need a ratio of $3k to $300. I recently had to return my new Rotel 1072 for drawer repair and ended up spinning disks on my $200 Denon DVD player. Talk about night and day. the 3.5 weeks the Rotel was away was killer and I fear it may need to go back. It seems to be having trouble playing disks that every other player in the house will play.

Like PB said though, it does not much matter what the front end is if the Speakers can't reproduce the sounds accurately.

RGA
06-24-2008, 07:22 PM
Mr Peabody said it as well as it can be said. I think the confusion arises when people argue that speakers make the most differences - that's true - but the most differences are not necessarily the most important differences. The CD player may account for 2% of the difference but if that difference is between sounding right versus sounding something other than right it makes all the difference in the world. And if the speakers sludge everything then it makes no difference what the CD players is because everything in the front end will sound poor.

kexodusc
06-25-2008, 06:42 AM
Mr Peabody said it as well as it can be said. I think the confusion arises when people argue that speakers make the most differences - that's true - but the most differences are not necessarily the most important differences. The CD player may account for 2% of the difference but if that difference is between sounding right versus sounding something other than right it makes all the difference in the world. And if the speakers sludge everything then it makes no difference what the CD players is because everything in the front end will sound poor.

Ahh, RGA is an advocate for balance...I would share his opinion on this matter.

First, a comment on the % difference thing. When I ask most people what they mean when they say a CD player upgrade made "maybe a 2-3% difference" and a speaker made maybe a "5-10%" difference, I always ask "percent of what". The answer has always been of "total sytem performance". Hence, when people refer to "% differences" in the quality improvement discussions, 1% improvement from speakers is the same as 1% improvement from source. Each percent, though different, holds the same arbitrary value to the person that assigned the percent value. So the notion of 2% from source being more important than 2% from speakers shouldn't be possible if the people are using the % system right. If the benefit from the source was deemed more important, it should be reflected by a higher arbitrary % value assigned by the person that made the statement. And I see this every now and then when people claim their TT or CD player upgraded yielded a 5-10% difference but speaker upgrade only a 3-5% improvent.

That's the whole purpose behind people trying use % as metric. Admittedly in audio it's an imperfect and inconsistent system at best, however, it's a way of applying uniformity to a very subjective and difficult to describe experience. IOW, the best we've got.

For my part, I have never said that biggest and most important incremental differences are always achieved by addressing speakers always, but I do advise people allocate the biggest percentage of their budgets there when starting out.

I've noticed there seems to be a repeating pattern. If cost-effective allocation of your money towards system improvement is the goal (which should be since it yields most incremental improvement per dollar) then it would most often go something like this:

First $1000:
Speakers
amp
source.

Then you upgrade those $300 budget monitors to something half decent. Say $1500 towers. All of a sudden you win a bingo game and have $2000 to spend. What will yield more improvement in sound quality? Jumping up to a $2000 speaker? Or adding quality amplification and a decent source player to your current $1500 speakers for that same $2000. I would fully expect the source/amp combo to yield far more benefit. If you won a $10k bingo prize, well I'd expect $10k an upgrade to speakers to yield far more benefit than source/amp upgrades, but it's not a perfectly repeating order every time or an exact science. Especially with digital source components. I find they have the worst diminishing returns of any piece of the system.

To that extent - I guess it depends on what you have, how much you have to spend, and how much the next upgrade to each system component costs that determines the next ideal upgrade. My next 2-channel upgrade is a pre-amp. I can't afford to buy a CD player that is better enough than my Arcam to yield the same improvement I hope to get by ditching my integrated for a slightly better pre-amp.

I would expect a set of $5k speakers, a $4500 amp/pre-amp combo, and a $500 CD player to sound infinitely superior to a $5000 CD player, $4500 amp/pre-amp combo and $500 speakers though, and I've met very few that would argue against that. I would say a slight plurality of people I know with good systems upgrade their sources last in the cycle, followed by amp/pre-amp, but those areas seem to be the biggest area of difference. I have yet to meet any idiot who claims cables are most important. There's hope for humanity yet.

But hey, if someone hears a 20% difference in sources that I don't hear...who am I to argue. Whatever floats your boat. I just hope its not a salesman or eager brand name fanboy talking you into your purchase (which happens too much on web forums).

Ajani
06-25-2008, 07:07 AM
Ahh, RGA is an advocate for balance...I would share his opinion on this matter.

First, a comment on the % difference thing. When I ask most people what they mean when they say a CD player upgrade made "maybe a 2-3% difference" and a speaker made maybe a "5-10%" difference, I always ask "percent of what". The answer has always been of "total sytem performance". Hence, when people refer to "% differences" in the quality improvement discussions, 1% improvement from speakers is the same as 1% improvement from source. Each percent, though different, holds the same arbitrary value to the person that assigned the percent value. So the notion of 2% from source being more important than 2% from speakers shouldn't be possible if the people are using the % system right. If the benefit from the source was deemed more important, it should be reflected by a higher arbitrary % value assigned by the person that made the statement. And I see this every now and then when people claim their TT or CD player upgraded yielded a 5-10% difference but speaker upgrade only a 3-5% improvent.

