"The Truth in Audio" -- according to www.commonsenseaudio.com

[Erukian]

And here's the truth in audio:

--

1. The speakers represent about 90% of the quality of sound you will get from your audio system.

--A speaker takes an electrical signal, moves air to convert it to sound, and then sounds like a real person. Incredibly hard to do well.

2. The source component (CD or LP) is the next most important piece of equipment.

--It takes a piece of plastic with pits in it and converts it to an electrical signal capable of making a speaker produce music.

3. The preamp (or preamp stage of an integrated amp) is next in importance.

--It takes components of varying impedances, voltages, and levels; uses switches and attenuators, and has an amplification stage of its own.

4. The amplifier is the least important part of a system.

--It takes a signal and makes it bigger.

--There are only 3 types of amps: good ones, bad ones, and 'boutique' ones (ones that alter the sound).

--If you're spending more than $500 on your amplifier....you're wasting your money.

5. Fancy cables are the 'snake oil' of modern life.

--Most are designed to have a sound of their own...to alter the signal. This is not the role a cable should play.

--16 gauge multistranded copper speaker wire (quality 'extension' cord) is all you need for resonably efficient speakers.

--Gold plated interconnects from Radio Shack will give you sound as good as any expensive cable.



You know for the most part, this guy seems to nail it.

[woodman]

Although I am not in total agreement with this fellow on his first 4 "truths", my objections to some of the things he says here are just "nitpicking" on my part, and not of enough real consequence to merit much in the way of debate.

His #5 however resonated with my POV on the subject enough to cause me to visit his website to see what else he had to say in the realm(s) of "common sense". There I found him touting vacuum tubes of all things, which flies directly and firmly against anything and everything resembling common sense, IMO. Having had to deal with those obstreperous devices on a daily basis for a whole bunch of years, I celebrated wildly at what I thought to be their demise and burial in the mid-1970s.

This desire to go backwards in time and worship at the altar of a technology that "died" a quarter of a century ago, but didn't have the decency to stay dead - absolutely boggles my mind. Makes me wonder if these poor misguided souls would also prefer horse-drawn buggys to automobiles, ice-boxes to refrigerators, tin cans connected by a string rather than telephones, and all of the rest of the outmoded and obsolete technologies of bygone eras. Time and technologies march on inexorably, and whether those that resist that fact realize and are willing to admit it or not, technologies are not replaced by inferior ones. Only when a "better" way of doing things is discovered do old methods fade away and (hopefully) die!

[Geoffcin]

I found that someone who professes to know all the answers is likely wrong about most.

[musicoverall]

Makes me wonder if these poor misguided souls would also prefer horse-drawn buggys to automobiles, ice-boxes to refrigerators, tin cans connected by a string rather than telephones,

Well, if the horse drawn buggies were faster and a more comfortable ride than cars, if iceboxes kept food fresher than fridges and if tin cans sounded clearer than telephones and were as easy to use, I'd certainly prefer them! Unfortunately, of all the comparisons in your analogy, only tube amps outperform their counterpart. But I also prefer vinyl over CD, manual car windows to power ones (well, since my power window got stuck open after a visit to the ATM last week!) and the oven to the microwave. So I guess I'm a little old fashioned! And since tubes have been having a resurgence for quite awhile, I guess the newer, better technology was viewed as only newer by many audiophiles and manufacturers. More reliable, though, and I guess that makes it better in one respect.

[woodman]

Well, if the horse drawn buggies were faster and a more comfortable ride than cars, if iceboxes kept food fresher than fridges and if tin cans sounded clearer than telephones and were as easy to use, I'd certainly prefer them! Unfortunately, of all the comparisons in your analogy, only tube amps outperform their counterpart. But I also prefer vinyl over CD, manual car windows to power ones (well, since my power window got stuck open after a visit to the ATM last week!) and the oven to the microwave. So I guess I'm a little old fashioned! And since tubes have been having a resurgence for quite awhile, I guess the newer, better technology was viewed as only newer by many audiophiles and manufacturers. More reliable, though, and I guess that makes it better in one respect.

You have two different POVs here that are in conflict with each other. Namely, you say that you prefer "vinyl over CDs", manual car windows over powered ones, and a conventional oven to a microwave. Fine. Those are indeed preferences, and so long as they are identified as such, I have no quarrel with them (although I disagree with each and every one myself). But then you say that ... "Unfortunately, of all the comparisons in your analogy, only tube amps outperform their counterpart" and you state this as though it were an actual fact (it's not). Outperform? In what way? If we're talking about sonic accuracy, they certainly come up short in that respect. If, as you point out (grudgingly) at the end of your post, we're talking about reliability, then it becomes a genuine "no-brainer" if there ever was one. That was the main reason that working with tubes on a daily basis was such a pain-in-the-ass to me that I was overjoyed when a technology came along to slay that dragon - once and for all! Only, the cussed things didn't have the common decency to stay slain, but instead, rose from the ashes to live another day. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

Tubes having a "resurgence" have nothing whatsoever to do with facts or truth ... their climb back up out of the grave (where they should've stayed, IMO) into some sort of a cult-like worship status is nothing but misguided respect and adoration, mixed with a cup of nostalgia on the part of some audiophools who really ought to know better, since their professed hobby is predicated upon a passionate interest in the accurate reproduction of sound ... in other words, "high-fidelity".

