The order of importance in the audio chain goes the same as the path of the signal. |
I'm in the source camp too. |
Back in the days when I worked at an audio shop, we used to do a little demonstration for folks, regarding the order of importance in a system. We were a Linn dealer at that time, and Linn was one of the first promoters of the source argument.
We took the customer into the reference listening room. Then we played the LP12/Ittok/Karma thru a Naim 32/250 into the cheapest set of speakers that we had in the store, which were Boston Acoustics A-40. We played an album side, and let him get a feel for the sound.
Then we took out the A-40s, and plugged on the Linn DMS Isobarik top line speakers, and also a Rega Planar 3 with a Goldring cartridge instead of the Linn TT. Played the same album side again.
Notice with one system, we used our best source(LP12) and lowest speakers(A-40). With the other system, we used our best speakers(DMS) and a moderate quality source(P3). The amps and preamp were the same in both cases.
The customer always came to the same conclusion. Even with the best speakers we had, the lower quality source made the system sound worse, than the higher quality source with bottom line speakers.
So, if you have ever done direct listening comparisons in a controlled environment, swapping speakers and sources, you would come to the same conclusion as I have. The source will get the music to the speaker, and the speaker(even a cheap one) will produce it to some degree. If the music never gets to the speaker, not even the best speaker can reproduce it. The idea that a great speaker can make up for a source that doesn't supply the needed musical information is a total fallacy.
And notice that I did not use a demonstration that used some kind of total crap for the lower quality source. A Rega P3 is a well regarded lower priced TT, and is definitely not skewing the test. It is just at a lower performance level than the LP12. The DMS Isobariks could not make up for the lack of information coming into the system from the Rega. But the little Boston Acoustics A-40s could sound better(musically) than the big DMS speakers, when fed better source information. No, the frequency extension and sonic fireworks were not the same with the A-40s, but the music sounded more musical. For people who listen to music, and not audiophile sound-effects, this is the most critical issue, musicality. I hope that this helps to clear things up in some people's minds about this issue. |
Inpep, I did run the LP12 through the A40s. I ran the P3 through the Isobarik DMS speakers. There is no question that the Isobarik DMS speaker is miles better than the little $150 A40s. The amps were the same. Are you concluding that everyone that heard this thought that the A40s were a better speaker than the DMS?
If you think that there are bigger differences between speakers than sources, then you need to hear what a good analog setup sounds like. I know that we have widely differing opinions on just about everything, but I am just now finding out how wide those differences are. |
Hey look guys. I did the TT test a couple hundred times at the store. I sold analog gear. Do you really think I'm not aware of a cartridge mismatch?
We did the demonstration to show the differences sources can make in a system. So that people could get the straight info, instead of the "buy better speakers" mantra from all the mid-fi salesmen. I could just as easily have sold them a $4000 pair of Isobariks, instead of a $1200 TT. But I actually thought enough of these people to show them the true facts, and demonstrate it, so they could hear it for themselves. They made the buying decisions.
These were standard TTs, using standard cartridges and such, that we commonly sold with these products. This was not some kind of trick to fool these people into thinking something that wasn't true.
I swear sometimes I think it's useless to try to bring any form of sanity to discussions like these.
If we used the same cartridge, you'd suspect cable mismatch. No matter what we used, you'd suspect anything except what you want to believe.
I've given you some accurate information. If you want to ignore it, go right ahead. Sometimes I just have to throw my hands up, and say,"Sheesh!" If I said the sky is blue, somebody on here would argue about that, too. |
Actually, I'm just having a very trying day, and I had to let some steam off.
I never sold anyone anything in audio. I always let them buy. All I did was to demo the equipment and explained how things work together.
Quite often I would let the customer walk out of the store with no sale, when I could have sold him something at a low price. And also quite often, that same guy would show up at the store 6 months later saying,"I've been saving my money for 6 months to buy that high end rig, because after I heard it, I knew it was what I wanted." I never jammed anybody into anything, and they always got a fair demo from me. I spent the time to educate them on audio principles, and showed them that those principles held true in practice.
I never had a returned sale, in all the days I worked in audio, because I made sure that people got what they wanted,and took the time to make sure they were comfortable with it. I often sold Rega, with the customer fully knowing they would come back for a Linn in a year. Because that was what they wanted to do. I showed them the upgrade path that made sense to them, and that they could hear for themselves. After that, the sale closed itself. I never had to close a sale like that.
You can give somebody a fish, and they have a meal for one day. If you teach him to fish, he can feed himself forever. That's what I did. I taught my customers the principles of audio, so they would never be hooked again by a mid-fi shoe salesman working in a audio store. Our store sold products that adhered to the principles of audio, and we knew that if the customer knew them, he'd be back. We had a very happy clientele, and it was a very friendly atmosphere in our store. We'd have lunch with the customers and spend time talking to them, not because we had to for sales purposes, but because we became friends. We didn't have to jam them into a sale, because they knew what they wanted. If they wanted something that we didn't sell, we didn't bad mouth that product. We just worked around that to make sure that he got what would work well with it.