That's the whole purpose behind people trying use % as metric. Admittedly in audio it's an imperfect and inconsistent system at best, however, it's a way of applying uniformity to a very subjective and difficult to describe experience. IOW, the best we've got.

For my part, I have never said that biggest and most important incremental differences are always achieved by addressing speakers always, but I do advise people allocate the biggest percentage of their budgets there when starting out.

I've noticed there seems to be a repeating pattern. If cost-effective allocation of your money towards system improvement is the goal (which should be since it yields most incremental improvement per dollar) then it would most often go something like this:

First $1000:
Speakers
amp
source.

Then you upgrade those $300 budget monitors to something half decent. Say $1500 towers. All of a sudden you win a bingo game and have $2000 to spend. What will yield more improvement in sound quality? Jumping up to a $2000 speaker? Or adding quality amplification and a decent source player to your current $1500 speakers for that same $2000. I would fully expect the source/amp combo to yield far more benefit. If you won a $10k bingo prize, well I'd expect $10k an upgrade to speakers to yield far more benefit than source/amp upgrades, but it's not a perfectly repeating order every time or an exact science. Especially with digital source components. I find they have the worst diminishing returns of any piece of the system.

To that extent - I guess it depends on what you have, how much you have to spend, and how much the next upgrade to each system component costs that determines the next ideal upgrade. My next 2-channel upgrade is a pre-amp. I can't afford to buy a CD player that is better enough than my Arcam to yield the same improvement I hope to get by ditching my integrated for a slightly better pre-amp.

I would expect a set of $5k speakers, a $4500 amp/pre-amp combo, and a $500 CD player to sound infinitely superior to a $5000 CD player, $4500 amp/pre-amp combo and $500 speakers though, and I've met very few that would argue against that. I would say a slight plurality of people I know with good systems upgrade their sources last in the cycle, followed by amp/pre-amp, but those areas seem to be the biggest area of difference. I have yet to meet any idiot who claims cables are most important. There's hope for humanity yet.

But hey, if someone hears a 20% difference in sources that I don't hear...who am I to argue. Whatever floats your boat. I just hope its not a salesman or eager brand name fanboy talking you into your purchase (which happens too much on web forums).

Well said.... I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one.... It's not that most people don't feel that improvements can be made by upgrading source/amp/etc but more a matter of how best to allocate their scarce funds to see the best improvement in performance...

How Kex chooses to allocate funds is pretty much the same way I'd do it...

Mr Peabody
06-25-2008, 06:41 PM
I think Kex, and Ajani, need more experience with "quality" digital playback. As you pointed out assigning a percentage would be difficult to understand because percentage of what. I respectfully, while totally, disagreeing with CD players having the highest diminishing return. This is something you will have to discover on your own because I can't convey to you what I hear, and would you even hear it the same way. My first "high end" CD player was an Arcam Alpha 9. When I went into audition I had sort of a budget and started listening to the 7 which was already stretching the budget, then he brought in the 8, I heard a definite difference and asked to hear the 9, the 9 had even a wider improvement over the 8 than the 8 had over the 7. When you hear how amazing sound reproduction from thelikes of a Krell 25s is you will start to change your perspective.

I am fully convinced if you have a system with $2k in each a source, integrated, speakers, and you won $10k to spend on your system, the overall best sound quality would come from a $10k source rather than the $10k speakers. You can add $100k speakers, you aren't going to get one more ounce of detail or information from that system. The system would still be competent enough to make your jaw drop with a $10k cd player.

I don't get peoples fascination with speakers. I've heard the $100k Dynaudio flagship and they were definitely impressive. More in a "wow" factor. Like feeling low frequencies in your gut like nothing I've experienced before, or the fact that they did concert level bass but cleaner and tighter. But, I was much more impressed when I first heard the $25k Krell 25s preamp/cd combo unit that reproduced some of the most life like images I've ever heard. If I had the money which one of these would I buy first, the 25s. It was able to do it's magic on speakers a fraction of the price and what good is a $100k speaker if you can't deliver to it the most information? It's like replacing your mp3 $60.00 headphones with a $300.00 pair, sure it's going to sound some better, they should be more capable for 5 times the money but the largest gain would be if you put lossless digital on the player. Same way with home audio, a better speaker will sound some better because it's more competent at what it does, even with the same system, but you have to have something to deliver to that speaker, better overall sound will come from a source better able to deliver the goods. You don't just listen for bass and treble, you listen for whether the background singers can be heard as separate and individual voices, is there depth to the sound stage, which one makes the speakers seem to disappear, which one sounds like a real voice or instrument, listen for subtle details that one may have over another etc. You cheat yourselves by selling short the absolute importance of a source. I mean if source wasn't all that important why not stick with a cassette, or mp3, why cd at all.

I heard a system with the $20k Linn cd player and all played through a set of Dynaudio Contour 1.3se's. Pricewise was this system lop sided, absolutely. Was it impressive, darn right.

Kex I hope you can hear a wide improvement over $300.00 or so players with your 72t, and you would hear a wide improvement over your 72t with a quality $1.5 to 2k player. Are the steps always uniform, no way. And sometimes with higher end players it may not necessarily be one is so much better but they have different presentation. And there's also synergy with your other system. An example that covers both, I eventually bought a Krell 300i, although the Alpha 9 was an excellent player at $1,800.00 it didn't quite match well with the Krell amp. I tried a Krell 250 cd player then around $2,500.00. I can't really say the 250 was a better player, in fact the Alpha 9 may even had an edge in detail and speed but the Krell had better synergy with the amp and the sound was more like real instruments, everything seemed to have more weight and reality with the 250. So I made the switch.