You need to put your affection for "the tube sound" into the same box as you placed vinyl, manual car windows, and conventional ovens ... a preference. If you had done so, you would've saved me from all of this typing!

[musicoverall]

Sorry you had to do all that typing! Tubes are indeed a preference for me. They bring the necessary life to the music, helping to transform it from an obvious reproduction to something that sounds "live". No reason for me not to state that they outperform their solid state brethren on that basis and naturally I would prefer them as a result. It may not be a fact for everyone but it's certainly a fact for me, i.e, a preference. I certainly have no quarrel with folks that prefer solid state, although I think they're shortchanging their listening pleasure... just my opinion.

[E-Stat]

Outperform? In what way?

To these ears, they are able to reproduce the harmonic content and transient envelope of unamplified music more faithfully than most SS amps. There are exceptions.

If we're talking about sonic accuracy, they certainly come up short in that respect.

That is true when one limits the discussion to a set of nearly useless specifications. May you enjoy your musical experience by viewing THD graphs

If, as you point out (grudgingly) at the end of your post, we're talking about reliability, then it becomes a genuine "no-brainer" if there ever was one.

Well designed tube gear is completely reliable. You confuse reliability with wear. Most tires are quite reliable after tens of thousands of miles of use, yet they do wear out. The same can be said of modern tube designs.

That was the main reason that working with tubes on a daily basis was such a pain-in-the-ass to me that I was overjoyed when a technology came along to slay that dragon - once and for all!

I can understand that sentiment from the viewpoint of a repairman.

You need to put your affection for "the tube sound" into the same box as you placed vinyl...

Indeed. The best analog (actually RTR tape) still outperforms the Redbook standard when live music is the criteria for judgement, IMHO. RB is as yet far from "perfect".

rw

[woodman]

To these ears, they are able to reproduce the harmonic content and transient envelope of unamplified music more faithfully than most SS amps. There are exceptions.

That sir, places them into the realm of a preference as I already pointed out to Mr. musicoverall. The very idea that tubes are somehow able to do a "better job" at recreating sound has been proven to be nothing beyond a myth. That is why you'd be hard-pressed to find any professional audio equipment using vacuum tubes being employed in any recording studios, radio and TV broadcasting, commercial post-production houses, movie studios, or anywhere else where sound reproduction is dealt with "professionally".

That is true when one limits the discussion to a set of nearly useless specifications. May you enjoy your musical experience by viewing THD graphs.

I don't enjoy music by viewing THD graphs ... or, by "listening to" vacuum tubes, or by "listening to" solid state devices either. I enjoy listening to MUSIC that emanates from whatever equipment is doing the reproduction of it, if said gear is doing a reasonable job of recreating it.

Well designed tube gear is completely reliable. You confuse reliability with wear. Most tires are quite reliable after tens of thousands of miles of use, yet they do wear out. The same can be said of modern tube designs.

Pure, unadulterated hogwash! The only thing that you can rely upon with any degree of certainty with tubed gear is the unreliability of the vacuum tubes themselves. They are inherently unreliable critters. They are prone to idiosyncrasies and all sorts of undesirable behaviors that their solid state counterparts are simply not inclined to exhibit ... ever. I confuse reliability with "wear"? Not hardly do I confuse any such thing. I was faced with the challenges presented to me by vacuum tubes, day in and day out for more than 30 years. Those challenges were not something caused by the tubes "wearing out" - not at all. They were often a case of a given tube simply not being capable of performing the job it was being asked to do. These tubes were not "worn out" or even performing poorly because of usage ... they were simply not up to the task. On the other hand, there were tubes that were functionally "usable", but didn't perform their jobs as well as they could have or should have, due to a plethora of reasons. Perhaps the most glaring difference between tubes and SS devices is the fact that from the day that it is put into service, a solid state device will perform its assigned task at an optimum and unvarying level until it finally dies, while a vacuum tube can (and will) exhibit a wide range of efficiency in dealing with the task it's asked to perform.

I can understand that sentiment from the viewpoint of a repairman.

I'll thank you to not refer to me as a "repairman". I was an electronic servicing technician, who also saw duty as an electronic design engineer (without the qualifying "credentials"). The term repairman in this context is tantamount to calling an automobile mechanic a "grease monkey".

