Trolling, trolling, over the bounding sea! I like the little smiley guys just as much as the next guy Mark. L. Frank Baum was the author of the Wizard of Oz and that series of books. It ain't da big bad words that scare me. "Big" ideas? Huh?! "I think, therefore I.......must ascribe meaning and categorize every last quark, and every subtle nuance in the guise of some fabricated concept of "perfection" that is patently absurd?! You are an "artist" and therefore shall be worthy of more reverence and esteem than the next man who doesn't take life quite as seriously, or address their interests with such a degree of passion and or obsession as to shut off the rest of the world and discount other limitless possibillities. Yes, the coastline can be seen as both a complex and jagged line, AND a straight and smooth line, while out in space it's all just an insignificant spec of infintesmally unimportant dust... as are we. Now I'm getting into some Kafka and Heinrich Boll! The coastline can also be seen as a pipe wrench, a tree, or anything else you care to come up with,.... or not. Yes, I am frowning Marco right now Mark, I am crying, I am not happy right now. My dog Jax, my best friend of 13 years just died on Monday night. That kind of loss really puts all this B.S. into a whole different perspective. No offence intended, but it's really meaningless at face value. We make our own meaning and if you care to complicate it ad-infinitum, have at it.
The Beatles, and countless other prophets, poets, artists, writers, gurus, as well as many other ordinary people (as are all of the previous list as well), they all have said it in so many different ways and in every conceivable language, and it is oh so simple: Love is all you need. And I think it was Steve Martin (as, "The Jerk") who may have added, ".....and this chair, that's all I need is this chair.....oh, and this paddle game,...and this..."
Best,
Marco |
Yikes Paulwp: You must have been privileged enough to have lived your audiophile-life out having auditioned and owned only the best of CD players and amps?! I find it a difficult concept to swallow that a poor CD player or a poor amp "can't do much damage"!!?! Difficult?...why it is utterly ubsurd! Gads man! You must be joking!? I mean no offence here, and much of my response is purely for amusement, but it really surprises me that someone would believe that. The difference in detail, musicality, sound-stage (not to mention all kinds of other nuances and $1000 catch-words thrown around on this site in the name of justifying adding just one more zero to the price tag) between a mediocre CD player, and an excellent player seem to me to be readily apparent to anyone with two healthy ears! The differences an amp can make are also quite profound, especially a poor quality amp to an outstanding amp. More curious to me though is the use of the word "accuracy" when it comes to reproducing music. Paulwp speaks of "inaccurate" speakers and components. OK, granted, the whole idea is to do justice to reproducing the sound of music in a life-like, musical, holographic presentation. But why does "accuracy" have such importance? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the usage here, but I tend to have preferences that tend towards the 'coloration' (there's another one of tham'thar' big words) or warmth imparted by many tube components. Is that "inaccurate" because it is not true to the actual performance of the music, or sound of the instrument(s) being played (I'm pretty sure I'd prefer it regardless)? I'm a photographer by profession, and nothing is more boring to me than the most accurate, precise and literal translation of reality in a photograph (using the tools to their maximum potential to fulfill those goals to that end). It is appropriate, and even admirable in some instances. But far more interesting, in my estimation, is the use of those same tools to express something more personal and intimate (using the tools as a means to a more expressive end, taking advantages of nuances and "control" rather than "accuracy"). I know, I'm straying way off the audio path here, and my example is not entirely appropriate as not many of us really want to distort the music and shape it into something it is not. Here, perhaps, is a better example: I recently heard a violin recital at Benaroya Hall here in Seattle, which is a wonderful venue for acoustic music. It was Vengerov performing the Ysaye violin sonatas. We had pretty good orchestra seats. It was a fabulous performance, which I thoroughly enjoyed, but on the whole, the sound of Vengerov's violin seemed rather thin and a bit distant...not as engaging as it could. It was not his playing, but perhaps the acoustics of the room. I went right out and purchased the EMI recording of those same Ysaye Sonatas. Listening to it on my stereo is far more engaging and even hair-raising at times, if you know what I mean. I don't know that my system is "accurate", nor would I think of using that to judge it. I do find it VERY engaging (hard to walk away from), and very natural, warm and musical (OK, quit it with those words now!). I don't give a rat's rear-quarters whether or not the timber and pitch are "accurate" reproductions of Vengerov's Strad. But if I am compelled by what stirs inside me to remain locked in that sweet spot in front of those two speakers....if the music moves me (inside and or outside) I'm a very happy audiophile. I don't know "accuracy", but I do know what I like when I hear it, and I think I'm rather discriminating in that regard. So is this a case of ignorance is bliss? It certainly is a case of me avoiding my workload and spending far too much time tapping on this keyboard! Back to your regularly scheduled program! |
