[werd]

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...

Elizabeth when you are listening to music, what conponent do you think you are hearing? You are hearing the source component that has been switched to, adjusted in volume and amplified through your speakers.
You are hearing the source piece amplified. You are not hearing the pre amp or amp or speakers. You are listening to the source component.

[werd]

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.

The recording is not a component. Its like qualifying the room as a component. The room is not a component. It is an environment.

The recording is resolved and played by the source component.

[werd]

The recording myth. The recording quality levels the source quality playing field, or any other piece the recording is compared to. That is a complete myth.

[Elizabeth]

Elizabeth when you are listening to music, what conponent do you think you are hearing? You are hearing the source component that has been switched to, adjusted in volume and amplified through your speakers.
You are hearing the source piece amplified. You are not hearing the pre amp or amp or speakers. You are listening to the source component.

No. I am listening to the music (lol)
ALL the components act to bring me the music I have decided to listen to. I am LISTENING to the music.
The components act to bring me the music. Transforming the grooves or pits and lands into an identifiable form I call music.

I agree with the idea that the 'system' IS a group of parts which work together to bring me this experience.

Some thoughts: I have to say that 'source first' is a 'STRATEGY'. As one it is not the worst at all. It is a 'easy way out;. so the person does not have to question everything, They have already decided as dogma that the source it most important, and thus have a strategy to work through the difficulties of deciding what to spend and how to start. My problem with that strategy is when it is pronounced as dogma to others. It is a sometimes useful strategy, and that is all it is. Just like the old idea of newbies spending 50% of their budget on speakers. It had a use, but is not a useful rule for most audiophiles anymore.

For folks who have been at this 'stereo' stuff for a long time, the strategies matter far less. And the problem of: "what is the weak link needing the next upgrade" is far more important.
Knowing what your weak link IS.. (so the money you just spent turns into a "Holy COW!!! That sound great! moment. Instead of a WTF did I waste that money for!!)
And the need to stop doing just lateral moves (we ALL know when we end up spending money for a merely lateral move.. vs a big gain)

For example: my 'next move' would be to go from Magnepan 3.6 to Magnepan 20.7. Blowing $15,000. on ONE item.
Now I could theoretically buy anything.. What else might I go for???
IMO spending that money on a new digital source would be folly at this point.
IT would never give me the same bang for the buck as the speakers can.
But maybe afterwards...I might be able to find a digital source worth it?
(For LP playback, I already own a Kuzma Stabi/Stogi S TT. And have a great phono pre with it. (Audio Research Sp-15 I use just for the phono section... providing the best playback I have ever heard))

My last purchase. Of $$$ cables, really was the absolute best choice for a 'next upgrade' And made me choose the next one (the 20.7s)

So anyway, we are always looking for a good strategy to help us decide what to do...
I suggest NOT getting caught up in using just one all the time.

[Davey]

The recording is not a component. Its like qualifying the room as a component. The room is not a component. It is an environment.

You're correct that the recording is not a component.  (It didn't say it was.)

If you have a cruddy set of speakers it doesn't matter how good your source is.......you're still listening to cruddy speakers.

Now, before you turn that around and create a straw man, let me stipulate there are cruddy sources too.
However, the envelope (or whatever you want to call it) between cruddy and good in sources is much narrower than it is between cruddy and good in speakers.  If that's a premise you can't agree with, then we're destined to agree to disagree.

I can listen to similar speakers from the same manufacturer (say Magnepan MMG's and Magnepan 3.6's) and immediately tell the difference.  But if I switched between two different CD players (sources) it would not be nearly as obvious.

Dave.

[Elizabeth]

However, the envelope (or whatever you want to call it) between cruddy and good in sources is much narrower than it is between cruddy and good in speakers.  ... But if I switched between two different CD players (sources) it would not be nearly as obvious.

Dave.