I try to do something similar to that, with what I post on this forum. It's of no matter to me what people buy, but I'm trying to help people to understand the basics, in a world full of hype. I don't know everything, but I do know some things, and I try to make that info available to those who will listen. |
I really like you guys. Just have a good time with your systems.
Eagle, the same thing holds true for digital as it does for analog. The basic system concept is to get the most information you can into the signal chain, and then try to preserve it on the way to the speakers. Even a modest speaker can sound very good when fed a quality, coherent signal. Of course, great speakers will sound even better when fed well. I don't minimize the importance of speakers. I just try to point out the need to feed them well. Once the information enters the system, it can never be improved. It can only be altered, jumbled, or have losses. If you can do the best job of getting the info off the disc and to the speaker, then you can get the best out of those speakers, whether they are modest, or super high end ones. When you get a really good coherent signal to a great speaker, then great things happen to your sound.
Hi David99. I don't have anything to sell, but I always try to have something to offer. I guess we all just do what we can. Glad you liked my post. :^) |
Inpep, my answer to that is, that I can hear the differences between the CDPs, even on mediocre speakers. If I can't hear a difference, then I doubt there is much if any difference between them, and one would not represent an upgrade over the other. I realize that it is harder to tell the differences between similarly priced CDPs, because there really is not much difference between them, and the digital source material is so limited, that the primary differences will be fairly expensive to get, such as a quality analog output from the DAC and low-jitter mechanisms. This is why the Linn CD12 and others are so much more expensive.
However the main problem with digital sources is, that even if they get the sound off the disc and into the system, it is far lower quality than a similarly priced analog source. A large percentage of the musical information never got onto the disc in the first place, due to the sampling technology that is used in all digital recordings. A "sample" means that the whole wave is not used, only little sections chopped out on a regular timing structure. If you think that this can give equal performance to replaying the entire wave, then I can't help you with that.
The main challenge of analog systems is recovering the massive amount of information off of the record, and this is why improving your TT can improve the sound so much. No TT has ever been able to totally extract all the info from the groove, but at least the TT gets a continuous waveform to work with. The better it does at recovery, the better the sound is. The real source is the recording and a continuous wave recording with all its warts, is still a better source than a sampled wave recording.
With digital systems the challenge is to make something decent sounding out of a sampled and chopped up waveform that left a good portion of its information on the recording studio floor. Even if it recovers 100% of what it can get from the disc, it is not enough. A five minute comparison of a $6k TT vs a $6k CDP will tell you more about this fact than I could explain in a term paper.
The speakers are an important part of the system, just as all parts are important. I don't take this lightly. But I have done comparisons, and understand the factors involved, and even a modest speaker that you might call "unresolving" will still tell the tale. It might not give the 20Hz lows or even the 20kHz highs, but the musical presentation will be audible, and will reveal the better source.
I have never heard any speaker in any decent audio store that had any speaker that was so bad that it wouldn't show the quality of what was in front of it. And if there is such a speaker, why would anybody who owned it care at all about anything else in their system?
I get the feeling that you are being argumentative for argument's sake. Yes, I agree if you unplug the speaker, no sound will come out. If you have a speaker that makes any decent kind of sound, the front end will be easily discernable. |
Bruce, I'm still trying to give everyone a fair shake. Sometimes, I just can't get anywhere. At some point, I'll just give up. But, I'm still trying at this point.
I'm not saying people should have crappy speakers. I think they should have great speakers. But to realize the potential of those great speakers, you need a great source. I don't think that is such an outlandish idea. |
|
Thanks, Unclejeff. I almost forgot about this old thread. It was a tough battle. Only partly successful. But, that's the way things are around here. If you can get through to some of the people, you are doing well. |
Touche' Bob, but the room and the listener are not part of the signal chain. They are part of the acoustic environment, after the electrical signal has been transduced into air motion. Good try though. It had me going for a second. |
Bob, that is correct. The performers and recording venue are not part of the sound system. They are part of the recording process. While I definitely agree that these things are important to the overall result of the sound we hear, they are defined well before we ever get a chance to play them. Therefore, from our playback standpoint, our source is the recorded material, however good or bad it may be, and the unit that we play it on. From there the signal travels through the electronic equipment, and to the speakers. Once it leaves the speakers, it is in the acoustic realm again, and is not part of this discussion, as it was "speaker or source" that was the question asked.
