[kingdeezie]

While I have seen the value of botique upgrades in the analog world, in the digital world it makes much less sense. At least as a value proposition because even the most cheapo digital output is light years more accurate than a turntable or any of its analog brethren. The DAC is the new dog in the fight. For example, spending 500 or 1000 to upgrade the analog section and power supply of your SB make sense, and most people here seem to agree that if analog is your schtick, then the upgrade is worth it. When people start talking picoseconds worth of jitter or bit errors reading from the disc, you are really into the minutae of the audio sound by the time it hits your ears. Perhaps there is some gain to be had there, but I bet you could easily find another place to spend that grand or two in your chain. For example, the crummy room you are in from an acoustical standpoint.

It has been my experience that digital, especially the cheaper stuff, benefits more from the boutique upgrades then your average well built analog setup; at least depending on your definition of boutique upgrades, and most certainly with regards to power. 

But, the addition of a Synergistic Research Powercell 10SE power conditioner, and a matching power cable to my DAC made a huge difference to my ears. Particularly by extending and cleaning up the higher frequencies, and dropping the noise floor.

Now arguably, isolation of components is much more important to a TT setup, it can still benefit digital to an extent.

And, while I don't want to turn this into a digital vs. analog debate; I will say that claiming that digital is more "accurate" is way off base depending on what you mean by accurate. I, as well as many many others, would certainly argue that digital can not match analogs natural timbre and more accurate portrayal of an instruments performance in a live event. Saying that even cheap digital is "light years more accurate than a turntable," is very misleading and completely unsubstantiated.

If you disagree, we can gladly put a $150 CD player up against my modest TT setup and see how that statement holds up.

In terms of relative importance of components, I think its important to look at the key word relative; since the whole hobby is exactly as such; a relative experience.

I will agree that the Speakers are very very important, but its a give and take relationship, and I strive to have all of my components on or about the same level of performance and quality.



 

     

[BobRex]

And, while I don't want to turn this into a digital vs. analog debate; I will say that claiming that digital is more "accurate" is way off base depending on what you mean by accurate. I, as well as many many others, would certainly argue that digital can not match analogs natural timbre and more accurate portrayal of an instruments performance in a live event. Saying that even cheap digital is "light years more accurate than a turntable," is very misleading and completely unsubstantiated.

If you disagree, we can gladly put a $150 CD player up against my modest TT setup and see how that statement holds up.

Unfortunately the CD player will be more "accurate" according to the meter brigade.  The response is flatter, there is no rumble or wow and flutter, the dynamic resolution is potentially better on the high side, and more than likely the bass response is better.  Now the highs will drop off quicker, but the meter brigade tends to ignore that.

Notice I didn't mention sound.  Ironically  "accuracy" doesn't mean it sounds better. 

[chlorofille]

Hi all,

In my home set up, I would rank the level of importance as such :

1. Speakers 65%
2. Pre-amp 20%
3. Amp 7%
4. Source 5%
5. Interconnects 2%
6. Speaker wire 1%

I always thought that an active pre-amp wont affect sound much but I was shocked when I did a DIY pre-amp kit using Oatley Electronics kits and the sound was much more dynamic than when I used a passive pre-amp.

[srb]

So far, we have a majority consensus.  Speakers are the most important.
 
Steve

[jsalk]

I thought I might outline my point of view on matters like some of those expressed above to provide some perspective.  It will be easier to accept or reject my point of view if you understand the factors that influence it.

When attending college, I took every single electronics course offered. I once gave a technical presentation on the use of a Hewlett Packard vector impedance meter and noted the entire electronics faculty was present. It appeared that none of them had any idea what it was or what it was used for.  So I felt I had a good handle on basic electronics.  Yet I somehow felt that I had no idea how to put it to practical use.

Before graduating, I started my first business, a recording studio.  Money was in short supply and we bought used gear exclusively.  After about six months of studio construction, money was in short supply.  We finally fired everything up and sunk into a deep depression.  The recording console we purchased was terribly noisy.  But we had invested every penny we had in it and had no money left to replace it.

So we did the only thing we could.  We ripped out every single wire, capacitor, amplifier, volume pot, etc. in the entire recording console and re-designed it from the ground up.  It turned out that I actually could put all that theory to use in the real world!

I worked as a recording engineer at that studio and quite a few more over the next 35 years.  I also had the very good fortune of working with quite a few other talented recording engineers during that time.

The funny thing is, I don't recall recording engineers ever discussing the merits of this speaker cable or that, the value of cryogenics, boutique caps, special binding posts or anything of the sort.  Don't get me wrong, we worked with some very good recording equipment.  But my experience tells me that most recording engineers would take a rather dim view of some of the theories espoused in today's audiophile world.