Before I totally lose focus of what I'm trying to say here I think I had better stop.

Ajani
06-26-2008, 04:26 AM
I think Kex, and Ajani, need more experience with "quality" digital playback.

As easy as it is to dismiss the views of Kex and myself as being from lack of experience, it doesn't change the fact that source first supporters (like yourself) are in the minority. Further, considering how many audiophiles (who have experience with "quality" digital playback) still feel speakers make more of a diffence than source, then talking about lack of experience is more a cheap shot than a meaningful point.

The fact is that many Audiophiles have heard the quality source components you love and still feel that their money is better spent on speakers. So lack of experience is not the source of this debate.


You cheat yourselves by selling short the absolute importance of a source. I mean if source wasn't all that important why not stick with a cassette, or mp3, why cd at all.

Most people (myself included) have no problem admitting that analog sources can sound substantially different and that the quality of a recording (e.g. a well mastered CD vs a low quality mp3) is a major factor in the overall sound. But the debate is about digital source, so analog sources like cassette and low quality recording formats like mp3 have no bearing on the discussion.


I heard a system with the $20k Linn cd player and all played through a set of Dynaudio Contour 1.3se's. Pricewise was this system lop sided, absolutely. Was it impressive, darn right.

It's fine that you like the sound of cheaper speakers with an expensive source, but most people just don't share your enthusiasm. I have no doubt that source makes a difference, but in my experience (with only $3K or less CD players), no matter how good the source was, unless it was paired to a good pair of speakers it didn't sound good to me. On the other hand, I've heard several of my favourite speakers on both expensive source/ amp setups and on cheapo a/v receiver/dvd player combos and they still sounded good! (not as good as with quality gear, but still impressive)...

kexodusc
06-26-2008, 05:11 AM
I think Kex, and Ajani, need more experience with "quality" digital playback.

This is not a good assumption on your part, and quite frankly it's a bit insulting. I spend over 130 days a year in cities east of Chicago, and since I do not golf, on most of these days I'm visiting hi-fi stores just to get out of my room. I can say without any ego that I have most likely been to more hi-fi shops and heard more gear combinations than the vast majority of audio enthusiasts that visit ar.com and some other forums. I'm no expert or authority and never claim to be but I'm not stupid and speaking out of my ass from no experience either. I have on more than a few occasions played with upgraded pieces in my own home as well. Never a Krell, but certainly offerings from Meridian, Marantz, Denon, Wadia, Arcam and Jadis. Oh, a few Rotels and Adcom's too, though they were nothing special. I have never brought home any exporbitantly priced CD players (ie: 10k or more), but I'll never own one anyway, so there's no point. But to suggest I'm not familiar with "quality" digital playback is just wrong.
Admittedly I am not familiar with much "quality" digital playback above the $4000-$5000K range simply because very few stores I visit ever even stock these. The last high priced CD player I listened to was a Meridian in that range. So to that end I will surrender the possibilty that after $5k digital sources really start to make bigger and bigger differences. But that flies in the face of logic and everything else I've observed, so call me a bit skeptical.

While I may not always have the comfort of my own room and home to listen to CD or SACD players, that is a disadvantage to all components in the system, and the fact remains I do hear bigger differences and greater improvements swapping out other pieces. It's a stretch to suggest that only digital sources would show further improvement being integrated into my own room and not other components as well. And even if they did, from what I do hear there's a lot of ground to make up.

I didn't say what I did in my post to take an adverse position, only speaking about what I have heard. It is only through listening to possible combinations and that I could derive my opinion of what order to build my system. Then it just became a matter of budgeting to accomodate the time I do spend vs other hobbies I support (snowmobiling, etc.) I will stand behind my preferred order, possibly with the exception of the value of amplifiers when listening mostly at lower listening levels - in which case I could submit a CD player having more importance - depending on the rest of the system.



I am fully convinced if you have a system with $2k in each a source, integrated, speakers, and you won $10k to spend on your system, the overall best sound quality would come from a $10k source rather than the $10k speakers. You can add $100k speakers, you aren't going to get one more ounce of detail or information from that system. The system would still be competent enough to make your jaw drop with a $10k cd player.
I don't get peoples fascination with speakers.

I really don't know what to say, I'm shocked you would say this, but I respect you too much to think you are making it up. What I hear with my ears is different. And observable, measurable differences are accounted for in much greater magnitude in amplifiers and speakers than digital source components. I fully believe what we can measure only explains PART of what we hear, but it's far too much a stretch for me to believe that what we aren't measuring carries more weight than what we are. If that was the case, the people who design these things wouldn't know where to start and we'd see fewer companies consistently putting out quality products. But they do.


I've heard the $100k Dynaudio flagship and they were definitely impressive. More in a "wow" factor. Like feeling low frequencies in your gut like nothing I've experienced before, or the fact that they did concert level bass but cleaner and tighter. But, I was much more impressed when I first heard the $25k Krell 25s preamp/cd combo unit that reproduced some of the most life like images I've ever heard.

