Are you getting the best sound ever?

JLM · « **on:** 28 Jan 2006, 10:58 pm »

As audiophiles we strive to keep improving what we're hearing.

I think it'd be interesting to know what changes to your systems over the years you feel has made the most difference (cost no object).
It might be good to know what you consider the biggest "bang for the buck" improvements to your overall system performance.

This might be a really good place for newbies to decide where to allocate their efforts and money.

Sorry, somehow didn't come through with all the options I wanted the first couple of times.

_scotty_ · « **Reply #1 on:** 28 Jan 2006, 11:22 pm »

The biggest bang for the buck for me was the purchase of my current loudspeakers. They completed the system and exposed the next weakest
link in the chain,the source. When I upgraded my DVD player it was huge improvement that really wouldn't have been worth doing without buying better speakers first.
Scotty

Mike D · « **Reply #2 on:** 28 Jan 2006, 11:35 pm »

The biggest difference I can remember was going from my radio shack three way speakers to B&W 602s. The next biggest change was going from the Optimus receiver to a JoLida 302a. Since then I've gone through a few speakers and amps. I tried a Classe CA300 solid state, high current amp and had to go back to tubes. Now I have Rogue M150 mono blocks. Since the first speakers and tubes, the biggest improvements have come from using Jensen copper foil in oil caps and bypass caps in my Magnepand 3As.

What about you?

GHM · « **Reply #3 on:** 28 Jan 2006, 11:56 pm »

Biggest differences in improvement for me has been speakers... then the source as Scotty mentions and finally the amplication. I knew my source wasn't quite up to par. After the speaker upgrade it was very obvious a source upgrade was needed. The biggest bang for the buck, was putting the Audio Sector Dac into the system.

JoshK · « **Reply #4 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 01:55 am »

I chose room, as I have owned the same pair of speakers for over 5 years (VMPS RM40s) although I do own another pair too. The room has played sever havoc on the sound of my system as I moved 4 times during that time period. Eighth Nerve products helped some but ultimately without massive treatments it pretty hard to overcome a rooms deficiencies.

I still believe though that a room + speakers is 95% of the game and electronics contributes the rest. Cables just add the last fraction of a percent.

warnerwh · « **Reply #5 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 02:44 am »

I choser room because it's so important to get good sound. I use VMPS RM 40's which sound outstanding but all speakers need the best acoustics you can get. Digital signal processing like a Behringer DEQ 2496 or a Tact can go a long way toward helping in any room. Those of you limited to less room treatment than necessary should consider DSP, it can help alot. It even helped alot in my LEDE room with bass traps.

meilankev · « **Reply #6 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 06:10 am »

Out of your two choices - no contest, it's the speakers.

The room is very important to the overall sound, and room treatments can be used to alter the effects that the room has on the sound.

Where I used the word "alter" above, I've seen people instead use "negate", "improve", and any number of similar words. Personally, I prefer "alter", because not all changes brought about by room treatments are for the better.

If your poll wanted to know which brought about the biggest differences in my system, that would be a toss-up for me. But improvements in my system? Speakers in a landslide.

Kevin

mjosef · « **Reply #7 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 07:22 am »

Speakers for me also...I have gone through several 'cheap' bookshelf speakers combined with an Original VMPS subwoofer since the mid 80's. I still have the subwoofer in my HT system. Few years ago I built a kit of the VMPS 404 using a Marchand EC in an active set up, which sounded great with adequate bass and nice smooth hi's...then I picked up a used VMPS RM1 and my sound moved to another level, after I finally(?) got the hang of tuning this speaker.

zybar · « **Reply #8 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 01:02 pm »

I went with room because it can make the biggest impact on what sound you get regradless of the the quality of your other equipment.

That being said, the biggest impact on my system has been the TacT 2.2x preamp.

Once you hear what properly setup room correction can do, you will not want to listen to you your system without it.

George

PhilNYC · « **Reply #9 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 01:09 pm »

I chose Room, assuming that speaker placement fell under this category...

GHM · « **Reply #10 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 01:17 pm »

When you guys say room correction ..don't you mean speaker correction as your changing the crossover of the speakers digitally? I'm not talking about room treaments.

It is clear some of us have less than ideal rooms and some don't for a particular speaker. I can see where it could go either way depending on the speakers and the room they are used in.