The thing is, these studios are often where the music is created in the first place.  And the signals being processed are mic and line level for the most part - far more critical than speaker level signals.  So the basic question I ask is, if these issues are not that critical in the recording process, why would they be more important in a relatively simple playback system - a system designed to reproduce the same signal being recorded in the first place?

Most people trying to assemble a great audio system do not have unlimited funds to invest.  So before I can recommend expensive speaker cables, as an example, I have to prove to myself that the gains, if any, justify the expense. 

I can't base my opinion on statements like, "I just tried cable "X" and couldn't believe what a difference it made!"  As I have mentioned in the past, cognitive dissonance will force the brain to hear improvements that, in reality, may not be there.  It's not that these people don't hear a difference, they really do.  But that difference, in many cases, lies solely in their brain. Where cognitive dissonance plays a role, a disinterested third party would not likely hear the same increase in sound quality. 

So before I can personally recommend one of these magic cures, I need to rely on more than statements posted on a web site.  I need to hear it for myself.  And even that presents problems as, on many occasions, I thought I heard improvements only to have those conclusions fail in a blind test.  I need objective tests to insure, to my own satisfaction, that I have eliminated as much bias as possible. 

Do not misunderstand.  I would love nothing more than to find an inexpensive (or even expensive) upgrade that really makes a difference.  And I would not hesitate to recommend it if I did.  But I need to have a high level of confidence that the improvement is real and not imagined.

I also should point out that because I lack proof that a given upgrade performs magic, that does not mean it does not.  It only means I have no basis to conclude that it does.  The only thing I can go by is my personal background and experience and I tend to be a sceptic until I can prove to myself otherwise.

Finally, if someone purchases such an upgrade and experiences great results (real or imagined), I have no problem with that.  In the end, if you feel you got your money's worth, that is all that counts and I am happy for you.

I have friends who are very happy with and brag about their Big Box sub/satellite systems.  I always like to reinforce those feelings as it makes them happy.  If they are satisfied, that is all that counts. There is no need for them to upgrade.

If the poster above who feels a great transport is the most important component in a system is happy with his, that is all that is important.  But his position does not jive with my personal experience, so I can't support it.  It's not that he is wrong and I am right.  There is no right or wrong as long as you are happy with what you have and the decisions you made to get there.

On the other hand, I am very often asked for advice and I take that role seriously. So I will tend to be more conservative and less likely to jump on the band wagon when the next miracle enhancement comes to market.  I can only base my positions on my personal background and experiences, and, in order to be responsible, will tend to require a higher level of proof than some others.  I cannot recommend someone spend money on something I would not spend my own on. 

I will not necessarily be right on all occasions, but I will feel comfortable in my position (and quite open to change it if warranted).

Enough rambling...

- Jim

[kingdeezie]

Unfortunately the CD player will be more "accurate" according to the meter brigade.  The response is flatter, there is no rumble or wow and flutter, the dynamic resolution is potentially better on the high side, and more than likely the bass response is better.  Now the highs will drop off quicker, but the meter brigade tends to ignore that.

Notice I didn't mention sound.  Ironically  "accuracy" doesn't mean it sounds better.

Which is why I indirectly asked for a clarification on what was meant by "accurate," and why I also stated what I specifically meant "accuracy" to mean.

Its also why I labeled the statement misleading, because if we aren't talking about accuracy of the music in terms of being in the studio or at the event when it was recorded, then what the heck are we spending all this money on?   

[BobRex]

Jim, regarding studios, cables and other tweaks... A couple of years ago Kevin Grey would have agreed with you 100%.  Then Joe Harley went into his studio and rewired everything with Audioquest cables.  Grey was suprised (astounded may have actually been written, but I'm mellowing it out) at the difference.  The resulting difference is audible on the Music Matters Blue Note reissues if you listen for it.

I believe Tim DiPavarinci has rebuilt most of his studio equipment with "boutique" parts and his recordings are typically considered sonic masterpieces.  Doug Sax, Stan Ricker, and the Telarc crew had done likewise, all with stellar results.

So there are studios that have gone into the audiophile route and every one of them has recieved accolades for their sonics.  That more studio engineers haven't followed may say much about the dismal sound of many recordings.

[werd]

I worked as a recording engineer at that studio and quite a few more over the next 35 years.  I also had the very good fortune of working with quite a few other talented recording engineers during that time.

The funny thing is, I don't recall recording engineers ever discussing the merits of this speaker cable or that, the value of cryogenics, boutique caps, special binding posts or anything of the sort.  Don't get me wrong, we worked with some very good recording equipment.  But my experience tells me that most recording engineers would take a rather dim view of some of the theories espoused in today's audiophile world.