Agree. My experience with my $250 DAC used with the $40 eBay changers.. vs my Sony SCD777ES.. The two sounds are very close. A far bigger difference is due to my using the SCD777ES straight to my preamp, vs the DAC goes to a VAC Standard I use as a 'glorified tube buffer'/ The tubed VAC alters the sound more than the difference between the two digital players. (though I have found a big jump form other transports to my DAC. and that most changers SUCK!! as a transport. just sayin')

I had even bought a far more expensive (and raved over in both TAS and Stereophile) DAC.. and discovered it to be exactly the same quality of sound as my old used $250 DAC. So I took back the new $$$ DAC for a refund.
That was my wake up moment when I realized it would take a huge $$$$ expenditure to really meaningfully upgrade my digital front end. And for what? (the tiny improvement was just not cost effective to me. lateral vs big improvement??)

Added: I have to say a problem with some upgrades is they did NOT fill the least good component gap. So the better new item was masked by some other not so great item in the chain. This is a big problem for upgrading.. And again.. finding the RIGHT component to upgrade (one's weakest link" is always a big challenge. Some lateral moves really are an upgrade.. you just cannot hear it due to masking by other junk you own..

((So for folks who say source first?? How can you know anything about your quality of source if everything after it comparatively sucks??? Accepting it because someone ELSE said it was 'good'? Can you even answer this? Just curious))

[werd]

"So for folks who say source first?? How can you know anything about your quality of source if everything after it comparatively sucks??? Accepting it because someone ELSE said it was 'good'? Can you even answer this? Just curious"

Elizabeth, its because you are confusing two different questions and looking for the same answer. Upgrading the lowest link is not going to answer component importance. Or what component is the most important. it is asking the question. What should i upgrade next? Which is different than asking what is the most important component. Only because it is asking the question for a personal situation. Which is always different than what somebody else needs/wants.

[werd]

You're correct that the recording is not a component.  (It didn't say it was.)

If you have a cruddy set of speakers it doesn't matter how good your source is.......you're still listening to cruddy speakers.

Now, before you turn that around and create a straw man, let me stipulate there are cruddy sources too.
However, the envelope (or whatever you want to call it) between cruddy and good in sources is much narrower than it is between cruddy and good in speakers.  If that's a premise you can't agree with, then we're destined to agree to disagree.

I can listen to similar speakers from the same manufacturer (say Magnepan MMG's and Magnepan 3.6's) and immediately tell the difference.  But if I switched between two different CD players (sources) it would not be nearly as obvious.

Dave.

When I say it plays the band. I mean the source recovers the information off the media then resolves into an amplifiable waveform. I was not talking about the actual band  ,seeing them live or any reference you were making to.

[Elizabeth]

Elizabeth, its because you are confusing two different questions and looking for the same answer. Upgrading the lowest link is not going to answer component importance. Or what component is the most important. it is asking the question. What should i upgrade next? Which is different than asking what is the most important component. Only because it is asking the question for a personal situation. Which is always different than what somebody else needs/wants.

Yes, what someone needs/wants..
Just about everyone reading here is not starting out. They are mostly upgrading. Any question of 'What is the most important component' has a purpose. I do not think of it as a theoretical question. It has a reason for being asked. In practical terms it is what should I spend the most on/ or pay the most attention to when choosing. (if not at all, then we really are in different Universes)
I admit the part about upgrading should be a separate issue/thread. But it does matter as part of the 'What is the most important component' idea. And these notions I write about are part of a larger consideration of "list system component's level of importance"

And everyone is in a 'personal situation'. Every person asking what component is most important is asking for a reason. They are not writing a high school essay, they want to know because they spent money, or are going to spend money on some stereo equipment. And all these considerations are a part of that.
There is some use for the theories as guidelines to take into consideration. They start to fall flat when they are presented as dogma.
The idea that 'source is the most important' is a dogma. The way I could show it is not a realistic rule, has been using other ways to express the reasons it is not valid.

However if you want to tell folks to buy stuff based entirely on other's opinions, and not to bother actually listening for themselves... Then I guess you can say buy based on blurbs in magazines and what folks tell them to buy.
I can't see any way one can buy the source as best, except by trusting others opinions of what is actually best. Rather than one's one ears. Since with the rest being of lesser quality, you can not really tell if that source is (in fact) best in your home/system. You are buying a 'pig in a poke' (and I guess? hoping it really is worth what you paid, even though you can't tell LOL)

On the other hand, yes we do buy after listening and hope what we bought can withstand plenty of other upgrades (before it's shortcomings tell us time to move that item out) But those things are able to be found out quickly at home in the system, and if we bought it new, usually if it does not work out.. we can return it. If you buy a source assuming it is better, (under the 'source is best' theory) then when you upgrade other things and discover it was not really very good... All you can do is sell it.