I fully believe you are being honest with your experiences here. I've heard several speakers over $40k and every single time it was a "wow, that's great", but I've always left with the impression that I could build a better sounding complete system with speakers that were a fraction of the price. At any rate, this is far beyond the level of gear that I'll even care to include in any discussion, since it's just not relevant to the price ranges the vast majority of people I've met on any audio forum will ever get into. (though even a majority of the ones I have met seem to prefer speakers, though you are not the first I've met that puts source at the top of the list...)


. I mean if source wasn't all that important why not stick with a cassette, or mp3, why cd at all.
I think you missed the entire point of my response. I never, ever suggested in every scenario that upgrading speakers will always yield more improvement than upgarding source . I did suggest that depending on what was already in your system, the next biggest bang-for-your buck will vary depending on the marginal cost of upgrading each component. IE, if I had 10k speakers, a 5 k amp/pre-amp combo, and a 1k CD player, well the CD player is likely the weak link. The next money I spend would be on the source since I fully expect it to yield more improvement than upgrading amp and speakers again - Not to mention I could probably get a good improvement spending $5 k on a new player vs needing to spend maybe $15k or more on speakers to match that improvement. But we could sit here and fabricate unlimited hypothetical upgrade scenarios. I'm just trying to use them to illustrate my point.

You seem to suggest however that a source is always the next best thing to upgrade, in which I would ask you why not stick with $300 speakers and always upgrade the source? The answer is simple - if the source was absolutely perfect, you're still limited by the pieces that introduce the largest amounts of distortion and inaccuracies into the system. We know those to be speakers and room acoustics...though the cost of upgrading them is another factor altogether.


Kex I hope you can hear a wide improvement over $300.00 or so players with your 72t, and you would hear a wide improvement over your 72t with a quality $1.5 to 2k player. Are the steps always uniform, no way.

Your damn right I do. But there's a catch. If I use analog cables, the difference is significant - let's say 5-10% depending on what kind of music I listen too. It's as big a difference as I've observed when upgrading some of my own speakers, (though they weren't very significant upgrades.) Classical and Jazz especially reveal the added resolution. With heavy rock music, the difference reduces, but it's still there. I have a pair of $270 Axiom M3Ti's that will still reveal this difference. So even cheap speakers can benefit from a better source.
But that 10% difference is noticeable only when I use the analog cables from both my cheapo yamaha player and my Arcam. When I connect the Yammie to my receiver using the optical cable, and the Yammie's DAC's, and compare it to the still analog Arcam, that difference is very, very small. It goes from instantly noticeable to having to repeat parts of a song to demonstrate certain improvements. Slightly better soundstage and there's a faintly better separation of vocals from instruments - hard to explain but I call it "depth". But if I put a number to it it's 2% tops.
Here's the thing - I've owned both CD players going on 3 receivers now - a few years ago when I did this same trick on my old RX-V795a the analog Arcam STILL destroyed the optical Yamaha. I can only attribute the shrinking of the performance gap to improved DAC's in the newer, budget equipment. My receiver is a typical $1000 yamaha with Burr Brown Dac's. Nothing fancy at all.

Regardless, if I use the cheap player with any of my other speakers, the sound will usually be preferable than the Axioms with the Arcam, through receiver or otherwise. Though there are some things at lower levels the Axiom's do quite well in the small spare bedroom they are situated in.

All I was trying to say is that you should always upgrade the weakest link in your system, but from my experience, when cost is factored in, I attribute the largest portion of cost of my system to my speakers first.

Ironically, after I find a pre-pro and decide if I'm going to sell my integrated, a new source player is probably the next upgrade for me...go figure...

Feanor
06-26-2008, 05:27 AM
I think Kex, and Ajani, need more experience with "quality" digital playback. As you pointed out assigning a percentage would be difficult to understand because percentage of what. I respectfully, while totally, disagreeing with CD players having the highest diminishing return. This is something you will have to discover on your own because I can't convey to you what I hear, and would you even hear it the same way. My first "high end" CD player was an Arcam Alpha 9...

I suppose I ought to be tossed in with Kex and Ajani. But I remain a skeptic regarding the primacy of source. OK, I haven't experience a high-end digital player in my system, but I have hear a wide range of entry to lower mid-level devices. There are certainly differences but with the exception of a couple of notably bad ones, the difference have been extremely small. More than low- to mid-prices interconnects, but much less than amps, preamps, and of course speakers.

Sorry, I just don't buy the blank statement that I don't know what I'm talking about because my equipment isn't good enough. (Not long ago I got in a fuss with our some-time member, O'Shag on this subject). I'm extremely skeptical of the "quantum leap" theory of equipment improvement: i.e. if I can't hear a huge difference between bottom end equipment and mid-range, I'm inclined to believe that going from mid- to high-end will also be incremental.

Like say, Kex or RGA, I'm a big believer in balance. Years of personal poverty have taught me to always look for the improvement that gives me the most improvement for the least incremental investment. Obviously this isn't always the speakers. The performance of my Magneplanar MG 1.6QR is such that spending twice their $$$ on amp and preamp is fully justified. But I've always heard significant differences among amps, that hasn't typically been the case for CDPs or DACs I've heard (so far).

