[werd]

Ok, tell us how you got to be the definer of "sounds good"? Can you quantify it for the rest of us?
Btw, acoustics (sound) is a branch of engineering.
Dr Floyd Toole is an EE (PhD), but his tests were almost exclusively "sound good" to ears tests, not measurements. The idea is to correlate those measurements with "sound good".
It seems that the folks who are ignorant of/unable to correlate measurements to "good sound" might be projecting their own inadequacies onto others, like "EE"s.
So neither Bryston or NOLA are capable of listening, nor can they cobble together a "great sound" system. They must have just got really lucky with those measurements! 
More projection? You are the one claiming "sounds good" here.

I don't recall putting anyone's name on any list of EEs. I certainly did not include any of the ones you mentioned. I did claim two camps with a description though. You should go read it.

BTW, none of those guys are what i am talking about.

You, are hijacking a thread for what purpose? This thread has zero to do with anything you want to tangle over.  Could be you are not busy and have nothing better to do than reformat my stance to push your own agenda.

Don't know or care. But thanks for proving my point.

[werd]

say, a vinyl source with good speakers can sound amazing
and a good digital source with average speakers can sound amazing

cheers 

+1 and yup

[JerryM]

[AJinFLA]

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.

I don't recall putting anyone's name on any list of EEs. I certainly did not include any of the ones you mentioned. I did claim two camps with a description though. You should go read it.  BTW, none of those guys are what i am talking about.

Well at this point it appears your initial statement was some strawman you conjured and now you've backtracked 100% away from it, given the heavily EE based system you've assembled yourself.

As far a level of importance of each component, well, I'd of course side with "sound" reality - Speaker/room first, everything else after that.
Phone?

[JohnR]

And that's why I say:

1. Digital crossover.

[Johnny2Bad]

Unlike most people here, my list runs the opposite of what people tend to actually buy.

1 Source - easily the most important component. The proof? As soon as someone builds "their dream system" they then next set out to replace the source. Why not start there and save some money? Replacing components involves a significant loss in dollars invested.

2 Preamp - The next low level component, which must reveal all the source is capable of.

3 Power Amp - The engine that drives the speakers.

4- Loudspeakers - You never know what they are capable of, until they are properly driven and are given the most revealing audio signal to show them at their best.

It should be noted that although I placed speakers at No4, they must be chosen before the Power Amp, as the one dictates the requirements of the other. However the Power Amp should be given a significant portion of the remaining budget, not the other way around.

Now you will find yourself in the position of being able to upgrade the speakers, while leaving everything else as is. By far the most economical solution with regard to replacing components. Plus, they are easiest to sell, as everyone incorrectly thinks they are the most important.

Cable should be appropriate for the system's overall fidelity. The better your source, the more likely you are to benefit from appropriate cable.

Costs (irrespective of cable)
Source 35%
Preamp 20% (not because less important, but because generally less expensive, than power)
Power 25%
Speakers 20%

There is a bit of fudge factor, obviously, in those ratios. But let's explore them a bit:

$1000 System

Wrong:
$500 speakers
$200 Turntable, Disc Player, or DAC
$300 "Big Box Retailer" Receiver or Integrated Amp

Right:
$350 Turntable, Disc Player or DAC
$450 Integrated Amp
$200 Speakers

Or:
10,000 System:

Wrong:
$5000 Speakers
$2000 Turntable, Disc Player, or DAC
$3000 Integrated Amp

Right:
$3500 Turntable, Disc Player, or DAC
$2000 Preamp
$2500 Power Amp
$2000 Speakers


Many people would spend as much as 50% on speakers, but that leaves only 50% for the remaining three components. The speakers will not sound as good as they are capable of, and you might end up not realizing that until you've wasted money upgrading the other three parts. Or, possibly worse, replace perfectly good speakers before you really know what you've got.

More importantly, you *start out* with a system that more closely resembles the ratios that people *end up* with, and you haven't broke the budget doing so.

[JohnR]

It's good that there's a right and wrong in this. Many people will be relieved.

More seriously, perhaps the question should be recast: future-thinking or past-thinking?

[Davey]

I didn't realize cost had anything to do with it. 
It's just a simple allocation of funds issue.  Who knew? 

Dave.

[rollo]

So obviously your DAC, loudspeaker maker and stereophonic sound inventor had no clue they were selling you gear and creating a transduction method that sounds great to you in your system, aka "great sound".
Do you think the Bryston folks and Carl Marchisotto et al, are even slightly aware of how non-great their assembled systems sound? I wonder how Carl "EE" Marchisotto listening tests his loudspeakers?