All in all I just have trouble with the dogma of '"The source is most important" Since the actual source is the performance (and YES I agree the performance is 100% the most important. And the reason we all want the best ones possible)

[Freo-1]

Agree. My experience with my $250 DAC used with the $40 eBay changers.. vs my Sony SCD777ES.. The two sounds are very close. A far bigger difference is due to my using the SCD777ES straight to my preamp, vs the DAC goes to a VAC Standard I use as a 'glorified tube buffer'/ The tubed VAC alters the sound more than the difference between the two digital players. (though I have found a big jump form other transports to my DAC. and that most changers SUCK!! as a transport. just sayin')

I had even bought a far more expensive (and raved over in both TAS and Stereophile) DAC.. and discovered it to be exactly the same quality of sound as my old used $250 DAC. So I took back the new $$$ DAC for a refund.
That was my wake up moment when I realized it would take a huge $$$$ expenditure to really meaningfully upgrade my digital front end. And for what? (the tiny improvement was just not cost effective to me. lateral vs big improvement??)

Added: I have to say a problem with some upgrades is they did NOT fill the least good component gap. So the better new item was masked by some other not so great item in the chain. This is a big problem for upgrading.. And again.. finding the RIGHT component to upgrade (one's weakest link" is always a big challenge. Some lateral moves really are an upgrade.. you just cannot hear it due to masking by other junk you own..

((So for folks who say source first?? How can you know anything about your quality of source if everything after it comparatively sucks??? Accepting it because someone ELSE said it was 'good'? Can you even answer this? Just curious))

I had a similar view of DAC's until the past year or so.  Getting a Benchmark DAC2 changed everything I had thought about DAC's.  Recordings that I had "assumed" had some low level grunge were now sounding clear.  At first, I could not believe the difference.  However, after some extended listening and comparisons, it became obvious that the Benchmark was just that much better.  Even after changing out my entire system, I kept the Benchmark to drive my KGSS-HV amp for Stax SR-007 phones. 


Auditioning Devialet gear was another game changing moment in the ever changing audio journey.  Un-Paralleled specs and sonic performance.  An all in one unit that does it all (phono, digial, streaming, DSP, and active speaker matching), up gradable via software, just sounds really, really good.  Kind of throws the arguments about components into a big question mark.


Companies like Dynaudio make active speakers with DSP.  Hard to beat that approach.


So, what is the most important?  I maintain speakers, as they drive the decisions for the rest of the system.   

[werd]

Elizabeth, this is what the source does. The source drives the entire soundstage. It drives the preamp. Preamps and amps can not fix a lousy output from a dac (for eg).  The dac will form a sinewave from its bit depth. 24 bit is best. You can not add resolution later on or fix timing errors with cabling. All this is meaningless until it becomes apparent the soundstage has no pace or rhythm. Or it sounds like there is no bass. This is because the source could not drive a pre amp (and there is more failed source gear than not). They cheaped out on its power supply or dacs. Its the start of all misery and it will never repair itself with cabling or power amps or speakers. All because the source was thought ... meh.   

System syngergy means nothing if your source is garbage. There is no synergy, who cares about synergy if the thing is paddling along upstream with no beats. Because that is what you will get. This is a fools topic since alot of people claim the synergy thing (it sounds good to them) but its failing at every indicator.

[Doublej]

Elizabeth, this is what the source does. The source drives the entire soundstage. It drives the preamp. Preamps and amps can not fix a lousy output from a dac (for eg).  The dac will form a sinewave from its bit depth. 24 bit is best. You can not add resolution later on or fix timing errors with cabling. All this is meaningless until it becomes apparent the soundstage has no pace or rhythm. Or it sounds like there is no bass. This is because the source could not drive a pre amp (and there is more failed source gear than not). They cheaped out on its power supply or dacs. Its the start of all misery and it will never repair itself with cabling or power amps or speakers. All because the source was thought ... meh.   