Ajani
06-26-2008, 06:24 AM
Sorry, I just don't buy the blank statement that I don't know what I'm talking about because my equipment isn't good enough. (Not long ago I got in a fuss with our some-time member, O'Shag on this subject). I'm extremely skeptical of the "quantum leap" theory of equipment improvement: i.e. if I can't hear a huge difference between bottom end equipment and mid-range, I'm inclined to believe that going from mid- to high-end will also be incremental.

I 100% Agree..... I find the difference between a good $330 pair of floorstanders and a good $1K pair (triple the price) to be a fairly significant jump in sound quality... but another tripling from $1K to $3K sounds far less significant in my experience. So why should I believe that a jump from $3K to $9K is suddenly going to blow my mind? Or from $9K to $27K is going to make me want to sell my unborn children to finance the purchase?

Mr Peabody
06-26-2008, 06:31 PM
As easy as it is to dismiss the views of Kex and myself as being from lack of experience, it doesn't change the fact that source first supporters (like yourself) are in the minority. Further, considering how many audiophiles (who have experience with "quality" digital playback) still feel speakers make more of a diffence than source, then talking about lack of experience is more a cheap shot than a meaningful point.

* It was not meant to be a cheap shot. I just don't know how else to say it. You are basing your views without hearing all the evidence. Sorry for any offense.

* Secondly, and a biggie, are you talking DIFFERENCE in sound quality, or QUALITY in sound? Quality I stick to what I said. A bigger difference, speakers will have the edge. There are more varieties of designs and sounds of speakers than cd players. I mean a pair of Klipsch on a system switched to a Martin Logan to a Vandersteen, I can't think of a bigger difference.

The fact is that many Audiophiles have heard the quality source components you love and still feel that their money is better spent on speakers. So lack of experience is not the source of this debate.
Most people (myself included) have no problem admitting that analog sources can sound substantially different and that the quality of a recording (e.g. a well mastered CD vs a low quality mp3) is a major factor in the overall sound. But the debate is about digital source, so analog sources like cassette and low quality recording formats like mp3 have no bearing on the discussion.

* You missed the point. What I said was merely an example of contrast in quality and the amount of difference between cassette and CD is the same from average to good CD players.

It's fine that you like the sound of cheaper speakers with an expensive source, but most people just don't share your enthusiasm. I have no doubt that source makes a difference, but in my experience (with only $3K or less CD players), no matter how good the source was, unless it was paired to a good pair of speakers it didn't sound good to me. On the other hand, I've heard several of my favourite speakers on both expensive source/ amp setups and on cheapo a/v receiver/dvd player combos and they still sounded good! (not as good as with quality gear, but still impressive)...

* If that's your opinion fine, but "cheapo receivers" don't have the ability to adequately drive a good speaker. So if that impresses you, each to their own.

Mr Peabody
06-26-2008, 07:19 PM
This is not a good assumption on your part, and quite frankly it's a bit insulting. I spend over 130 days a year in cities east of Chicago, and since I do not golf, on most of these days I'm visiting hi-fi stores just to get out of my room. I can say without any ego that I have most likely been to more hi-fi shops and heard more gear combinations than the vast majority of audio enthusiasts that visit ar.com and some other forums. I'm no expert or authority and never claim to be but I'm not stupid and speaking out of my ass from no experience either. I have on more than a few occasions played with upgraded pieces in my own home as well. Never a Krell, but certainly offerings from Meridian, Marantz, Denon, Wadia, Arcam and Jadis. Oh, a few Rotels and Adcom's too, though they were nothing special. I have never brought home any exporbitantly priced CD players (ie: 10k or more), but I'll never own one anyway, so there's no point. But to suggest I'm not familiar with "quality" digital playback is just wrong.
Admittedly I am not familiar with much "quality" digital playback above the $4000-$5000K range simply because very few stores I visit ever even stock these. The last high priced CD player I listened to was a Meridian in that range. So to that end I will surrender the possibilty that after $5k digital sources really start to make bigger and bigger differences. But that flies in the face of logic and everything else I've observed, so call me a bit skeptical.

* Sorry if you took it that way. You should know better. There are certainly outstanding CD players for under $4k. If you didn't hear the quality from Wadia or Merridian then I don't know what to say.

While I may not always have the comfort of my own room and home to listen to CD or SACD players, that is a disadvantage to all components in the system, and the fact remains I do hear bigger differences and greater improvements swapping out other pieces. It's a stretch to suggest that only digital sources would show further improvement being integrated into my own room and not other components as well. And even if they did, from what I do hear there's a lot of ground to make up.

* I don't think you saw in my post that the source can make the only improvement. But, let's say a recording has some subtle chimes in the background, your cd player isn't capable of bringing it off the disc, or buries it in noise or other instruments on the recording, there is absolutely nothing what so ever you can do down stream to hear those chimes. You can have the best speaker in the world. What does come off the disc will certainly sound better through the most capable speaker in the world but you will NEVER hear those chimes. That's my point.