The thing is, these studios are often where the music is created in the first place.  And the signals being processed are mic and line level for the most part - far more critical than speaker level signals.  So the basic question I ask is, if these issues are not that critical in the recording process, why would they be more important in a relatively simple playback system - a system designed to reproduce the same signal being recorded in the first place?


- Jim

Hello

Its because in the recording studio, its the instruments that manufacture the sound, everything
else captures it.

When we strive for playback the source becomes the instruments (in the sense that it remanufactures the sound).
The source is so important,its manufactures all the prat we hear. Timing will go out the window which makes the pace unlively, And if its good quality it will strive to be as close to
the original sound as possible. No other component in the audio chain does this, as far listening/comparing to these instruments live.

Everything behind the source is just playthrough and adjusts the signal. They are all very important but nonething is as important as the source imo. 

[wywires]

It looks like we have regressed back to the days of Stereo Review and Julian Hersch where conventional wisdom suggested that speakers should be at least 50% of one's total stereo budget, all amplifiers sound the same, turntables and tonearms have no affect on sound. Seems clear there is an agenda going on here...just an observation.

[BobRex]

It looks like we have regressed back to the days of Stereo Review and Julian Hersch where conventional wisdom suggested that speakers should be at least 50% of one's total stereo budget, all amplifiers sound the same, turntables and tonearms have no affect on sound. Seems clear there is an agenda going on here...just an observation.

I agree.  I guess it's just the pendulum swinging back to the "dark" side.  Prett soon people will be extolling the virtues of the IC150 and DC150 again.

I also wonder if it's just a reaction to (and jealousy of) the high cost of some of this stuff.

[srb]

It looks like we have regressed back to the days of Stereo Review and Julian Hersch where conventional wisdom suggested that speakers should be at least 50% of one's total stereo budget, all amplifiers sound the same, turntables and tonearms have no affect on sound. Seems clear there is an agenda going on here...just an observation.

Have you not read the previous posts?  Most have NOT said other components all sound the same, only that they believe speakers are the most important, which I and many agree with.
 
To insinuate that there is an agenda going on would be doing yourself and your business a disservice.
 
Steve

[floresjc]

In terms of accurate, I mean the ability of the source to read the source material.

An analog turntable is a nifty machine and is capable of making some good sounding music. But its crude and less accurate than a CD.

If I wanted you to map the terrain outside your house, say your walk or street, what do you think would be the better method? Taking a 2x4 and pushing it around like a mower and recording all the terrain data or flying a laser over the area and doing a scan? This is essentially the difference between a tonearm reading grooves and a CD laser reading a disc. Its like shooting fish in a barrel. There's a whole other argument about whether digital sampling is between the live event and the source material is a big factor, but thats outside the realm of this thread. Although you'd certainly have to question whether you take the most marvelous recording in the world and read it inaccurately enough, does it matter?

I have never said analog sounds bad, it does not. But a turntable is not a very accurate device compared to any modern digital system. There's more data lost in the best tonearm or moderately dusty vinyl than there is on a CD system.

There's no agenda here on my part. I don't have a dog in the vinyl vs cd fight. I don't even make speakers or components. And I'm not saying that jitter reduction or tonearms don't make a difference. They do, just not near as big a difference as changing out a speaker. The fastest way to upgrade your Best Buy system is not to put a linear power supply on your Squeezebox nor buy it an amp with double the power you have, its to get a higher quality speaker.

Or to put it another way, what about your car? If you wanted to make it go faster, what would you upgrade? The speaker argument is to say get a bigger engine or at least strap a turbo on the one you got. The source argument is buy a better throttle controller so the engine response is 3% faster. Combustion engines only being 30-40% efficient, its by far the weak link in the chain, and the 400hp V8 is going to beat a 250hp V6 with throttle mods all day long.

I'm with Jim, in a world of unlimited budgets, I could wholeheartedly recommend 1K a foot cables and super tonearms and a $50 SB with $2500 worth of upgrades because you can get the best of everything. For most people though, you are going to get the most bang for the buck sticking with cheapo/moderate components and upgrading the speakers. If the speakers didn't matter and the source ruled all, you wouldn't see audiophiles out there buying $20K speakers and spending a lousy couple grand on a CD player. Heck, it seems most audiophiles have more money in their cables than they do in their source.

[martyo]

Jim,
     Thank you for the explanation. Rational, balanced, sensible, wise, thoughtful, and sound( ). It is easily apparent why so many of us respect you and know you as a man of integrity. It only follows that your speakers are superlative. 

 

[wywires]

I believe that a well designed speaker should be able to easily reveal differences in source components, amplification and cables. Therefore, a less than stellar source will produce less than stellar sound. GIGO. I'm not suggesting that a less than stellar speaker with expensive sources and amplification is a wise decision either. There needs to be a balance without placing disproportionate empasis or expenditure in any one area. This includes cables too.