  AJ you know I respect what you do and offer as a product. However bad mouthing Carl M. and Bryston as a manf. yourself is just not cool. Nola, Alon,Bryston are well respected products for many years. The AudioSyndrome Club in NY had an all Bryston system presented by Bryston that surprised all there. Excellent sound. The system set up in Harry Pearson's home featuring Nola was breath taking. As a former part of Harry"s listening group all I can say is that Nola showed very well.


charles



 

[JohnR]

Charles, he is not "bad mouthing" them at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

[AJinFLA]

Charles, I was "good mouthing" those "clueless about assembling great sound EE type" gents. Pretty sure neither rely on voodoo rituals, etc.
My kind of peeps.

[Davey]

Charles,

If you couldn't see the eye-winking sarcasm in AJ's post, you're taking this stuff too seriously. 

Dave.

[macrojack]

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.

werd,
The above statement is pasted verbatim from you. Your wording conveys to the rest of us that you feel the opinion applies to each and every electrical engineer who ever lived. AJ in FLA has (rightly, in my opinion) taken you to task for both your foolishly broad brush characterization and for the utter absence of logic. Your own equipment selections indicate that you have not been guided by the wisdom you offer to us in choosing what you felt were the best designed components available to you. Perhaps you believe what you told us and hypocritically chose to ignore it for your purposes. Or maybe you were giving an honest opinion in good faith and you just don't know what you are talking about. Whichever is true, I believe you are in a hole and should stop digging.
Your position smacks of the type of anti-science nonsense popular with certain religious and political factions. It makes them look silly and is doing the same for you. You wouldn't be on this website if not for countless hours of dedicated scientific work by anonymous electrical engineers. Surely you don't think computers came into being just by random trial and error. Do you?

[macrojack]

For the record --- I think there are far too many variables to consider in this matter for generalizations or snappy bromides to remedy. Isn't it best to treat each case like the unique challenge it represents if you are hellbent on optimization? See, and that's the rub. Audiophiles who post seem to believe that nothing short of perfection should be accepted. Non-audiophile people, who audiophiles choose to pity for their hapless ignorance, seem comfortable with what they have. I do not see where we can say that either is wrong. I do see, however, that we need to abandon our parochial assumptions about their ignorance. In all probability, they are happier with their systems than we are, the heathens!

[werd]

And that's why I say:

1. Digital crossover.

Would you consider a digital crossover part of the source?

[werd]

Charles, I was "good mouthing" those "clueless about assembling great sound EE type" gents. Pretty sure neither rely on voodoo rituals, etc.
My kind of peeps.

What you don't seem to understand. I guess i was not clear. EEs, even at the designer status, like Nola. They can only build to their philosophy while subject to athestics and safety. Being an EE is not a guarantee of good sound. Nor can they tell me what is.

 The only way they know how their gear sounds is by feedback. The people who buy it. They can say their gear sounds good and they can claim specs all they want. They have no clue as designer until the feedback starts rolling in.

I do not care if you do not like how I put it. Since much of what we hear from EEs on forums do not come from  accomplished manufacturers. The EE opinions come from white noise. Nonsense opinions about gear and how it works from second class EEs. What we should expect and how it will sound .. etc.

[rollo]

Charles,

If you couldn't see the eye-winking sarcasm in AJ's post, you're taking this stuff too seriously. 

Dave.

  Sorry did not notice. AJ is a super Guy should have known better.


charles

[rollo]

   Bye but for me this is not a conversation worth continuing. Sorry AJ, Werd have a nice day.

charles

[JohnR]

Would you consider a digital crossover part of the source?

Well... maybe, but I mostly think that the concept of "source" is outmoded. It's not clear-cut like it used to be.

[AJinFLA]

What you don't seem to understand. I guess i was not clear. EEs, even at the designer status, like Nola. They can only build to their philosophy while subject to athestics and safety.

Actually what's clear is that you have no clue what EEs can do, from Blumlein through Toole, Carl, et al.
You are again asserting that EEs are incapable of listening and/or judging sound, which is purely a fantasy of yours.

Being an EE is not a guarantee of good sound. Nor can they tell me what is.

Another strawman conjuring of yours (anyone guaranteeing anything). Yet again you evade the question of how your NOLA and Bryston ended up "sounding good", despite "EE's" designing them. Pure luck eh? Or is it possible that your ignorance of correlating measurements to sound are being projected onto others, namely these strawmen "EEs"?

The only way they know how their gear sounds is by feedback. The people who buy it. They can say their gear sounds good and they can claim specs all they want. They have no clue as designer until the feedback starts rolling in.

More fantasy and projection on your part, from Blumlein on through Toole 

I do not care if you do not like how I put it. Since much of what we hear from EEs on forums do not come from  accomplished manufacturers. The EE opinions come from white noise. Nonsense opinions about gear and how it works from second class EEs. What we should expect and how it will sound .. etc.

Actually I like how you put it, as your projections are quite entertaining.
And of course, your system contradicts your misapprehensions.
I'm sure its sounds as nice to you as Carl & Bryston et al, measured and heard, playing Blumleins creation.