[simoon]

I would say that, while it is true that speakers make the biggest difference, that all things being equal, source is the most important.

You can have a pair of extremely accurate speakers, but without a great source, what you will have is an accurate reproduction of a less than accurate signal.


As an analogy, imagine having a state of the art TV, but your source is VHS.

[*Scotty*]

I use the systemic approach as well and while the GIGO law can be ignored or denied it nevertheless determines what you hear. The Higher Fidelity the overall system has, the more critical the source component and recording quality becomes.  In the final analysis the source component determines the performance ceiling for the system if you have the rest of your ducks in a row. Even a SOTA million dollar audio system can be crippled by the use of an inferior source component or recording.
 This was recently made gruesomely obvious when I had an AURALIC VEGA in my system. Long story short,my stereo did things I didn't know it could do; the speakers disappeared better, the overall resolution of the system improved across the entire frequency spectrum, the imaging also showed a substantial improvement in height,width and depth.
 At no time has my system ever been aggressive sounding or irritating to listen to, but apparently my DAC has some serious sins of omission, basically it's "broken". While I knew full well that it was no where near the performance of the best DACs out there I didn't realize it had a problem of this magnitude. Needless to say an AURALIC VEGA or a DAC of similar performance capabilities is on my short list this year.
This is also the year that I am going to finally implement a Controlled Acoustic Bass System (CABS) to try to solve RT 60 problems below 100Hz in my listening room.
Usual disclaimers. IMO/YMMV
Scotty

[Rclark]

Nice, good look into people's system build philosophies. Very interesting and useful.

More please.

[charmerci]

On my experience, I find it's -

speakers
room
recordings
amp
pre-amp
cables

[rollo]

   For me it is the room first. Then the proper speakers that fit in that room. The goal is then to form a system around the chosen speaker. The synergy of the speaker /amp combo is key. Planers like current, Inefficient speakers need watts. horns and single driver like SET.
   Then a preamp that mates well with the amp. and source. Meaning proper gain and impedance match. One can use a passive or active. Depends on voltage output of source and input sensitivity of amp. If one has a high voltage output for digital and a low input impedance with amp it is a go. An active preamp has its merits as well. When all right the best source one can afford. GIGO has been my motto forever.
    So in essence a system approach. The givens before all else is good clean power, A dedicated circuit at a minimum and conditioning if required. Cabling then ties it all together. I try to find a neutral cable that allows the character of the system to come through.
    charles

[geowak]

I consider how well I hear to be the most important part of my system. Often I find I have not taken better care of my ears, and I get tested every year now, since I have upper band high frequency hearing loss. Also I consider the taste one has in music (genre) and overall education in music and sound will color or bias opinion about sound.

[steve f]

Here's my list:

0.5 the recording. If it sounds bad, everything down stream will sound bad.
1 speakers. Even more so than next the next item.
2 room. Interactions can cause big problems. Number 2 because speakers #1 can be built that solve a lot of room problems.
3 amplifiers. They matter more than their counterparts that feed them.
4 preamps, phono pres, step up devices,cartridges, turntables, arms. Analog sources in general.
5 digital sources. Placed near last, not because of importance, but because they are getting so good you deliberately have to search for bad ones. Low bit MP3 doesn't count.
6 devices that make audiophiles feel good. Fancy wire, interconnects, power cords, pucks, cable lifts, etc. I guess you can tell I'm a non believer. It's okay if you are though.

[Steve]

I am going to approach this from a different angle. Let's assume we have no components yet. This is the ideal way, if possible. Of course cost will
be a consideration when starting.

1. One should check a room and minimize any low frequency resonances if possible. Plus or minus 6db or so is not too bad, but
a 20db resonance will probably be a problem, depending upon the frequency of the resonance.

2. Next, the line preamplifier. Why? Because it is the only component that one can check for accuracy, transparency, naturalness in an absolute fashion. The amp/speaker can always be connected to the source for comparison. The amp input impedance (Z) should be close to the preamplifier input Z for best results. The source, amplifier, and speaker cannot be tested because of varying loads etc.

If one chooses the wrong preamplifier, one may easily choose and compromise with an inaccurate amp/speaker combo, and possible source. Less than ideal synergy will be the result. And that is what we are looking for, best synergy possible for natural sound.

3. If one chooses the amp/speaker combination first, how can one test such since one has not a source or preamplifier? If the wrong preamplifier is chosen, it is almost guaranteed the wrong amp/speaker will be chosen, thus less than ideal synergy. Besides that, one must at least have a source and preamplifier first in order to evaluate the amp/speaker audition in one's home.

4. If going integrated amplifier, with enclosed preamplifier, then audition entire system for best sound before purchasing.

So choose the best, accurate, natural line preamplifier and check out the rest of your wants first before purchasing. You will obtain better synergy that way.

Lastly, I do not manufacture anymore, so I have no conflict of interest.

Cheers

Steve



 

[Russell Dawkins]

I am resurrecting a worthy old thread!

My logic is speakers first, because every other change has to be auditioned and judged through them—even room acoustics.

[Syrah]

This is an age old one.  When I was 13 years old and bought my first system, I remember one stereo store guy that stood out from the rest.  Like the Linn school, his philosophy was that anything that "changes" the signal should be the most important.  For example, the turntable (as was the only real source then) and the speakers.  I, more or less, adopted that approach.  The amp and preamp just took the same signal and amplified it and changed the impedance.

One event solidified that view, another changed it.  First, I attended an amp shootout organised by the Circle, about 15 years ago.  Many who attended had a similar reaction that the differences between the amps were not overwhelming, even though some were 3 or 4 times the price of others.  The one exception was a flea powered amp that was just not suited to the speakers.  When we all compared notes, we had to exaggerate the differences just to be able to describe them.  It would have been very different from a speaker or source shootout.