[ccotenj]

jim, posts from you like the one you just made are one of the reasons i felt "safe" buying without hearing from you...    no "voodoo"... 

[floresjc]

I believe that a well designed speaker should be able to easily reveal differences in source components, amplification and cables. Therefore, a less than stellar source will produce less than stellar sound. GIGO. I'm not suggesting that a less than stellar speaker with expensive sources and amplification is a wise decision either. There needs to be a balance without placing disproportionate empasis or expenditure in any one area. This includes cables too.

I'd agree, balance is necessary. But we're weighting components here. If you have the cash, you buy everything at once like I did. For most, its a journey, you may get speakers this year, an amp next year, brand new source later, etc.

I certainly am of the opinion that optimally, you'd like your electronics to be up to the level of your speakers, and so I went out and bought a bunch of quality AVA gear. However, in terms of weighting the importance and the "buy order", Frank's gear ultimately comes after I had chosen and paid for the speakers. You won't find too many people on the Salk forum running a $5 CD player with their HT2's. But at the same time, you won't find people who are looking for better sound buying a SB mod now and saving the HT2's for later.

[cacophony777]

Has anyone, anywhere, ever done a blind test between speaker wire and been able to tell the difference?

For example $2000 speaker wires vs $10 Monoprice 12 AWG.

I would love to be convinced that speaker wire makes a difference (I'm currently considering upgrading my Monoprice wire to something nicer (~$100), though at this point it's purely for aesthetic reasons). Seems like it wouldn't be that hard to do the test. If a speaker wire has certain sonic characteristics shouldn't it be easily identifiable by just listening?

[ccotenj]

there's been many many tests done....

so far, the $2000 wires aren't fairing well... 

[BobRex]

Has anyone, anywhere, ever done a blind test between speaker wire and been able to tell the difference?

For example $2000 speaker wires vs $10 Monoprice 12 AWG.

I would love to be convinced that speaker wire makes a difference (I'm currently considering upgrading my Monoprice wire to something nicer (~$100), though at this point it's purely for aesthetic reasons). Seems like it wouldn't be that hard to do the test. If a speaker wire has certain sonic characteristics shouldn't it be easily identifiable by just listening?

Well it anecdotal and not double blind, but....

A number of years ago a co-worker was "discussing" (okay, arguing) with me that cables didn't make a difference.  I made up a set of Kimber 8TCs and asked him to try them.  A couple of days later he came to me and basically said "Holy Shit!"  Apparently there was enough of a difference for him to make that proclamation, so he paid me for the wires (I think I sold them to him at cost) and walked away convinced.

[floresjc]

Has anyone, anywhere, ever done a blind test between speaker wire and been able to tell the difference?

For example $2000 speaker wires vs $10 Monoprice 12 AWG.

I would love to be convinced that speaker wire makes a difference (I'm currently considering upgrading my Monoprice wire to something nicer (~$100), though at this point it's purely for aesthetic reasons). Seems like it wouldn't be that hard to do the test. If a speaker wire has certain sonic characteristics shouldn't it be easily identifiable by just listening?

Not that I know of. Most seem to point to no more than random chance in the control group, although one or two individuals might get 60% correct.

Just last month I was arguing with an Air Force E-5 (ie doesn't make a lot of money) about getting taken for a ride on HDMI cables and speaker cables and the like. He swore up and down that his thousands of dollars worth of cables were superior to anything I could get for a reasonable price. I had about 200ft of Blue Jeans Belden 12 gauge speaker wire laying around, so I brought it in for him, I also gave him a 12 ft cheapo Chinese HDMI cable from their value line as well (Tartan). I didn't tell him the price or where I got it from (just told him I bought some nice stuff for my install and had leftovers), I just told him to use it in his system and tell me what he thought.

He comes back about a week ago and said he loves the stuff, sounds as good or better than his high end stuff. He thought the HDMI cord was better, he didn't have some of the artifacts he was used to seeing. So he wants to know how much it would cost him to buy it off me. He said he only had about 2 grand on him since he just bought a new tv, but he thought it would be a fair price for replacing the cabling in his 5.1 setup, although if I was willing to wait a bit longer he could pony up a little more. The whole 400 ft roll cost me like $197 bucks shipped, and the HDMI cord was like 5 bucks. When I told him he turned purple, he was so angry. We call him Big Tex since he's huge and from Texas and I actually feared for the printer and nearby computer safety. This guy had blown so much money on stuff that wasn't any better than well made, reasonably priced brands.

Its one thing for a guy with dough to go out and buy thousands of dollars worth of stuff that is of marginal or no value, because he wants the best and has the means to do it. But its quite important for those of us on a budget to figure out what will and won't affect us and in what relative proportions to come up with a value.