[musicoverall]

To these ears, they are able to reproduce the harmonic content and transient envelope of unamplified music more faithfully than most SS amps. There are exceptions.


That is true when one limits the discussion to a set of nearly useless specifications. May you enjoy your musical experience by viewing THD graphs


Well designed tube gear is completely reliable. You confuse reliability with wear. Most tires are quite reliable after tens of thousands of miles of use, yet they do wear out. The same can be said of modern tube designs.


I can understand that sentiment from the viewpoint of a repairman.


Indeed. The best analog (actually RTR tape) still outperforms the Redbook standard when live music is the criteria for judgement, IMHO. RB is as yet far from "perfect".

rw

Well said.

As an educated guess, I've got about 3000 hours on my current set of tubes and they're still going strong. I find it telling that I personally know of many folks and have read posts from many others that have moved from solid state to tubes for a superior sonic experience. I can think of 2 people TOTAL that moved from tubes to solid state over the last dozen years.

[tamule1]

The only thing better than a tube preamp is no preamp.
Electrons flying through a vacuum do better than trying to get through a solid semi-conductor.

[woodman]

The only thing better than a tube preamp is no preamp.
Electrons flying through a vacuum do better than trying to get through a solid semi-conductor.

Wow ... what startling revelations these are! Truly profound ....... NOT!

[FLZapped]

Electrons flying through a vacuum do better than trying to get through a solid semi-conductor.

HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! OMG that's funny!



-Bruce
(Just completely wrong)

[risabet]

True, the amplification chain has the "easiest" job to do and thus it is easiest to find competent electronics, the problem arises when one then starts the process of upgrading the speakers. Better speakers tend to present more complex loads with greater reactance, lower impedance, especially at high frequencies, etc. Here is where buying better electronics at the start is a benefit, you can go through 2-3 ugrade cycles with the speakers before you need to upgrade the amps.

On the subject of tubes, yeah, they treat the electrons better, especially at line level. The sound of tubes, and most early tube gear does have a sound of its own, is more consonant with the sound of live music. Modern tube gear is much more neutral sounding and the best is wickedly revealing of changes in source components, cables and imaging.

If you can deal with the heat and regular minor maintenace of tubes go for it. I compromise with a hybrid tube pre and a SS amp.

[Beckman]

I can hear more of a difference in amps than in cd players. I do agree about the $500 thing.

[theaudiohobby]

On the subject of tubes, yeah, they treat the electrons better, especially at line level. The sound of tubes, and most early tube gear does have a sound of its own, is more consonant with the sound of live music.

treat electrons better grrrr.... maybe we should return to the days of the alchemists, the alchemists probably had more plausible explanations .

[musicoverall]

On the subject of tubes, yeah, they treat the electrons better, especially at line level. The sound of tubes, and most early tube gear does have a sound of its own, is more consonant with the sound of live music. Modern tube gear is much more neutral sounding and the best is wickedly revealing of changes in source components, cables and imaging.
.

Well, I can't comment on how tubes treat electrons! A little politeness is good, though!

The rest of this paragraph mirrors my experience perfectly. I've found that solid state tends to blur the transients and the decay of notes... one of my problems with digital sound is that the decay of notes is actually an instant death! Very un-lifelike... and tubes are so revealing and "live" sounding. I was very skeptical at first until I listened. And my amps look like a cross between something out of Star Trek and something from the documentary of Thomas Edison! Buggardly looking things!

[gonefishin]

For good "live sounding" recordings of good music, it's tough to beat MapleShade recordings. Their recordings are really top notch. If your after a recording that resembles real music...but not everyone wants that.
Listening to Mapleshade recordings always leads me to wonder why other recordings can't capture the music the way Mapleshade does. If you've never listened to their recordings...at least give the MUSICAL FESTIVAL (sampler) cd a try.





Have a Happy (and safe) New Year!

dan

[risabet]

And here's the truth in audio:

--

1. The speakers represent about 90% of the quality of sound you will get from your audio system.

--A speaker takes an electrical signal, moves air to convert it to sound, and then sounds like a real person. Incredibly hard to do well.

2. The source component (CD or LP) is the next most important piece of equipment.

--It takes a piece of plastic with pits in it and converts it to an electrical signal capable of making a speaker produce music.

3. The preamp (or preamp stage of an integrated amp) is next in importance.

--It takes components of varying impedances, voltages, and levels; uses switches and attenuators, and has an amplification stage of its own.

4. The amplifier is the least important part of a system.

--It takes a signal and makes it bigger.

--There are only 3 types of amps: good ones, bad ones, and 'boutique' ones (ones that alter the sound).

--If you're spending more than $500 on your amplifier....you're wasting your money.

5. Fancy cables are the 'snake oil' of modern life.

--Most are designed to have a sound of their own...to alter the signal. This is not the role a cable should play.

