Which compnent do you consider to be anchor of system?Speaker, Amp,Source,Etc.

kfr01 · « **Reply #40 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 04:40 am »

Speaker, speaker, speaker, room, room, room, speaker, speaker, speaker, room, source, all others.

Sorry for the annoying post, but honestly, your average amplifier, preamplifier, cable, or whatever else electronic, may vary in s/n ratio, etc. by fractions of a percent. Your speaker and room -dominate- the character of the sound that arrives at your ears.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #41 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 05:01 am »

The room is unquestionably a huge factor but I don't consider it as a "component" in the sense that I can swap it in and out of my system like an amp, source or speaker. With that in mind I'm of the opinion that size is matters. Space is everything, the more the better. You can always dampen or liven it up as required. Vaulted ceilings are a plus...

What do you think?

eric the red · « **Reply #42 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 05:06 am »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 22 Feb 2007, 05:01 am

The room is unquestionably a huge factor but I don't consider it as a "component" in the sense that I can swap it in and out of my system like an amp, source or speaker. With that in mind I'm of the opinion that size is matters. Space is everything, the more the better. You can always dampen or liven it up as required. Vaulted ceilings are a plus...

What do you think?

I think you're right about the room being number 1. I find it hard to take any review seriously as far as nuances in the components the reviewers are hearing (especially speaker reviews) when their room has so much to do with what they are hearing.

rabpaul · « **Reply #43 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 05:40 am »

Speaker and the Room.
You can take much of the room out of the equation if you have a large one and can place your speakers using say the Cardas method.

jon_010101 · « **Reply #44 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 08:28 am »

I'd say the "anchors" of my system presently are the speakers, because they are the components that I'd least-like to replace. Still, I'd argue that the amplifiers are the most important components as long as the speakers and sources satisfy basic requirements. Within reason, I'd always prefer a good amp on mediocre speakers than a mediocre amp on good speakers.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #45 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 08:51 am »

If you make buying decisions based on listening to components in your system, then I think you should start at the speaker end and work upstream.

Starting with the best speakers you are able to acquire will provide the best opportunity to hear the subtle differences in the amp, preamp and/or source.

After all, you are relying on the sound of your speakers to make all your other judgements.

I think the room in some ways is even more important than speakers, but is certainly more important than everything else in the chain, assuming adequate power.

Srajan Ebaen · « **Reply #46 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 10:19 am »

If you bi- or tri-amp your system with an adjustable line-level crossover, most all the voicing issues we commonly address with components, cables, pucks, cones, accessories and such are handled. What's more, those parameters remain adjustable, from CD to CD, mood to low-volume to high-volume listening, component changes, room changes, setup changes... right now I'm really thinking that active drive with user adjustments takes care of a lot of that in one fell swoop.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #47 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 10:29 am »

I get the feeling you really are enjoying that WLM system, Srajan!

JLM · « **Reply #48 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 10:51 am »

In a digitally sourced system the speaker remains as the only transducer (something that changes energy from one form to another, which is much harder than amplifying or switching electrical signals) and has to do it with variable source and in an even bigger variety of room settings (loadings). Therefore speakers must be selected first. Keep in mind that nearfield listening and some types of speakers (dipoles, bass from sealed boxes or transmission lines, small satellite/sub systems, etc.) have less room interaction than others or can be more easily adjusted to the room. But obviously speakers cannot be selected without taking the room or power amp into account.

I like the above observation that the recording quality itself is the 2nd most important factor. This ties into why "the straights" don't understand audiophilia as most of the music heard today is mastered to sound best on a car radio or the like.

Srajan elludes to the potential of active speakers. I've had three audio epiphanies and this was one. Hearing the Fried Model H speakers with it's transmission line bass "coffin" was the first. The other was the coherence and imaging potential of single driver speakers.

That leaves the ever changing digital source as the other significant piece of the audio system. But by the very nature of how quickly the technology is changing it cannot currently be an anchor.

Of course the pre-amp, wires, etc. can affect the sound, but in a "proper" system to lesser degrees.

Srajan Ebaen · « **Reply #49 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 10:52 am »

Very percective of you, Russell

Yes, it's like going from business class into the cockpit where the pilot lets you fondle the controls. "So that's how you fly a bloody plane? You mean you don't just sit there and suffer?"

Having this adjustability at your finger tips with a line-level crossover and brilliantly implemented contour provisions make the usual voicing attempts (thru components, cables and sundry) seem pretty antiquated. Actually, I take that back. Check out the just posted review on the WLM Duo 12 sub on what's really antiquated and what's merely vintage smarts

miklorsmith · « **Reply #50 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 03:46 pm »

I think it has to be the speakers. They dictate available choices in amplifiers. One could argue that amplifiers could row the boat, but from a practical standpoint how much sense does it make swapping speakers? They are a royal pain to ship, unpack, pack, ship. Plus, the speaker/room connection cannot be denied and the room ain't going anywhere.

How about trying to voice the rest of the system starting at the source? This is guaranteed to produce frustration, akin to using a rowboat rudder to steer a battleship. You might get there, or you might wind up in Guam.

To some degree, it's a trick question. Any true strength in the system is only that when properly supported. A different supporting team will not show all its wonder. Twenty combinations might be possible which would satisfy the listener but there is no way to audition hundreds of combinations in one's own room to find out.

So, the theoretical question must be converted to a practical solution and that is, if starting from scratch which piece is chosen first? Pragmatically, it has to be the speakers.