|
I'd put the highest priority on the source. But I'd also add that Synergy between components/cables/tweaks plays a major roll in making or breaking a system. You can go out and randomly pick out a sampling of very expensive high end components that may sound like crap when combined together, whereas careful selection and pairing of some of the same components with others would yield a magical system. Speakers can potentially have the most radical effect/change on the 'sound of the system', but, as the first respondant points out; Garbage in = garbage out! Or, as I pointed out in another thread, changing the speakers may make the garbage smell sweeter, but it's still garbage! |
Sorry to be a bit acerbic, but I'm lost here; since when are your ears "PART of a good two channel system"? I'd also say the original question also takes for granted that you are listening to music you like, and that it is well-recorded music. If it is not well-recorded music there is nothing your two-channel system is going to do that can change that, and if you don't have two good ears, I'd say it is fairly obvious that you won't hear the music reproduced the same as someone with better hearing (although the music, and its accurate reproduction, certainly has the capacity to move both those who have impaired hearing, as well as those who can hear perfectly). Yes, the listening room and its contents and structure will certainly play a very important roll in how your system sounds, as well the placement of all of it. But again, the question seemed to be about the components themselves, and not things external to the system. My point is that you guys (& gals?) are straying, though I think 6chac has some very important things to say on this subject! Seriously though, I am surprised at those who would think the speaker can make up for a poor source component. In my experience I'd much rather listen to music (yes, music that I like) played through a good source component on a lesser quality speaker, then listen to a poor source on a great speaker (yes, I have tried both). I just have not found that the latter combination makes me want to listen very long...it is simply not as engaging. Whereas the former, and I have listened to this kind of combination, remains an engaging and non-fatiguing listen to me. Granted, my experience is limited, and is obviously very subjective (YMMV). Given a fixed budget, I would try to find a balance of all the components, but would put some extra $ into my source rather than my speakers. Again, my stress would be on synergy overall, but in my experience, the source is the most forgiving of all the components in combining with others. A great source component is likely to remain a great source component when combined with many different systems, whereas a specific 'great' amp may not as easily swap over throughout different systems and still retain its outstanding qualities in combination with various pre-amps and speakers. |
Not sure whose arguments Muralman is referring to as "absurd", but I'll respond: The original question actually does ask the question, which single component is most important in a 2-channel system. I stand by my responses; Yes, I'd agree with you that the speaker selection has the greatest potential to radically alter the sound of a system, but without a good source you will just have garbage wrapped in fancy wrapping paper...it still stinks! This is why I believe that, objectively, the source is the most important. Subjectively, well, I guess that is, by definition entirely up to the individual and their expectations, priorities and tastes. I can build a system to suit virtually any preferences around a great source component, but I cannot do the same with a specific great speaker. In the case of the latter I'd have to tailor the rest of the components specifically to suit that speaker (in many, but not all cases). A five-figure set of world-class horns are not necessarily going to sound great with whatever I put them with, and I will not be able to reconfigure my system with much latitude around those speakers. Spend the same five figures on a world-class source and you will have tremendous latitude with the other components you pair it off with. In a way, I'm agreeing with the "speaker" camp actually in that the choice of speakers will go furthest in determining the overall sound of the system, and perhaps will dictate the rest of the components. But I still would have to say that without a good source, all else falls to pieces, and this is why I stand by my original position that the source is most important. I don't know that the "weakest link" argument is entirely true in this case. I don't see it that way in this case. I think it's more like that Belafonte song: "House built on a weak foundation, it won't stand, oh no, oh no...." The source is the foundation that a system is built on...like the house, it doesn't matter how strong the components above it are, if the foundation is week it all comes tumbling down. |
Red Rover, Red Rover let GREEN come over!!!
