Relative importance of components

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 58105 times.

Nuance

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #220 on: 23 Jun 2010, 02:51 am »
Werd,

If you knew anything about me, or even followed any of my posts, you'd know I've taken years to find what I feel is a great system.  I listen to everything before I buy it (unless its used), and I also research the measurements behind anything I am considering.  I've documented much of this here and on AVS forum (see my sig link), publicly.  Get a clue, werd; you have NO idea what you're talking about.  Don't you have better things to do than follow me around and argue with everything I say (and end up being wrong every time)?  I think I have an e-stalker folks...  :nono: :roll: 

My gut tells me someone like you won't quit, so I'll be the bigger man and ignore your lunacy from here on out.

werd

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #221 on: 23 Jun 2010, 02:56 am »
Werd,

If you knew anything about me, or even followed any of my posts, you'd know I've taken years to find what I feel is a great system.  I listen to everything before I buy it (unless its used), and I also research the measurements behind anything I am considering.  I've documented much of this here and on AVS forum (see my sig link), publicly.  Get a clue, werd; you have NO idea what you're talking about.  Don't you have better things to do than follow me around and argue with everything I say (and end up being wrong every time)?  I think I have an e-stalker folks...  :nono: :roll: 

My gut tells me someone like you won't quit, so I'll be the bigger man and ignore your lunacy from here on out.

I follow you around, just read the beginning of this thread, you were jumping up and down like a little kid because i wasnt acknowledging your taunts..... its all there go read

billmcc

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 419
Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #222 on: 23 Jun 2010, 03:01 am »
You do have an agenda, and thats to sell your speakers to anybody that stumbles into the lair of your misinformation on the whole hobby. I guess the whole scheme is to get people to spend all their money on your speaks. Hey all the power to you. But in all fairness your scheme sits right in the face many people who take this hobby seriousily. So if you don't mind, sources, cables and anything other than speakers do play a big role, a much bigger role than you will let your potential buyers in on...

Well I can not read this and not respond. By reading your posts it is quite apparent you do not have a clue about audio in the least. No offense to anyone that feels the source (CD player, transport, media server etc.) factors into SQ more than speakers is just seriously misinformed IMHO. From your above post I can see you are here to just irritate people which if that gets you off thats fine. Lair of misinformation? I believe you are the one that is severly misinformed and by reading your posts once again show your are not very bright (I'm trying to be civil :wink:).

To question Jim Salk's integrity and to say he is here just to get people to spend money is dead wrong not even close in fact :roll:. I exchanged emails with Jim several months ago about a pair of used SongTowers. He took the time to respond more than once on my concerns of the SongTowers in my room. This is for a used pair where he would not make a dime.

I did not buy the used STs (but wished I did later on) then decided to order speakers from Jim. I contacted Jim again about whether the Song Birds would be a good choice to save a little over the SongTowers. After communicating back and forth about my system and listening habits he suggested I save even more and consider the Song Surround I's.

Now I ask you does the above indicate that Jim is out to take advantage of anyone? Not in my book because it is the first time since I have been involved in this hobby (30+ years) that an owner of a company actually suggested I spend LESS to meet my goals. I ended up ordering the SongTowers and Song Center as that is what I really wanted. I look forward to getting them as it will take my system to the next level. Something no $10K transport could ever do :wink:.

So you can keep on posting your BS and it just shows more and more you do not have a clue :roll:.

Bill


billmcc

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 419
Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #223 on: 23 Jun 2010, 03:13 am »
Post your gear Bill

Hey Slick,

If you say please I might consider it :wink:. But it doesn't matter because you are just a forum troll which is about the lowest you can go IMO :wink:. You are not interested in learning anything just stirring the pot with a serious lack of knowledge. I have seen more than once members here ask you to show definitive proof from anywhere that a $10K transport will actually improve a system with $1K speakers. Nothing , zip, zero nada just the 'ole "well why should have to do your work". Troll on werdo :).

Bill

billmcc

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 419
Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #224 on: 23 Jun 2010, 03:29 am »
yah thats what i thought....

Which isn't much :wink:.

Bill

funkmonkey

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #225 on: 23 Jun 2010, 05:21 am »
Hmmmm....

Jim was eloquent in his wording, I will be blunt:

#1 most important component in your system is YOU.
you account for most of what you hear, all on your own.

If spending thousands of dollars on boutique amps, pre's, and DACs is your bag... rock on!  :rock:
There are some really trick pieces of kit to be had.  If swap meets and garage sales are your thing, and you find a vintage tubed integrated for 10 bucks that you plug into your system and it transports you to your happy place...  you scored!  :thumb:

If you would rather blow your wad on a bitchin' set of speakers, I think that is a great place to start, because they are the last thing in the chain; and the link that connects your system to your ears.