I didn't say what I did in my post to take an adverse position, only speaking about what I have heard. It is only through listening to possible combinations and that I could derive my opinion of what order to build my system. Then it just became a matter of budgeting to accomodate the time I do spend vs other hobbies I support (snowmobiling, etc.) I will stand behind my preferred order, possibly with the exception of the value of amplifiers when listening mostly at lower listening levels - in which case I could submit a CD player having more importance - depending on the rest of the system.
I really don't know what to say, I'm shocked you would say this, but I respect you too much to think you are making it up. What I hear with my ears is different. And observable, measurable differences are accounted for in much greater magnitude in amplifiers and speakers than digital source components. I fully believe what we can measure only explains PART of what we hear, but it's far too much a stretch for me to believe that what we aren't measuring carries more weight than what we are. If that was the case, the people who design these things wouldn't know where to start and we'd see fewer companies consistently putting out quality products. But they do.

* With that being said, keep in mind that most HT receivers have better specs on paper than high end amps.

I fully believe you are being honest with your experiences here. I've heard several speakers over $40k and every single time it was a "wow, that's great", but I've always left with the impression that I could build a better sounding complete system with speakers that were a fraction of the price. At any rate, this is far beyond the level of gear that I'll even care to include in any discussion, since it's just not relevant to the price ranges the vast majority of people I've met on any audio forum will ever get into. (though even a majority of the ones I have met seem to prefer speakers, though you are not the first I've met that puts source at the top of the list...)

* I'm not going to touch this, I haven't built speakers but I know there's a lot to it. A friend of mine built some speakers and just in the parts he's over $20k. However, if you can build me a pair that compares to the Dynaudio Sapphire, only $16k, for a fraction, we have to talk.

I think you missed the entire point of my response. I never, ever suggested in every scenario that upgrading speakers will always yield more improvement than upgarding source . I did suggest that depending on what was already in your system, the next biggest bang-for-your buck will vary depending on the marginal cost of upgrading each component. IE, if I had 10k speakers, a 5 k amp/pre-amp combo, and a 1k CD player, well the CD player is likely the weak link. The next money I spend would be on the source since I fully expect it to yield more improvement than upgrading amp and speakers again - Not to mention I could probably get a good improvement spending $5 k on a new player vs needing to spend maybe $15k or more on speakers to match that improvement. But we could sit here and fabricate unlimited hypothetical upgrade scenarios. I'm just trying to use them to illustrate my point.

* Read my very first post on this thread. I must have missed it because it didn't read like what you just said.

You seem to suggest however that a source is always the next best thing to upgrade, in which I would ask you why not stick with $300 speakers and always upgrade the source? The answer is simple - if the source was absolutely perfect, you're still limited by the pieces that introduce the largest amounts of distortion and inaccuracies into the system. We know those to be speakers and room acoustics...though the cost of upgrading them is another factor altogether.


Your damn right I do. But there's a catch. If I use analog cables, the difference is significant - let's say 5-10% depending on what kind of music I listen too. It's as big a difference as I've observed when upgrading some of my own speakers, (though they weren't very significant upgrades.) Classical and Jazz especially reveal the added resolution. With heavy rock music, the difference reduces, but it's still there. I have a pair of $270 Axiom M3Ti's that will still reveal this difference. So even cheap speakers can benefit from a better source.
But that 10% difference is noticeable only when I use the analog cables from both my cheapo yamaha player and my Arcam. When I connect the Yammie to my receiver using the optical cable, and the Yammie's DAC's, and compare it to the still analog Arcam, that difference is very, very small. It goes from instantly noticeable to having to repeat parts of a song to demonstrate certain improvements. Slightly better soundstage and there's a faintly better separation of vocals from instruments - hard to explain but I call it "depth". But if I put a number to it it's 2% tops.
Here's the thing - I've owned both CD players going on 3 receivers now - a few years ago when I did this same trick on my old RX-V795a the analog Arcam STILL destroyed the optical Yamaha. I can only attribute the shrinking of the performance gap to improved DAC's in the newer, budget equipment. My receiver is a typical $1000 yamaha with Burr Brown Dac's. Nothing fancy at all.

* That's a big pat on the back of Yamaha to have an internal receiver DAC be that close to an Arcam.

Regardless, if I use the cheap player with any of my other speakers, the sound will usually be preferable than the Axioms with the Arcam, through receiver or otherwise. Though there are some things at lower levels the Axiom's do quite well in the small spare bedroom they are situated in.

* So just using the receiver, keeping both players analog, you'd prefer cheap player better speakers over 72t with Axiom? I'd have to hear the two set ups but my money would be on the Arcam/Axiom combo. I've never heard Axiom though.

All I was trying to say is that you should always upgrade the weakest link in your system, but from my experience, when cost is factored in, I attribute the largest portion of cost of my system to my speakers first.

Ironically, after I find a pre-pro and decide if I'm going to sell my integrated, a new source player is probably the next upgrade for me...go figure...

I'm having trouble getting this to post.... please work

kexodusc
06-27-2008, 03:00 AM
* Sorry if you took it that way. You should know better. There are certainly outstanding CD players for under $4k. If you didn't hear the quality from Wadia or Merridian then I don't know what to say.
I was never "offended" or anything, don't take it like that....internet is clumsy for dialogue as you know...just trying to add some info...FTR, of course I heard quality from those players...It just wasn't as big a favorable difference as what I hear upgrading other components. Hence my opinion on digital sources bearing the most diminishing returns. Just my opinion. Won't stop me from upgrading my Arcam to something better once things settle down...