LOL Nrchy! I'm after you!
Marco |
Tok20000, I get what you're saying...but still say the source is the foundation of a great system, and without one you may have a great-sounding system, but it will fall way short of a system where one, or more of the other components are compromised. Your scenario only goes to reinforce that in my mind. It shows how all of the downstream components are far more interdependent upon one and other to sound their best, whereas the great source will remain a constant, and relys only upon the material (CD's/LP's etc.) you play on it (as well as your two good ears and the room, room treatments, electricity, achohol consumption, ambient temperature, and the phase of the moon, for all those who insist on pointing out details beyond the original question). The great source will remain a great source no matter what downstream components you put with it, and you can tailor the sound specifically to your tastes by altering those downstream components, especially, and yes then I would indeed START with the speakers. A great speaker will not necessarily remain sounding like a great speaker, and is very dependent upon the upstream components you match it with. I agree, it makes little sense to spend your budget way out of balance and buy a great megabuck source, only to play it through Fisher Price components. Balance and synergy are key here, as I'm sure you'd agree! If I take your scenario, and throw it out of balance the other way, and spend megabucks on some fabulous horns, as you suggested, that sound great at the dealer, but like crap on your high-school summer-job system....Well, then you could just as likely spend time and money mismatching and misunderstanding the potential of those horns, and maybe even find out that horns don't necessarily match up with all of your musical tastes, or to your room treatment, etc. You are locked in and your only option is to sell the horns for something else. But spend the same megabucks on a Wadia, or an Audio Aero, (simply examples and not a standard) and you will likely keep that component no matter what you end up with downstream. Yep, digital technology does change rapidly, but, at that level of performance, there is little out there that I'd imagine you wouldn't be happy with in 5-10 years time. Unless you are one of the hopelessly obsessed, in which case you will never be satisfied anyway, so enjoy what you've got if you can! With the best digital approaching, if not equaling analogue at this point (OK, that's a whole other thread which does not bear repeating) where else can you go in two channel? The most higlhly rated and raved about AudioNote DAC, which some hold to be a reference standard, is simply playing Redbook CD's and is outperforming all those oversampling "developments" that have been dominating the current market. Of course one could argue that the AudioNote is a "development" itself! Coincidently, per the Tok20000 example, I do happen to own and enjoy a similar system as you describe: Quicksilver 300B SET mono amps putting out 8wpc driving Klipsch LaScala horns. My source is certainly not state-of-the-art, but it sounds damn good, and when I did a direct comparison to much more expensive (and more contemporary) Wadia and Cary units, the differences were not siginificant, nor impressive enough to warrant the huge price difference (IMHO). I use a Muse Model 5 transport and Model 2+ DAC with a Muse proprietary L2S connection between them...decent units, but old news in todays market. Still they hold their own against current offerenings, and even with analogue I'd say. Now I could use that same Muse source/DAC in virtually any system and be assured that it was moving all the information I wanted it to to the downstream components. Synergy with a source is seldom a problem (though it can happen, I'm sure). If I didn't like the sound I would much more likely look at one or more of the downstream components than I would the source. But take those LaScala's and put them with a megabuck, megawatt SS amp and it may likely be a waste of some good horns and a good amp to no good ends (again, IMHO, and YMMV).