Asa, to answer your question, yes there are neural synapse responses, electrical nerve impulses, muscular contractions, etc, in the creation of music. While this may constitute the absolute source of the music, as I responded to Bob above, it is not in the realm of the playback equipment to change that, other than to degrade it. Therefore, I still contend that the playback system consists of the source material and player, electronics, and speaker. I make no claim that these other things have no effect on the sound. I only claim that the reproduction system has a limited, defined scope as I described above. Things that have been recorded are beyond the source player's ability to change, except to degrade, and things that happen in the room and the listener's ear and brain are also beyond the speaker's ability to change. So again, I define the playback system as the parts between, and including, source player and speaker.
I would also like to mention that I disagree with the notion that is commonly promoted that the room is the most important part of the system. It is not. The room is simply the last item of influence on the sound before it reaches the ear. If the sound is not produced by the playback system correctly, the room has no ability to improve upon what has been played. However, if the room is good, then a well played-back recording will have a better chance of sounding the best that it can sound. This is the same idea that I espouse regarding the entire chain. Anything that is lost or degraded in a previous item in the chain, cannot be recovered or improved upon down the line. It can only cause additional loss or degradation. Carnegie Hall will not make a "close and play" sound good.
I state all these things in a context, because I do not mean to imply that speakers, or rooms, or amps are of little importance. They are vitally important. However, they are totally incapable of making up for any losses or degradation that happens to the signal prior to the signal arriving at their input jacks. At best, they can only perfectly pass the signal that they were given by the previous item in the chain. The only item that can actually bring more information into the system is the source equipment, because its job is to extract the information from the recorded media. The more information extracted, and the more accurately it is extracted, BY THE SOURCE PLAYER, is the only way that the system can actually improve the sound that the system puts out. The rest of the system components can only try to do their jobs of amplification and speaker output without corrupting the signal any further. The idea that a speaker can actually improve the signal is fallacious. All it can do is attempt to tranduce what it is fed, with minimum degradation. The entire argument around electronics and speakers improving the sound, is based upon the quality with which these items pass the signal to the next item in the chain. A good amp, or a good speaker will pass that signal with minimum loss and degradation, and therefore is a better component than one which does not do this. None of them improves the signal. They only pass it better. This is the key point. The word PASS. In contrast, a source component does more than just pass the signal. It extracts the signal from the media. When this process is improved, more musical information enters the system, and the system gets a better signal to work with. Then the rest of the chain can do its best to pass it well.
All components are important. But the source component is the only component that can bring more information into the signal. This is why it is the most important component in the playback system. |
Gregm, I agree that in many cases, and possibly most cases, there is a single component that is degrading the signal more than the other components in the system. This is obviously the component that needs to be improved first. So from a practical standpoint, as you say, fixing the worst offender can yield a very nice sonic improvement. |
Bob and Asa, I think I am getting a better handle on what we are really discussing here. I think(tell me if I'm wrong) that we are really discussing whether it is worse to have a signal degrading bottleneck somewhere in the system, as opposed to an information-limiting source item. Am I getting this right?
If so, I will try to address that point, as well as the other ones.
First, Bob, I really don't disagree that often times a speaker has the most difficulty being an accurate component. As I stated in my other post, I feel that all the components are vital to the system, otherwise the system wouldn't work at all. And if the speaker really does suck really bad, then even a great source won't help it. However, most speakers don't suck all that bad that they will mask an improvement in the source. Here is my point: Most speakers will do a relatively decent job at reproducing the majority of the sound. Maybe not great. But the higher priced speakers aim primarily at covering a wider bandwidth, to give true fullrange capability.If your definition of a better speaker means wider bandwidth, then I may agree that going to a true fullrange speaker from a limited bandwidth speaker will give more of a change than improving the source. Notice that I said "more of a change", and not "sounds better" or "more musical". This is an important distinction. I don't have crappy speakers, and I certainly understand the need for good ones. When you make the speakers better, more signal information will be passed, and they will make the system sound better. I have no problem with that at all. I simply make the statement that getting more signal information to the speakers will make them sound better too. But it will do it in a different way. The speakers, when fed a better signal, will respond with a better sound. Also, the signal, when going through a better set of speakers will respond with a better sound.
The question is, which is more important? And this comes back to the point I made at the top of this post. Is the degrading of the signal by the downstream components more critical than feeding the system with a better signal from the source. My answer is they are both important. If you have a real bottleneck anywhere in the system, you have a problem. From my personal experiences and tastes, I find that even lower priced speakers will easily convey the emotion of the music, when fed with a good source signal. They may not give as much detail, or frequency extension on either end, but they will allow the basic emotion of the music to be heard, unless they are flat-out horrible. This is because enough quality information is available to them from the upstream components, that the prime ingredient of the music gets through: the emotional content. When a poor source is used, then often, not always, the emotional content of the music is robbed of its life, and even the best and most expensive speaker cannot restore that, no matter how extended and detailed it is. And this is much more prevalent today than one might think.
