[werd]

I don't think anything 

You should have stopped there.

[G Georgopoulos]

according to cost: 1-speakers, 2-source

[Armaegis]

Some points to add to the can of worms here:

- All components have different points of diminishing returns. I feel that DACs climb the diminishing returns ladder faster than amps and speakers.
- I don't think anyone will argue too much that the ratios of where you spend your money may change as your overall system budget increases.
- I think we can all mostly agree that a laptop motherboard output is rather crap. A $200 dac can be quite good. You're splitting a lot of hairs after that.
- The transducer and room are going to have the most significant effect on sound. The distortion etc from these are many orders of magnitude higher than anything else in the chain.
- Those who espouse "source first" seem to come at it from the viewpoint where they've already settled and have put good money down on everything else in the chain. Nothing wrong with that, but don't forget the "little guys" who's budgets are less than your source alone.
- power conditioning... eh, spend the time and money hunting down the sources of electrical grunge in the first place. If you don't have grunge, then don't fix a problem that doesn't exist.


If someone has a $500 budget, I'm not going to tell them to spend the majority of that on a dac and the rest on amp and speakers. Heck I would advise against even spending half that much. I would say spend $400 on some powered speakers and $100 on the source. There are still decent "not garbage" options in that range.

If someone had $5k to spend, well now maybe half on source seems doable. Maybe you've now experienced some good gear and are really happy with your $2k speakers that are resolving enough for you to hear changes in everything else in your system.

[Davey]

Yes, it tells me you are "fairly sure" and you have not polled anyone. That is all it tells me.

Yeah, I'm fairly sure, but you KNOW.  That's what your statements tell me.
Classic.

I will revisit my thinking on the relative priority of my source components.  Thanks for the suggestion.

Dave.

[Early B.]

- power conditioning... eh, spend the time and money hunting down the sources of electrical grunge in the first place. If you don't have grunge, then don't fix a problem that doesn't exist.

You'll never know how much grunge you actually have until you remove it with good power conditioning.

I thought I was doing great by vacuuming my carpet with a "high end" vacuum cleaner -- then I steam cleaned it one day and discovered several layers of grunge I never knew existed....   

[Davey]

Awesome.  We're into idiotic vacuum cleaner analogies now.

Dave.

[werd]

Awesome.  We're into idiotic vacuum cleaner analogies now.

Dave.

It is still better than your "weakest link" analogy. His at least we get to vacuum the rug. Yours, i am still trying to imagine what the strongest link is. You got a weakest link, so what is the strongest link and what makes it so?

[Elizabeth]

I want to get back to cost. With different amounts of money.. That may change how one rates various parts of the system as to 'what is important.

(I bring this up because of the comments about cables.)

I never really found much difference in any cables until I upgraded from average $1,500/$2,000 an item stereo parts.. (I retired, and) I jumped up to $5,000 an item stereo parts and add in much better conditioning, intro value aftermarket power cables. And suddenly I can hear big differences in interconnects.

So from my historical perspective.. blowing any big money on cables would have been a waste of time prior to spending $5K a pop on components. So from 1965 to 2010 I had really zero need of fancy IC at all. Only AFTER 2010 was I able to have use for them.. (to be able to HEAR THE DIFFERENCE clearly, not just slight, if at all changes) And now am using mainly $1,000/one meter pair IC.

I also do not think I could have gotten as much from power conditioners. either.
So parts come together in a synergistic way.. and there ARE thresholds (maybe different for different ears) where some bits matter more than at lower levels of money spent.

So far we have three claims of which part of system is most important(besides my oddball ideas):
1) Source is the most important
2) Speakers are the most important
3) They all share equally

I still am having a problem of this as abstract, and not connected to actual buying and paying for XXX dollar amount for these 'components'
Because the story IMO 'behind' asking such is most important is so one can budget money to BUY the 'right' most important component. (or is this all mistaken, and the op really IS writing an essay for a class and just wants some ideas for a theoretical topic?)

Anyway. how much to spend (relatively) on EACH part of a system is a whole 'nother topic.
(like my 'source' DAC and CD changer total cost to me $300. and the CABLE connecting the DAC to preamp costs $1,100. LOL)((oops, add in a Behringer DEQ2496 set to flat as a reclocker So add another $250 for that device, plus $30 for the AES EBU cable, and $15 for the toslink from the changer)) SWEET.

And I would say the final sound is more defined by speaker choice than any other component.
But I would not go so far as to say Speakers are the 'most important' (unless you are talking about budget, Then as an item.. speakers usually are the costliest item. though in higher priced systems, this may not be the case. Like MY speakers are equal in cost to my amp, my preamp. (but one of my sources costs 1/15th of any of those components, and still sound really great. my TT is close to the $5K a pop if the cart is included.)

anyway, have fun. It is a HOBBY.