Perhaps what is breaking apart this thread into two predominent camps is that there are two questions being asked here. I'm not sure here, but perhaps more would agree on this scenario:
1. What is the most important part of a good two channel system?
Answer: The Source
2. Or what has the biggest impact on overall sound?
Answer: The speakers.
That is, if "overall sound" is to be taken to mean the way the kind of overall sound the system produces (for example Euphonic vs Analytical).
Does that all make any sense, or am I beating a dead horse at this point?! Giddyup!!! |
OK, not aiming at anyone in particular here: This thread has gotten so long that folks are no longer referring to (nor apparently reading) earlier responses, and, as from the beginning, many are still not reading the original question very carefully. As I pointed out early on, and as the original poster confirmed, the question posed is regarding the hierarchy of importance of components that exist WITHIN the two channel system... it is a question about hardware, plain and simple. NOT your ears nor your hearing, NOT the software, NOT the room, the room treatment, NOT the original recording studio, the mikes or other gear used to record the music, NOT the specific drugs the band was using when they made the recording, NOT your wildest dreams, your Freudian fantasies, nor what phase of the moon you were born under. Yes, we all KNOW there is more to listening to music than the chain of hardware that forms the 2-channel system, but this question just happens to be specifically about the hardware items IN THAT CHAIN. What part of this is not clear? In other words, PLEASE READ THE original query a few more times, then read it AGAIN...then maybe you might want to read a few of the now over 100 responses that have been posted already before you post an additional response that does not really respond to the very simple question being asked. Jeeeez! Sorry folks, it's HOT here in Seattle, and I'm a bit crabby today. I'm actually interested in what people have to say on this subject (I do agree with TWL as I've already said). But these multiple postings with one-word answers and clever diversions to point out that there is more to a 2-channel system than the hardware are really getting tiresome. If you're going to respond to the question, then respond TO THE QUESTION and let us know why you hold that opinion. It's actually an intersesting question that gets asked over and over in these forums and elsewhere - just search the FAQ, Jack. If you want to address a DIFFERENT question, talk about listening rooms, recording technology, philosophical rhetoric as it applies to high-end stereo enjoyment, what is the best EL34 tube, etc....just start another thread! Just use THIS LINK and title the thread with the appropriate subject, and or ask a specific question like the original poster of this thread did. You'll likely get far more direct responses to your specific query or topic of discussion ....It's a pretty good system! Steam valve closed. Done venting. I ain't donning my flame-retardent suit as it's just too damn hot! Marco |
Asa - Do not arouse the wrath of the GREAT and POWERFUL OZ! You may just think you were outing a mere mortal the likes of all of you, but you are sadly mistaken: I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ!!!!
So let me try to pose the original question in an entirely different way....let's take this to the extreme: You are destined to live out your life on a desert island. You have your existing collection of music, be it vinyl, digital, or both. The island happens to have 120V dedicated power service, and a centrally air conditioned "Listening-Hut" custom built by Rives and equipped with dedicated circuits and cryo'd Porter-Plugs. You have absolutely no one to impress with your expensive and fancy hardware, your exquisite obsessive taste, your pride in ownership of the very 'best of the best'. It is just you, your music collection, the island and the listening hut for the rest of your days on this earth (we'll assume the rest of your life is catered as well....no, the caterer doesn't see or hear your system either, meals just show up on the beach). OK, so here are your choices:
You get a system consisting of Walker Proscenium Turntable, An Audionote DAC5 with some suitable transport, your very favorite amplification of choice (the choice of amplification remains consistent through the two choices), and a pair of vintage 1976 Radio Shack speakers to listen to all that on. We'll call this the "Source" system.