System syngergy means nothing if your source is garbage. There is no synergy, who cares about synergy if the thing is paddling along upstream with no beats. Because that is what you will get. This is a fools topic since alot of people claim the synergy thing (it sounds good to them) but its failing at every indicator.

Exactly! If the music sucks than the rest is irrelevant. How many people listen to music they don't like?

[Davey]

Werd,

I'm fairly sure if you interviewed many audio professionals and many users across this industry, you'd find yourself in the minority regarding the source being the most important components.
I suspect if you polled thousands of those folks regarding the most important component, speakers would receive the highest percentage.

Does that tell you anything?

Dave.

[Russell Dawkins]

Werd,

I'm fairly sure if you interviewed many audio professionals and many users across this industry, you'd find yourself in the minority regarding the source being the most important components.
I suspect if you polled thousands of those folks regarding the most important component, speakers would receive the highest percentage.

Does that tell you anything?

Dave.

I don't think anything or anyone tells Werd anything. He marches to the beat of a different drummer.

[Davey]

I don't think anything or anyone tells Werd anything. He marches to the beat of a different drummer.

No doubt the drummer is the member of the band who plays with the most importance.    (I guess if you were a Led Zeppelin fan you'd probably agree with that.)

It's unfortunate, but audiophiles are the most accomplished folks I've ever seen at rationalizing.  Logic twisted into pretzels to justify various equipment choices is not unusual.

Oh well.  I continue to concentrate on speakers. 

Dave.

[Early B.]

Good cables and power conditioning will make you question everything you believed about the level of importance of other system components.

[Davey]

The reason those two items have become of higher importance in recent times is because there's good money to made selling them.  Especially cables. 
Evaluated objectively (and setting aside all the hand-waving that seems to follow them) those two items are near the bottom of the "level of importance" list.

Sorry, but there's already too much self-deception and intellectual dishonesty in this industry.  Those items make me question what I believe about some things.....but not what you alluded to. 

Dave.

[Syrah]

I suppose it's inevitable that this question splits itself into different questions.

I guess as the audiophile friend to many non-audiophiles building systems, the order of many stated above is probably correct.  The first question is inevitably the speakers.  For example, a friend of mine was building two systems.  One for a giant basement mancave the other for his small office.  Obviously, the speaker requirements are pretty different.  That then dictates the amp requirements.  PS, I'm more excited about his office system, Omegas with SET amps.

I think one problem is that when people put it together in that order, they fall in love with speakers, then they're sucked in to getting great amps to drive them, and the rest becomes an after thought in terms of resources.

I have a very cheap system for my office (not home office).  It's a 90s all in one Denon with cheap Mission speakers.  I bought it used for a few hundred dollars.  It's pretty shocking what it can do with great recordings and a great source.  It reminds me of the thing about errors of omission vs. errors of commission.  Not much point in having XXXX watts powering great speakers to deliver fatiguing sources or missing details that bring the music alive.  They're not coming back with more wattage or better speakers.

So I guess my point is that most people (likely not reading this) shortchange the source and the preamp, maybe as a result of the order in which the system is put together.

As for cables, that's a tough one.  I guess it comes down to this - is the $900 one saves with $100 cables vs. $1000 cables better spent in a $900 more expensive source, speaker, pre, amp?  It probably depends on how far up the law of diminishing returns the rest of your system is.

[werd]

Werd,

I'm fairly sure if you interviewed many audio professionals and many users across this industry, you'd find yourself in the minority regarding the source being the most important components.
I suspect if you polled thousands of those folks regarding the most important component, speakers would receive the highest percentage.

Does that tell you anything?

Dave.

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

[Early B.]

As for cables, that's a tough one.  I guess it comes down to this - is the $900 one saves with $100 cables vs. $1000 cables better spent in a $900 more expensive source, speaker, pre, amp?  It probably depends on how far up the law of diminishing returns the rest of your system is.

Good point. I didn't understand the real value of cables until my system (especially the upgrades in power conditioning) got to a point where the cables could be heard to make a more significant contribution to the system. So yeah, I have a pair of interconnects that cost as much as my 30 lb. preamp, for example. And if I had an extra grand or two to throw away, I'd probably invest in better cables, not better components.