--16 gauge multistranded copper speaker wire (quality 'extension' cord) is all you need for resonably efficient speakers.

--Gold plated interconnects from Radio Shack will give you sound as good as any expensive cable.



You know for the most part, this guy seems to nail it.

Common sense would indicate that the proper order of importance is

1. Source first, be it tuner, CD, or turntable (the best IMO) if you don't get the signal off or out of the device whatever you do to it after is simply playing with a defective signal.

2. Amplification, the signal sent from the source must be properly treated by the amplification in order to send a proper signal to the third part of the sysem. The amplifier itself must also be able to control the speaker, starting and stopping it precisely and allowing the speaker to track the music signal. Very few sub $500.00 amps that I have heard can do this with decent speaker at all frequencies.

3. Loudspeakers, these are no better than the signal they receive. If I believed the above post I would spend $3000 on some fine speakers, $1000.00 on a CD player, and than connect them all to a Sansewer (oops, Sansui, receiver). I do agree that the job of the speaker is difficult to do well, reproducing a frequency range fromm 20 to 20,000 hz is no easy chore, add in a dynamic range of 50 to 60 db, and maintaining the proper phase relationships in the signal and you have a devilishly difficult job.

4. The best thing about this hobby is that if you don't hear a difference between components, cables or any other part of a system you are free to save your money. Luckily for me I can hear the differences between components and cables and so I strive to build systems that incrementally approach the sound of unamplified live music.

It is a good thing for all of the cable manufacturers out their that some of us can hear
the differences between cables, both in the signal path and outside of it.

[musicoverall]

Luckily for me I can hear the differences between components and cables and so I strive to build systems that incrementally approach the sound of unamplified live music. .

Luckily??? I consider the people who feel all components sound the same to be lucky! They can save their money and the choices are simpler!

As for the "order of importance", I don't disagree with your assessment but I feel the bulk of expenditure for a system should be speakers, simply because they don't do their job as well. CD source components and amplification components do a better job and, whereas they are important, it doesn't require a ton of money to do those jobs basically correctly. I'd much prefer to hear a system with modest front end and amplification components with good speakers than the opposite. It's easier to find speakers to totally muck up a signal than it is to find a CD player to muck it up, IMHO.

[markw]

First off. if the source media is poor, nothing, I repeat, NOTHING will improve it to any great extent. I've got some recordings of roots rock done in the 50's and tome controls can smooth outa little of the roughness but they still suck. Ah... but that music.

But, drop on some good recordings (Mapleshade, Reference Recordings, some RCA Living Stereo or some Columbia/Legacy stuff, etc...) and you're in heaven.

Now, on to he other side. The speakers. Get what moves you. Then, get an amp with enough clean oomph to drive them to levels sufficient to reach that hidden nerve that makes your mouth turn up at the ends and your foot tap and you're in business.

The rest kinda falls into place.

[theaudiohobby]

markw you, good , yep thats it, the speakers and the source are of equal importance if either sucks, you are not going to get good music, as simple as that. In the digital age, speakers show much greater variability and there is no universal best, so choose what works best for your ears and pocket . Then look for a good amplifier, forget about tubes, ss, digital and all such hoopla, choose what does the job i.e. drives your speakers best and you are up and away with good music.

[E-Stat]

First off. if the source media is poor, nothing, I repeat, NOTHING will improve it to any great extent. I've got some recordings of roots rock done in the 50's and tome controls can smooth outa little of the roughness but they still suck. Ah... but that music.

But, drop on some good recordings (Mapleshade, Reference Recordings, some RCA Living Stereo or some Columbia/Legacy stuff, etc...) and you're in heaven.

Now, on to he other side. The speakers. Get what moves you. Then, get an amp with enough clean oomph to drive them to levels sufficient to reach that hidden nerve that makes your mouth turn up at the ends and your foot tap and you're in business.

The rest kinda falls into place.

Ditto to all of that!

rw

[Resident Loser]

...there's the word...rendering all else meaningless, anecdotal, opinion...

jimHJJ(...difference does not equate to higher-fi...)

[Feanor]

Common sense would indicate that the proper order of importance is

1. Source first, ...
2. Amplification...
3. Loudspeakers...

"The chain is no stronger than it's weakest link." The order of the links is largely irrelevant.

The weakest link in the reproduction chain is almost always the speaker.

[Feanor]

And here's the truth in audio:...

1. The speakers represent about 90% of the quality of sound ...
2. The source component (CD or LP) is the next most important...
3. The preamp (or preamp stage of an integrated amp) is next in importance....
4. The amplifier is the least important part of a system....
5. Fancy cables are the 'snake oil' of modern life

...

But not true as you move upscale. E.g., from my experience, the amplifier is important and certainly No. 2; it's more important than source for sure.

OTOH, I subscribe to the "weakest link in the change" perspective, and that is almost always the speaker.