* I don't think you saw in my post that the source can make the only improvement. But, let's say a recording has some subtle chimes in the background, your cd player isn't capable of bringing it off the disc, or buries it in noise or other instruments on the recording, there is absolutely nothing what so ever you can do down stream to hear those chimes. You can have the best speaker in the world. What does come off the disc will certainly sound better through the most capable speaker in the world but you will NEVER hear those chimes. That's my point.
And it's a good one I agree with. I think we differ on how much a cheap player leaves out vs how much a good player includes in the original signal - In my opinion, the lower end ones aren't leaving out as much as lower end speakers or amps do, and more is lost when other components are of lower grade...in your opinion, not so. On this we will likely always disagree. I could very well appreciate aspects of sound that you don't find valuable and vice-versa, so to each his own...I have been told I have tin ears though. :)


* With that being said, keep in mind that most HT receivers have better specs on paper than high end amps. That's not exactly true - under the same testing conditions those receiver manufacturers use, a high quality amp will still smoke it in the test results. The devil is in the details as you know...good specs are qualified with units of measurement and conditions...bad ones aren't.




* I'm not going to touch this, I haven't built speakers but I know there's a lot to it. A friend of mine built some speakers and just in the parts he's over $20k. However, if you can build me a pair that compares to the Dynaudio Sapphire, only $16k, for a fraction, we have to talk.
:) I didn't mean I could build a speaker better...I'm not that arrogant. Much beyond 5-10K commercial speakers and the DIY option runs out of components required to get to that next step. When I said "build a system" I meant "buy a complete system...components and speakers"...I have largely been unimpressed with what the last 90k buys you in a 100k speaker...and would likely upgrade sources a few times at that stage of the game



* So just using the receiver, keeping both players analog, you'd prefer cheap player better speakers over 72t with Axiom? I'd have to hear the two set ups but my money would be on the Arcam/Axiom combo. I've never heard Axiom though.
That's correct... and I've felt the same way with other amp/processor combos...to explain, while less original source may be making its way through to the speakers, I do feel poorer amp/speakers will fail to capture and deliver the sound a better source is sending. That's what I'm hearing anyway...There of course would be some exceptions depending on what gear we're swapping in and out...I'm only generally speaking.

Thanks for replying...:4:

Ajani
06-27-2008, 05:28 AM
are you talking DIFFERENCE in sound quality, or QUALITY in sound? Quality I stick to what I said. A bigger difference, speakers will have the edge. There are more varieties of designs and sounds of speakers than cd players. I mean a pair of Klipsch on a system switched to a Martin Logan to a Vandersteen, I can't think of a bigger difference.

Now that is a really interesting point!!!! I'm going to use the word 'variety' in place of 'difference in sound quality' to make things less confusing.

Speakers clearly have more variety than CD players. Whether, upgrading the same brand (and house sound) of CD Player, versus upgrading the same brand of speakers will make a more substantial improvement in quality, is far more open to debate. Let's use Dynaudio and Arcam as examples: I wouldn't expect jumping from one floorstander in Dynaudio's audience line to another one in the audience line, to yield much more than increased bass output. However if I jumped from one CD player in Arcam's diva line to another, I wouldn't expect an increase in bass, but hopefully a modest improvement in detail etc..

Based on my experiences, upgrading in the same brand (whether speakers, amp or CD) tends to yield minimal returns on your investment.

GMichael
06-27-2008, 05:52 AM
Sorry to butt in, but I think that to focus on one section of your equipment to the detriment of the rest is a waste. You have to have a balanced system to get the most out of it. A $10,000 CD player and $50 speakers don't sound much better than a $50 CD player with $10,000 speakers. Especially if you have an Emerson stereo. The old saying, "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" comes to mind.
I know that everyone here already knows this, but I had to say it. It made me feel better.

Ajani
06-27-2008, 05:59 AM
Sorry to butt in, but I think that to focus on one section of your equipment to the detriment of the rest is a waste. You have to have a balanced system to get the most out of it. A $10,000 CD player and $50 speakers don't sound much better than a $50 CD player with $10,000 speakers. Especially if you have an Emerson stereo. The old saying, "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" comes to mind.
I know that everyone here already knows this, but I had to say it. It made me feel better.

Ummm... I strongly suspect that a $10K pair of speakers with $50 CD player will sound MUCH MUCH Better than than the reverse... BUT I 100% agree that a balanced system is the way to go!!!!

GMichael
06-27-2008, 06:26 AM
Ummm... I strongly suspect that a $10K pair of speakers with $50 CD player will sound MUCH MUCH Better than than the reverse... BUT I 100% agree that a balanced system is the way to go!!!!

Some $10k speakers will only make gurgling sounds without a very strong amp, but yeah, in most cases I would agree.