Your alternate choice is headed up with one of my all-time favorites, the Kenner Close-and-Play turntable (suitably wired to run through conventional power and amplication and graced with a BMI Whale running power from those incredible Porter-Plugs), a bone stock original 1984 Sony Discman D-50 with the stock RCA cord adapter and AC transformer, feeding into that wonderful amplification you chose (Lamm perhaps), and this time running through a pair of Calix Phoenix Signature speakers. We'll call this the "Speaker" system.
OK, so your doomed to listen to one of these two systems for the rest of your natural life.....which one would you choose? Remember, it's just you and your music.
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ HAS SPOKEN!
.....oh, and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!
Marco |
The god in me is one with the god in you. I bow as well and we are as one, in harmony with the great earth and sky. Oh yes, and I am indeed off topic, undermining my self-confessed, steam-venting post as it were. I do love the verbal jousting, and really do enjoy a personal take on any discussion. It's cooled down now in Seattle and my Prozac has kicked in so I'm calmer and gentler now, but none the wiser (insert little smiley-faced icon here composed with a semi-colon followed immediately by a dash and finally an end-parenthesis to indicate my easy-going state of mind and that the previous statement should be taken somewhat humorously). As far as the scenario I proposed, I had thought it was a rhetorical question myself. I'd go with the "Source" system needless to say. I wasn't suggesting mixing Calix with Radio Shack, those systems are exclusive of each other. The contrast of the two is exactly the point. As far as the specific choice in cost-no-object speakers, go ahead, choose your own, I'd still go with the "Source" system. Yes, yes, weakest link in the chain, all components and interconnects are important. Balance....synergy..and all that! I agree with that, but that wasn't the question Mark. At least not how I interpreted it, and I am THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ, let's not forget! Which ONE SINGLE component is most critical in reproducting music well in a 2-channel system? Since the overwhelmingly common response falls into one of two camps, that is where I staged the scenario. Indeed, as I think you infer in your post, perhaps the question is just ludicrous, perhaps the hobby is ludicrous?! Heresy, I've gone and committed Heresy right here on Audiogon. Yes, I did enjoy your 1/13 post Mark, thanks for referring back to it to give me that reference. If you laughed at my previous post, check out the link to the humorous piece I wrote a while back (which goes to the point of my committing heresy). I'll refer you to the recent thread here since it contains the link to the piece and a disclaimer/warning for reading that piece as it may offend the feint-of-heart, and or rigid-of-morals....you've been warned! Keep in mind that I'm poking fun at myself here too...I'm a self-confessed audiophile, but I am in a twelve-step program to quit! Marco |
Asa - Your theory as to one's refined/educated tastes being the root of the 'Source' preference don't hold water when held up against one of TWL's original posts on this thread. In that post he mentioned how, as a former salesman in the industry, he would initiate new consumers by demonstrating the same principal to them in real life terms. In that case even the uninitiated were able to discriminate what made the bigger difference and clearly were able to state their preferences (for the source). I had at least one dealer, whom I purchased my first turntable from, do the same demonstration with different gear and the results were the same to my ears: I'd rather put my money behind a good source before investing more in the speakers. Yes, balance is important, but I'm speaking for the sake of the discusstion, which is to point to one component over another. I also had an Audiophile friend with three different systems do a very similar demonstration at home, which turned out to be a demonstration of the same principal, where all listening preferred keeping the source as good as possible.
Marco |
LOL Unclejeff! Yes, I guess L. Frank Baum just doesn't pass muster here on Audiogon.... I should have been quoting Heidegger, Neitsche, or perhaps Sun-Tzu!
Marco |
Thank you for your kind words William & Mark. Rest assured Mark, that through the darkness I can also see how bright her light was. The light lingers even in her absence. I do celebrate her light as well as well as mourn the loss of her companionship. Were I lost in the darkness you would not be reading these words here at all.
You are surely right Mark, they do indeed have souls.