I think the original recording impacts the sound even more than our systems that reproduce them. 
Great recordings sound better than crappy ones, no matter what they get played back on.

Good topic, and a good read (for the most part)
Cheers

charmerci

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #226 on: 23 Jun 2010, 06:00 am »
werd,

Please. Just stop.

ArthurDent

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 16027
  • Don't Panic / Mostly Harmless
Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #227 on: 23 Jun 2010, 06:11 am »
Hmmmm....

Jim was eloquent in his wording, I will be blunt:

#1 most important component in your system is YOU.
you account for most of what you hear, all on your own.

If spending thousands of dollars on boutique amps, pre's, and DACs is your bag... rock on!  :rock:
There are some really trick pieces of kit to be had.  If swap meets and garage sales are your thing, and you find a vintage tubed integrated for 10 bucks that you plug into your system and it transports you to your happy place...  you scored!  :thumb:

If you would rather blow your wad on a bitchin' set of speakers, I think that is a great place to start, because they are the last thing in the chain; and the link that connects your system to your ears.

I think the original recording impacts the sound even more than our systems that reproduce them. 
Great recordings sound better than crappy ones, no matter what they get played back on.

Good topic, and a good read (for the most part)
Cheers

Well spoken funk man.  +1

woodsyi

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6513
  • Always Look on the Bright Side of Life!
Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #228 on: 23 Jun 2010, 12:50 pm »
1) the room is nearly always  the only room you got. period. Fiddling with the room is cool if your into that stuff. My preference is to use the other stuff  already in the room as the modifying influence. (the junk they sell as room stuff looks like canned ca ca IMO)
2) the argument about DAC and cheap or expensive transports should be in another thread, NOT this one)
3) IMO: the percentage of cost allocation changes at different price points. (An idea not mentioned prior,  in this set of posts)
IMO: at LOW ($500 total to $5000 total price point MOST of the money should be spent on speakers, that is more than one-half of all money just for speakers.
At a higher value total spent the speaker portion should start dropping, and the electronics should be more of the total.
As for the folks who are in this 'for real', they spend differently than newbies, because they KNOW WHAT THEY WANT.
Thses percentages are for newbies. Everyone else does whatever the hell they want based on personal equipment biases.
Many of the arguements are from folks who have personal preferences and have had a LONG time to develop them.
I used to have $3000 speakers with $1,500  total amp.preamp then about the same $1,500 for all sources. So the 50/50 of speaker to all else was what I owned. this was back in 1985. (It was about the same 50/50 for me back in 1965 when I bought my FIRST hi end stereo, with JBL speakers, and a Fischer amp)
Today I have $5,000 speakers, and a $4,500 amp, a $4,000 preamp, and $10,000 LP sources, and about $7,000 CD source playback, with another $5K in power conditioning.
So you can see my speaker portion has plummeted!
=================================================
BUT any other combination is possible for a wise and well educated audiophile.
=================================================
So ARGUING about what is the right amount to spend, for a well educated audiophile who has been in audio for a long time and knows what the want.. is hogwash all around. IMO.
Some folks spend a fortune on one area, some other in another, and they both have good systems, just different, with different priorities.
For newbies, it makes sense to try and allocate the funds.
The one thing I would avoid as a newbie: no money in budget for any afteermarket cables. , no aftermarket powercords. Buy only cheap cables if any. Mogami, or Kimber PBJ, ir BlueJeans, or other cheap cables. Save your money for the electronics and speakers.

I agree with this.  Once you get your speakers/room up to snuff, this hobby will suck you into searching for constant improvement on the other stuff because you can hear the difference of better gears.  How much money you spend on that through exotic gear or mods (pro or DIY) is up to you.  Everyone is different but there is one sure thing -- audiophiles will constantly look for improvement. 


Nuance

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #229 on: 23 Jun 2010, 01:05 pm »
Everyone is different but there is one sure thing -- audiophiles will constantly look for improvement. 

Ain't that the truth!  The cool thing is, once your speakers are prime, searching for a better preamp, amp, etc becomes so much easier.  This hobby is too fun, and if you put the time, effort and research in, you'll be rewarded with superior sound quality at a price that won't break the bank...or maybe not. :D :lol:

eclein

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 4562
  • ..we walk the plank with our eyes wide open!-Gotye
Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #230 on: 23 Jun 2010, 02:53 pm »
I've been lucky finding old vintage stuff and been able to support my "habit" fairly cheaply. After putzing around with different set ups I must say that once I had found my speakers the rest kind of fell into place. So I tend to agree with the speaker notion of being most important.
 40% -Speakers
 30% -Signal Processing, conversion
 30% -Source or type of source input

Pretty simplistic view, but hey I'm new-don't stone me!!! :thumb: :thumb:

ken

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #231 on: 23 Jun 2010, 02:57 pm »
I don't think going from a $1500.00 dac to a $6000.00 dac will yield the same improvements you would realize from upgrading your speakers from identical price points.  That being said I was not prepared for the differences I heard  in my system after purchasing the Tdac a couple of months ago.  Granted, the huge improvement I heard was most likely related to the bottom of the barrel cd player I was using but I'm currently using that same player as a transport and it sounds wonderful played through the dac.  I am now able to hear differences with different tubes and  power cords that I previously had trouble discerning.  I would definitely be curious how much better things would sound (if any) with a signifigantly better player or transport.