Mr Peabody
06-27-2008, 08:09 PM
I notice E-stat hasn't been back to comment on what he started. He knows how to stir it up. He's probably just sitting back smiling :)

Ajani
06-27-2008, 08:49 PM
I notice E-stat hasn't been back to comment on what he started. He knows how to stir it up. He's probably just sitting back smiling :)

Good point... E-stat is a troll... let's ban him!!! :smilewinkgrin:

E-Stat
06-28-2008, 08:13 AM
I notice E-stat hasn't been back to comment on what he started. He knows how to stir it up. He's probably just sitting back smiling :)
:)

Actually, I struggled initially as to which forum I should post this. One of the mundane tasks of a mod is to move posts to appropriate fora. Here's a post in General that is clearly about speakers - move it there. Here's another about PC sound cards - move to Computer audio. So, should I have put this in Portable audio because my story is after all about a portable system? On the other hand, it illustrates (to me) how important the speaker can be - especially in this context - to an audience that probably assumes the cheapo earbuds included with your iPod (clone) are as good as it gets. By audience, I mean the typical casual buyer, not the fanatics like us.

I was just too happy to get my Shure earbuds back because they beat the pants off anything less. A recent week long sales meeting reminded me of that.

To the greater topic, I confess that my audio mentors from thirty some years ago always stressed the value of the speaker. Two were audio reviewers. Both having exceptional systems. Build yours around a great speaker. When I was seventeen, I was immediately taken by Magneplanar Tympanis. Not long afterwards, I heard some Dayton-Wright electrostats. Wow. The Dahlquists we sold at the shop were very nice, but in the end sounded like a bunch of cones and domes to me. So, that is how my main system is structured. I began with what I believe to be a truly great speaker - the Sound Lab U-1 electrostat and found what it took to drive them (not an easy chore). As a minimalist, I found the GamuT CDP has more than enough gain to drive the amps directly. I use the preamp only for vinyl playback where I need the RIAA EQ and gobs of gain for the squeaky output from a MC cartridge.

Having said that, my vintage system is completely reversed. It is largely a collection of hand me downs from the main system with some acquired stuff added. I built it around double Advents because - that's what got me started back in '72. They served me very well back then. They even served as the sound system for the 1974 Miss RHS talent show! I was the resident audio geek in high school. Driven by a powerful Crown amp, they could reasonably fill the gym. So a couple of years back, I bought two refoamed pair and updated the crossovers. I already had a suitable amplifier, an '81 Threshold Stasis 3. Still had a '75 Ariston RD-11s table with SME3009 arm. Bought a new Shure M97 for it. Another hand me down was a Pioneer PD-54 CDP. Great transport, so-so DAC. I bought a used Manley DAC / tube linestage. Boy, did that make a difference. Used some leftover JPS Labs ICs and power cord (the Power AC+ costs more than the speakers!). Where the U-1s in the main system represent about 60% of its value, it is only about 10% for the Advents. Most are not driven so nicely. The result is surprisingly good. While there is still a trace of boxiness, the top end only goes out to 14k or so and the dispersion is rather limited, they are nevertheless quite capable of very clear sound especially at lower levels. Many times when I'm talking with my neighbor across the way in his driveway, I can clearly hear the Advents in the garage. From a distance, there is little bass but plenty of articulation.

So, I think it can go both ways. Depends on a bunch of factors. If I weren't fortunate enough to have a large dedicated space for the huge stats, I would necessarily need to buy something much smaller and for my tastes, less desirable. On the other hand, I would likely still want to keep all my front end stuff. I guess you could say that I have moved more in the source direction because quite frankly I am less tolerant of the typically hard sound coming from inexpensive components using $.14 op amps. I would gladly sacrifice the Nth degree of HF extension and sound stage width for an edge-free sound.

rw

Mr Peabody
06-28-2008, 08:56 AM
I haven't purchased a great deal of portables but the supplied headphones with what I have purchased were mostly throw away. I use a pair of modestly priced Sennheiser which I've been happy with. At only $60.00 they are so far superior to the buds supplied it's a shame. I believe the supplied headphones must be a necessary evil but I sometimes wonder if they are a detreament to the product. Some uninformed consumer using the supplied product thinking this is the best it gets. Unless I were able to use a large storage digital player that accepted lossless I couldn't justify the expense of Shure or other high end cans. With a mp3 player using variable bit rate at the highest setting the Senn's sound very good. Especially for the money invested in the whole rig.

If you are that partial to your GamuT I think I might see if I can audition the Berendsen.

GMichael
06-29-2008, 06:14 AM
I haven't purchased a great deal of portables but the supplied headphones with what I have purchased were mostly throw away. I use a pair of modestly priced Sennheiser which I've been happy with. At only $60.00 they are so far superior to the buds supplied it's a shame. I believe the supplied headphones must be a necessary evil but I sometimes wonder if they are a detreament to the product. Some uninformed consumer using the supplied product thinking this is the best it gets. Unless I were able to use a large storage digital player that accepted lossless I couldn't justify the expense of Shure or other high end cans. With a mp3 player using variable bit rate at the highest setting the Senn's sound very good. Especially for the money invested in the whole rig.

If you are that partial to your GamuT I think I might see if I can audition the Berendsen.

I picked up a pair of very modestly priced Sennheiser's for my wife's Ipod. Although they seem like they're made of cheap-o-plastic, they sound very nice. As soon as I put them on and turn on the music, I seem to forget how flimsy they seem, and just enjoy the sound.

Estat,
Maybe you should just put this thread in a different section each day. We'll all just hunt for it. Adds to the fun.