Marco |
You guys are getting me crying again! Thank you all for caring for a relative stranger. Twl we are blessed with a second wonderful angel of a dog who was Jax' companion for the past three years. His name is Diesel (appropriate for a 115 lb Bullmastiff). He misses Jax as much as we do and I think keeps wondering when she's going to show up again. Perhaps in the future we may consider yet another to be Diesel's companion. You are right though, there was only one 'Jax' and no other like her. Pardon the digression to a subject far from the topic of the post as well as from stereo gear in general. Those who share my love for dogs can get a few smiles from some pics I've done of Jax on a friends website here She made a whole lot of people smile in her lifetime. Thank you for the latitude and bandwidth to share her with all of you. Marco |
Asa & 6chac - If you had a few more participants you could have an Audiogon Circle-Jerk going on. Sounds from his last post like Asa already spent his wad though! Heck, a bit of Viagra and you'll be up and hummin' in no time. I don't know if you'll find many more A'goners who can talk that Alan Watts- Krishnamurti-Kahil Ghibran schpeel, but I'm getting myself all hot and bothered by all that intellectual, literary and philisophical prowess being demonstrated! My word, what big vocabularies you two have!! What wild imaginations!! OOOHHHH, don't point that thing at me sailor, it might go off!
Marco
PS Thar she blows!! Man the harpoon!!! ;-p |
Ah Asa - you mistook my post as agressive and I regret to inform you that it was not intended that way. My apologies if it came off as being contentious. Your "welcome to the circle" was more the response I had expected as I was fully aware that, in posting what I did, I was most certainly spanking the monkey online. Ain't we all? Indeed the net IS the circle! Well put.
As far as "understanding" the BIG words, and your in-depth analasys of my conflicted motivations; In truth I am amused and delighted by yours and 6chac's verbal jousting, as much as I was amused by your criticisms above. Love to be challenged, entertained and 'enlightened' to the chi and the tao in such an unlikely forum.
On that note I clasp my hands together, close my eyes, and bow ever so slightly from the waste so as not to give either of you two master-fisherman access to my nether-regions, and back towards the door never taking my eyes from either of you!
All the best,
Marco |
No sweat Asa! I was hoping the reference to Melville at the end might have clued you in to my intentions of 'oneness-in-wanking', but I can see it could be easily overlooked or misinterpreted. Nevertheless, as I said, I did enjoy your retort regardless. Loved the image of the "people out there, in the hinterlands, just waiting to crest the hill with pitchforks" ...had me laughing out loud! You are a gifted writer! Hope you put that gift to some good use. I always cross-reference folks I enjoy (or sometimes don't particularly enjoy..in your case it is the former) with their answers from the past to get a better point of reference. I must say, I really enjoyed your responses on a thread titled "TUBES Do It -- Transistors Don't. I have never read that particular position so eloquently and articulately posited as you did in that thread. I just happen to agree completely and that contributes to my appreciation of your mastery of the word. You can still have 6chac beat you with a broom if you like, but don't do it on my account! Regards, Marco |
Gosh, I've been freelancing my whole life, when did they go and change weekends to Thursday?! I want to be in your time zone Mark! Or is it one of those weird holidaze dictated by who knows who....the Dairy industry perhaps?! Is it Elsie the Cow's Birthday?! Wish I had a boss who would stop me.....bet you wish I had a boss who would stop me too! Perhaps the moderator will catch on and stop all of us! Auggggghhhhhh, Ahhhhhhhh, uhh, uhh, uhh, ohhhhh! I think I made a mess of my keyboard8oeiuy9()0(**)(09(&()(&&$%###
M*a&(*(r_((#c)(()@#$o |
Ah, quite right Rel, I am not ready yet to invoke THE POWER OF CHIA. But I pray that one day I may be worthy and that great rabbit may grace my garden and provide my family with an abundance of sprouts for our sandwiches!
I will meditate on your haiku once I stop laughing!
Marco |
Hey, did I miss the caning? Damn! I was too busy meditating on Rel's Haiku and pointing to the moon with my finger! Can you whack Asa a few more times so I can watch 6chac?
Marco |