Also I've discovered depending on the speakers. This will dictate whether you can hear the vast differences in a source component. Some speakers just don't have the ability to allow the user to hear how different sources really are because the speaker is extremely coloured to begin with. Nothing wrong with that as long as you enjoy the colour.

zybar · « **Reply #11 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 01:51 pm »

Quote from: GHM

When you guys say room correction ..don't you mean speaker correction as your changing the crossover of the speakers digitally?

No, I am not talking about using digital crossovers.

I am talking about changing or corrcting the overall sound that is produced.

There are many different ways of doing this, I use a TacT 2.2x.

Before the TacT I used as much acoustic treatments as I could afford and still highly recommend going this route BEFORE doing any type of room correction.

George

GHM · « **Reply #12 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 02:28 pm »

Quote from: zybar

Quote from: GHM
When you guys say room correction ..don't you mean speaker correction as your changing the crossover of the speakers digitally?

No, I am not talking about using digital crossovers.

I am talking about changing or corrcting the overall sound that is produced.

There are many different ways of doing this, I use a TacT 2.2x.

Before the TacT I used as much acoustic treatments as I could afford and still highly recommend going this route BEFORE doing any type of room correction.

George

Wouldn't this be changing the frequency of the overall recording before it gets to the speaker?
This would be more or less an EQ correct? It changes the time alignment of the drivers and frequency rolloff of the speakers? Which is basically a digital crossover that's tweakable...correct?
I know these are called room correctors but isn't it more of a speaker output and crossover corrector for a particular room?

JLM · « **Reply #13 on:** 30 Jan 2006, 02:18 am »

Thanks for all the replies.

I voted for speakers as providing the biggest difference. I'm a "speaker guy." As the only transducer (a device that changes energy from one form into another) it has the toughest job in the chain. It also has to react to the room. I think of the conventional speaker as having two cabinets (the cabinet proper and the room itself). So the room would be the 2nd biggest difference.

Bang for the buck vote would also go to speakers, namely the Ascend Acoustics CBM-170's I now have in my HT system. Incredible content value ($328/pair) and sound. Any sane (non-audiphile) person would be perfectly happy with them and a sub.

Hopefully some want-a-be audiophile will read this thread and invest more wisely.

jon_010101 · « **Reply #14 on:** 1 Feb 2006, 12:55 am »

Sorry, I have to mix things up... changing amplifiers, for me, has made the biggest *relevant* differences in my system. "Better" speakers sound positively wretched with a funky amplifier. Choice of power amp / pre-amp can make or break the sound in a system. As my speakers have improved this effect has become more and more obvious. I'd MUCH rather listen to my old Axiom M3ti speakers driven by my Craftsmen 500's than my Diluceos driven by my old Denon integrated amp. Even lesser speakers can sound good with proper amplification, but mediocre amplification can never be masked by good speakers. Now, on the other hand, speakers do seem to carry along the largest sonic signature (frequency and phase response anomalies), but I'd argue that awful / gritty / grating / harmonically-unpleasant noise-tainted sound is much more likely to arise from a mismatched or low-quality preamp or amp than it is from a speaker (unless, of course, we are talking about a white-van special with an all-electrolytic crossover or something).

Folsom · « **Reply #15 on:** 1 Feb 2006, 02:38 am »

Where is the cable option?

jhd · « **Reply #16 on:** 1 Feb 2006, 04:30 am »

Quote from: Destroyer of Smiles.

Where is the cable option?

Next to the Tice Clock option.

Mike D · « **Reply #17 on:** 1 Feb 2006, 01:57 pm »

For what it's worth, I exchanged the tube glass fuses in my mono block tube amps with ceramic fuses. The difference was significant. The sound opennned up even more, more dynamic, and more ingulfing.

The difference can be equated to getting an entirely new preamp.

Who knew?

JLM · « **Reply #18 on:** 2 Feb 2006, 09:51 am »

DoS,

I tried to add a 5th option for "all the rest" of the system, but didn't work (for the 3rd time) so I gave up.

Folsom · « **Reply #19 on:** 2 Feb 2006, 03:09 pm »

Quote from: Mike D

For what it's worth, I exchanged the tube glass fuses in my mono block tube amps with ceramic fuses. The difference was significant. The sound opennned up even more, more dynamic, and more ingulfing.

The difference can be equated to getting an entirely new preamp.

Who knew?

Where do you get those fuses? If they are cheap I will try some in my Frankinstien.

Poll

What changes has made the biggest improvements?

Are you getting the best sound ever?