In a nutshell, I suspect the laws of diminishing marginal returns kick in at a far lower price point with dacs then with speakers.   Yes, You can get great results upgrading to a quality dac in the $800 to $2000.00 range (Disclaimer:  This may not necessarily apply to owners of high end cd players) but I would imagine most improvements from that point on would be subtle as opposed to drastic.  I just happen to think the DVMR starts at a much higher price point with speakers.  Just my 0.02  as always YMMV :smoke:

floresjc

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #232 on: 23 Jun 2010, 03:18 pm »
An excellent point Ken.

Nuance

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #233 on: 24 Jun 2010, 11:14 pm »
After much consideration and logical thinking here are my actual ratings.  Please note they take into account that there is no flawed piece of equipment in the chain and the source player is not a $15.00 walkman from walmart.  Also, if the actual source is to be taken into acount (the media) my numbers will change, as the source and its quality is of the utmost importance.

Source Player: 5%
Preamp: 10%
Amplifier: 8%
Speakers: 70%
Dac: 6%
Cables and the rest: 1%

I have updated my earlier posts as to coincide with this one.

wywires

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #234 on: 25 Jun 2010, 12:09 am »
I guess some of us have very different opoinions as to the relative importance of the stuff. Here is my ratio:

Analog Source:        31%
Digital Sources:       14%
Preamp:                 16%
Power amps:           16%
Speakers:                7%
Cables:                   16%

I think that analog sources are the most challenging and expensive to get right from a manufacturing and performance point of view. Great preamps are not easy either, hence the cost.

cacophony777

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #235 on: 25 Jun 2010, 12:11 am »
I guess some of us have very different opoinions as to the relative importance of the stuff. Here is my ratio:

Analog Source:        31%
Digital Sources:       14%
Preamp:                 16%
Power amps:           16%
Speakers:                7%
Cables:                   16%

I think that analog sources are the most challenging and expensive to get right from a manufacturing and performance point of view. Great preamps are not easy either, hence the cost.

Interesting. So based on this can you provide an example "best" sounding system at a particular price point?

With a $5,000 system you'd only allocate $350 for speakers?   :green:

wywires

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #236 on: 25 Jun 2010, 12:20 am »
What price point? If you are asking me for a recommendation of specific components, you are going to be encumbered with my personal biases. I get asked for recommendations all the time and need to know you very well personally before I would even try to recommend anything.

The criteria for a musically satisfying system are many and so many are personal. As as small sample: usability issues, domestic constraints, acoustic space, maintenance tolerance, tweaking desires and abilities, musical taste, personal turn ons and cues for "the live music experience" and the list goes on and on...and on.

adydula

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #237 on: 25 Jun 2010, 12:22 am »
Good thread..

To me its the speakers #1, followed by the room then the source material.

All other things amp, preamp, dac fall far behind including the wires and cables, line conditioners, cd yellow marking pens and the like.

The room includes speaker placement and room treatments etc.

See its simple to me...dont need any percentages....

Gotta have good speakers in a fairly good room placed properly and good source/material.

I think the transports, the dacs, the cables amps. pre-amps etc matter but not as MUCH
as many people would want you to believe.

I just spent 2 weeks comparing coax to optical to analog to hdmi and still am trying to figure out why I cant really hear any real differences!

Hoooooo!

All the best
Alex


cacophony777

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #238 on: 25 Jun 2010, 12:23 am »
How about a $5,000 budget for a general purpose 2 channel audio setup? No particular requirements other than "sounds good for the money". Assume you are designing a system to give away as a raffle prize to a fellow audiophile.

wywires

Re: Relative importance of components
« Reply #239 on: 25 Jun 2010, 12:24 am »
What price point? If you are asking me for a recommendation of specific components, you are going to be encumbered with my personal biases. I get asked for recommendations all the time and need to know you very well personally before I would even try to recommend anything.

The criteria for a musically satisfying system are many and so many are personal. As as small sample: usability issues, domestic constraints, acoustic space, maintenance tolerance, tweaking desires and abilities, musical taste, personal turn ons and cues for "the live music experience" and the list goes on and on...and on.


No, with a $5K budget I would allocate 20-25% for speakers. In my case the speakers are a price performance super star and I have no desire to upgrade at this time. If I did, I would stay with the same manufacturer.