[FullRangeMan]

I remember audio was a hobby and fun in the 60s when tubes ruled, now it a bussiness, a religion, a way to sell global, audio was rape by transistor fallacy, in that time any simple audio amp had a pleasent sound, what saves audio today is internet and hi res digital.

[werd]

Some points to add to the can of worms here:


- The transducer and room are going to have the most significant effect on sound. The distortion etc from these are many orders of magnitude higher than anything else in the chain.
- Those who espouse "source first" seem to come at it from the viewpoint where they've already settled and have put good money down on everything else in the chain. Nothing wrong with that, but don't forget the "little guys" who's budgets are less than your source alone.
- power conditioning... eh, spend the time and money hunting down the sources of electrical grunge in the first place. If you don't have grunge, then don't fix a problem that doesn't exist.


If someone has a $500 budget, I'm not going to tell them to spend the majority of that on a dac and the rest on amp and speakers. Heck I would advise against even spending half that much. I would say spend $400 on some powered speakers and $100 on the source. There are still decent "not garbage" options in that range.

If someone had $5k to spend, well now maybe half on source seems doable. Maybe you've now experienced some good gear and are really happy with your $2k speakers that are resolving enough for you to hear changes in everything else in your system.

+1 on the tranducer. Its going to do just that. Lots of distortion. IMHO speakers will give the biggest improvement in resolution. Because of what you said. They are full of distortion. The question is, (and you can have both). What is the most important component?

Front ends are all about screwing up Prat.  . Does one like Prat more than resolution? Front end gear is prat and speakers are resolution. Which is it?

My advice is go for the prat. Since the prat makes you forget about resolution. You can have all the resolution in the world. If there is no foot tapping. Its a done deal. Its a forgotten experience. That foot tapping is what makes me listen to music. I will take a shit ton of distortion if it keeps the foot tapping.

[Armaegis]

My argument is that a crappy speaker does more harm than a crappy source.

That all said, a proper front end is a well stocked music collection on the left, and a well stocked liquor cabinet* on the right.

*or other vice of your choosing

[JohnR]

Doesn't the act of calling it a "system" tacitly acknowledge mutual dependency and hence imply that all components are of equal importance?

Aha! There is a big difference between "calling it" and "is". No-one with any engineering background would think that what audiophiles call a system is a system in any true sense of the word. My car is a system. My car and my garage - not so much. But they suit each other well....

[werd]

My argument is that a crappy speaker does more harm than a crappy source.

That all said, a proper front end is a well stocked music collection on the left, and a well stocked liquor cabinet* on the right.

*or other vice of your choosing

Ok, how does an inheritantly crappy component (by default) make it the most important piece? By the way you assign importance. Would it not be the least crappy component (by default, using your logic) that is the most important?

[werd]

Aha! There is a big difference between "calling it" and "is". No-one with any engineering background would think that what audiophiles call a system is a system in any true sense of the word. My car is a system. My car and my garage - not so much. But they suit each other well....

Electrical engineers couldn't make a system sound great good if their lives depended on it. Only because, system building and what sounds good has NOTHING to do with electrical engineering. 

[JohnR]

Electrical engineers couldn't make a system sound great good if their lives depended on it. Only because, system building and what sounds good has NOTHING to do with electrical engineering. 

Um. I wonder how you think these things actually get designed and built...? (Or, am I just taking your bait?)

[werd]

You audio peeps want to know who the audio frauds are on this board? Easy to tell, here and everywhere else. All you have to do is check their profile for a system. If they aint got one. Guess what, they don't have one OR do not care enough to share it with the community. Its a complete disrespect for the hobby. What do they care, all they care about is spilling their hate at everyone else about the hobby.

Y'all know who you are too.

[JohnR]

What do they care, all they care about is spilling their hate at everyone else about the hobby.

Y'all know who you are too.

Um... OK, so this is what is known as an Ad Hominem...

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself"

[werd]

Um. I wonder how you think these things actually get designed and built...? (Or, am I just taking your bait?)

Johnr, you excluded ( and i mean that) . Literally all electrical engineers, every single one i have known do not understand system building. Because it is a human biology and psychology issue. Nothing about their training teaches them system building. It is a hobby learnt skill. You cant go learn it in a class room.

[JohnR]

a human biology and psychology issue

That is an expanded definition that I'm willing to defer to.

[werd]

Um... OK, so this is what is known as an Ad Hominem...

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself"

That is not ad hominen attack. You have to attack somebody. There has to be a direct attack based on an argument. How do you have a ad hominem attack on no one. Who was i attacking?