Second, at one point I was auditioning preamps for my system.  Before that I had figured that the preamp was probably the least important component in the system - if I had to choose (as many state above, they obviously all matter).  What surprised me was how much more the "character" of the system changed with different preamps than it did with different amps.

So, my vote is,

1. Source / speakers tied.
2. Preamp.
3. Amp.

The caveat is amp suitability for the speakers.

I think amps gets a heightened importance because (this being more of a guys' hobby) we like POWER.  It's a bit like the golf adage of puting for dough and driving for show.  It also reminds me of when I got my BMW modded by a mod expert.  I (of course) wanted POWER.  He persuaded me that what I should want first is good suspension.  His reasoning was that if you can't put the power down on the road or control the car with all of that power, what is the point?

I think cabling is really a tuning issue.  I tell friends to start their system with cheap cables - cut off Home Depot extension cords for speakers cabling and good old Blue Jeans for ICs.  Play later.  My room treatment advice usually varies with how good/bad the room is to begin with.

[Thebiker]

The lists above are fine based on personal biases for the exact order of things.  The only real issue I see is that no one takes synergy into account.  I have personally found the difference in the amplifier / speaker combo to be profound.  Even with something as simple as a good integrated (Carey and Manley) the same speaker performs drastically different depending on the amp used.  A pair of Focal 816's sound incredible with the Manley but not as good with the Carey.  Differences, mid range and top end.  Reasons, amplifier design and tube choices.  Manley using EL 84's and the Carey using KT88's.  The Manley wasn't as terrific with the B&W 805's but the Carey was phenomenal.

Yes, it still comes down to choosing the right speaker for a room and then the amp that you think best.  Most ears would be happy with (if you like tubes) either the Manley or Cary with either speaker.  But having the ability to demo both, since I own both, displayed the differences.  Both good speakers, both good amps.  The difference, the synergy of the pairings.  Finding the synergy can frequently give audio happiness and save money for more toys. And who doesn't want more toys?

All about what plays well together.

JMHO and Ears.

[Freo-1]

I am resurrecting a worthy old thread!

My logic is speakers first, because every other change has to be auditioned and judged through them—even room acoustics.

Well stated.  Agree.


The chosen speakers drive the amp selection process.  For example, one is not going to get a SET amp with lower efficiency speakers. 


Active speakers take care of the amp problem, as the design optimizes the choice of amps.   Dynaudio also provides DSP for their XD active speakers (how cool is that!).


Devialet provides both DSP and speaker active matching. 

[witchdoctor]

The Power
The Room
The Components

If you don't got clean power everything downstream sucks, if the room is bad, no amount of $$$ spent elsewhere can fix it, get the first two right and you can get away with less than stellar components, Screw up either of the first two and you are better off flushing your money down the toilet than buying audio hardware.

[OzarkTom]

The room is #1. If I had 100k to spend, 95K would be to build a SOTA sound room, 5K for the system. In a SOTA sound room, almost any 5K system will sound decent-Class A.

A 95K SOTA system in the basement. will sound more like a Class C-D system.

[JLM]

I believe that we each have different levels of sensitivity to different aspects of sound, so my priorities are:

1.)  Speakers (the only transducer in a digitally sourced system and thus the toughest job)
2.)  Room/setup (the biggest downfall of most setups)
3.)  Source (primarily the performance/recording itself)
4.)  Amplification (a relatively easy task)
5.)  Everything else (in extreme cases power aberrations can be significant, cables have the easiest job)

[JohnR]

1. Digital crossover

[werd]

Source reigns. This is easily demonstrated by explaining what each componenent does.

Source (all types vinyl, digital) plays the band. With out it you got nothing.
 
Pre amps attenuate the source and switch sources.

Amps power the source.

Speakers transduce the source into sound waves.

What component appears in every description of other components explainations. The source does. That and it plays the band, makes the source the most inportant piece. Not realizing this is a disaster if interested in home audio.

[Elizabeth]

I am always surprised when theory trumps actual listening. Like the old saw about 'source' HAS TO BE best since it is the source.
Naaah. Now it is true the source has to be good enough... (so it does not sound like vomit) but best? no way.
I have no 'proof' I am more right than the folks who claim the source has to be best. But then we are all independent Human beings with our own axes to grind.
But my personal system uses several $40 or so from eBay, used (originally $600 to $700) CD changers to a used $250 DAC.
In comparison I just spent $5,000 on three sets of IC.
Now to a 'source is most important' person, my actions are insane. But not to me, nor to my system.

Just saying'.. Source is not the "MOST" important.

IMO a thread about 'How much to spend' on each would be more useful.. But that is not this thread.
Back in the pre 'high end' era..(1950's 1960's)  the common saw was to spend 50% on speakers.. not anymore...

[macrojack]

Doesn't the act of calling it a "system" tacitly acknowledge mutual dependency and hence imply that all components are of equal importance? The prominence of a particular item does not obscure the significance of any other part. Even things like yeast and salt are essential to the finest delicacies..... no matter how much you paid for those truffles.

[Davey]

Werd,

Except that the "source" is not really the source. 
The real source would be the original performance experienced at that time.......one time.
"Plays the band" is just nonsense.  The band actually playing is the source.
This is the type of "AC logic" I was referring to with my post that got deleted.

This query to the topic of this thread was answered fairly successfully in Post #1.  In your domestic reproduction chain, the speakers are the weakest link and, by definition, the most important.  No other component imparts an audible signature to your experience as much as speakers do.
This is a basic concept easily experienced.  I'm surprised there are differing opinions on this.

Good golly.

Dave.