As to the thoughts on adjustable crossovers and EQ, I agree with a lot of that. I have been using a TacT to perform these functions for some time and they are incredibly valuable. I used to really get worked up about tweaks and cables and such, but since having the TacT I don't sweat them any more. Now, the TacT isn't perfect and I'm working on coming up with an alternative to compare.

The TacT has enabled me to play with all manners of crossovers between my main speakers and subwoofers. I have found in my room that crossing over at 65 - 70 hz creates an ideal blend. The subwoofers will end up with Zu's solution of a parametric EQ while the mains will (for now) use a Harrison Labs Fmod at 70 hz and 12 db/octave. I've used these gizmos in the past for low-pass to subwoofers but I've never tried them for mains duty. They're RCA in/out, line-level crossovers that run about $40 delivered.

This solution won't, by itself provide anywhere near the flexibility of the WLM or TacT solutions. It will allow correction in the bass area, which I think is most important. It will require a leap of faith that the rest of the spectrum is balanced. If one is into computer audio, there are other choices to fix the rest but they're fairly involved and not for everyone.

The audio purist would point to WLMs solution and cry "loss of transparency!" Having not heard them, I couldn't say. That WAS the reason all those handy controls disappeared. I have a sneaking suspicion that if those controls came back, cable designers and tweak merchants would be mighty worried.

rollo · « **Reply #51 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 04:16 pm »

Mike,
Did you notice any effect on tonality with the Harrison Lab in lines? I thought the brightened the sound a bit and exaggerated sibilance. Not that these traits were unbearable but evident. The amp however benefited from not driving the low frequencies and seemed to have more power and a smoother overall presentation.
Could you elaborate in more detail your experience with the HL in lines.
thanks rollo

Daygloworange · « **Reply #52 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 05:02 pm »

From a slightly different perspective, in the recording studio, the most important part of the chain is the microphone. Microphone selection is paramount in achieving a good sound. There are a few basic different types, and then all the variations between makes and models from different manufactureres.

After that, the important factors are choosing pickup patterns (some mics have adjustable "polar patterns"), proximity, axis, roll off, attenuation.

Room interaction coincides hand in hand with many of the aforementioned factors.

The other electronics (by design, but not in practice), are meant to have as little effect as possible to degrade or impart any sonic flavour. In other words, transparency.

Microphones are the first and most vital link, and yes pragmatically, speakers are at the opposite end of the link and work essentially in the reverse of a microphone.

Any room coloration that is added to your loudspeakers directly radiated sound to your ears, is emphasis and distortion that is not meant to be there.

Cheers

mcgsxr · « **Reply #53 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 08:15 pm »

Nathan, yeah yeah, the room without walls is the perfect room, clearly no sidewall reflections! Puzzles me how the ceiling stays up there...

Nodiak - yes, corner loaded to make the best of a bad situation, and all that pink fiberglass must be doing something good!

Seriously, for me, the room is not a component, the music is not a component, just the actual physical pieces of the system are. Please note that I whole heartedly agree that the room and music indeed do largely contribute to the nature of the sound, but for me they are not components.

Interesting points about the nature of the sound recording side Daygloworange!

Marbles · « **Reply #54 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 08:18 pm »

The room CAN be a component...you can get all sorts of treatments for it, in fact you can build or rebuild a room as well...all it takes is money...

mcgsxr · « **Reply #55 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 08:21 pm »

I think I see what you mean, but does it ever really become a "component"? I guess I always think of the glorious "component" stereo systems of the 80's, for my definition of component.

Long live the Kenwood stack!

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #56 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 08:21 pm »

I'm of the opinion that the best room is no room at all. Take it outside and see what I mean.

konut · « **Reply #57 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 09:12 pm »

So music is not a componet huh? Without that 'component' everything else would be useless! Well, I guess I could listen to audio books, but then I wouldn't be looking for a really good stereo for that purpose. The point I guess I was inept at making previously was that componentry changes according to ones perception of the quality avaliable. No physical piece of equipment I own is an 'anchor' because I'd be limiting myself unneccessarily. If I find something better, be it speakers, amp, source, room, cables, etc. within my price range, I get it. Unquestionably the piece of equipment that has the greatest influence on my perception of the music are the speakers, by a large margin. Even the best speakers don't sound their best in a bad room, or with a noisy source, or a crappy amp, or cables that act as antennae, etc. I realise that there are some people who will glom onto a particular piece of equipment for nostalgia, or sentimentality, or enjoyment of a certain kind of euphonic distortion, but it ain't me, babe. When it comes to gear, I emulate Sgt. Joe Friday. "Just the facts, Ma'am."

Daygloworange · « **Reply #58 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 09:44 pm »

Quote

So music is not a componet huh? Without that 'component' everything else would be useless!

No, it's not a component. The original poster is not asking about what to feed through his system. He's probably got his own particular tastes in that regard.

He's just wanting to know what the priorities levels are in components to reproduce said music.

Cheers

Housteau · « **Reply #59 on:** 22 Feb 2007, 11:15 pm »

If a person was setting up a new system in a new location, the very first component of that system is the room that is going to be used. The very first thoughts should be on how this room will work acoustically. If it is a poor room, can it be corrected? If yes, then do it. Forget about $$$ cables and interconnects and get the room right, or as right as you are able to. If you don't, everything else that follows will be a compromise and you will be continually placing band-aids trying to correct issues that result from that poor decision.

A friend of mine once told me that too many times we are trying to chase mice out of our rooms, when all the time there is a big fat elephant standing there. That elephant is the room itself.