So perhaps this is a "chicken and egg" thing, but I still contend that for a given normal system, that the source will provide more "musical" improvement than speakers will. I will grant that upgrading speakers will give more extension, possibly, and greater detail. I think alot of the 2 sides of this discussion relate to the types of source used. At the risk of bringing digital and analog into the discussion, most digital users are more in the speaker camp, and more analog users are in the source camp. This is because there is a greater "delta" in the sound of the source when analog is introduced into the scenario. Up to this point, digital has only progressed just so far. It is not even in the same galaxy with good analog. So for digital users, the differences in source don't seem so great. But when you hook up a turntable, then some shock starts to set in. I hate to bring that into the discussion, but it is unavoidable, and foolish to ignore it.
Asa, I agree, and I stated carefully, that electronics "at best" can pass the signal perfectly, and I did not intend that to mean that the "best" case is ever attainable. It was simply a reference to the best (im)possible scenario, and not the normal scenario. My wording was not intended to imply that the "best" case of perfect pass-through is attainable.
I also agree with your point that system synergy is very important and can be a very large factor in the overall presentation of the music. As are all of the other components, the room, the recording and everything included in the musical experience.
Again, I agree that this may not hold true to all system types and symmetries, especially regarding the case described above, regarding analog and digital sources.
So, at the expense of appearing stubborn in my position, which I probably am, I feel very certain that this position is correct, when all things are considered. I reiterate that the order of importance is the same order that the signal travels through the system, and each component will define what the next component in the chain is capable of delivering, in the "best case". The next component's job is to degrade the signal in the least possible way, and pass it to the next component. Since the source defines the quality of the signal entering the system, it provides the benchmark of what that system is ultimately capable of reproducing. From there on down the chain, there is only a string of degradation, and the job of the downstream components is to degrade it the least amount possible.
Notwithstanding this, I do agree that a horrible bottleneck somewhere down the chain, can destroy a large part of the signal that even a great source is feeding in. In this case, it is entirely possible that removing that offending component and replacing it with a better one can let more of the signal through, and make more of a difference than the source improvement.
Now we come to the quandary. Do we think that average downstream components will pass enough signal to reveal a better source, or do we think that great downstream components will make up for a lesser source? This is the "chicken and the egg". From my experience, the average components will reveal enough of a better source to make a more musical result, than a great speaker or amp passing more information from an inferior source.
I do appreciate both of your interesting comments and points of view, and it has made this a most enjoyable discussion. Bringing any opinion under strong scrutiny is always helpful to one's self-evaluation regarding said opinions. |
Asa, as always, you pose some most difficult questions, and I have come to expect this.
I once had a calculus teacher that always gave problems on the test, that included material we hadn't been taught. Everyone failed the tests, but he then graded it on a curve, judging by our abilities to use our previously learned information to approach the problems. Nobody got the answers correct, but he was evaluating our insight into the problems, not looking for the answer. In some ways, I find your approach to be similar. It is always interesting.
Regarding your question about "exclusivity as an originating oriention", that is an interesting question, isn't it? Can we be exlusive, or must we be all inclusive, and are they, in fact, the same? I would, of course, say that they are the same, but at different degrees of focus. To relate to your airplane analogy above, the man on the ground is not even seen by the man in the plane,and the ground appears to be almost stationary to the man in the plane. The man on the ground sees the airplane as moving very slow. In both cases, the actual relative speeds are the much higher, but the points-of-view make things appear different. So this is a case of relative point of view, is it not?
And as we know from quantum physics, the relationship of the observer is a factor in the evidential manifestation of the event. Much like Von Schroedinger's cat. Is it still alive in the box, or dead? The current school of thought is, that it exists merely as a probability wave until the observation is made, at which time there is a manifestation of a single point on the probability wave(for that given relative point of view).
As such, we may look at this phenomenon as a continuum, with events manifesting as observation points, or we may look at it as observation points occurring out of a continuum. Like the particle and wave theories. When we view a particle, we know little of its wave behavior. When we view a wave, we know little of its particle behavior.
It's point of view.
So, now that I have prefaced this with some background for my statements, I do say that exclusivity can be taught as an originating orientation, and still not be ignorant of the inclusivity of the overall context.
To put an eastern philosophical slant on this, one cannot take a step without putting his foot down somewhere. While it can be known that all ways are possible, one way must be chosen in order to move from your spot. One hand clapping is a koan, but two hands clapping is an event. The first is an example of the wave, and the second is an example of an observable event. They are not mutually exclusive, but exist in different ways. The all, and the one. The "all" is inclusive, and the "one" is exclusive. Are they apart? Are they separate? No, they are not, but they are used in different ways.
To go back to science for a minute, movement is defined on a vector. When movement is desired(taking a step), it is possible to take a step an all directions, but only one at a time. When the one step is taken, the direction is an event. That is exclusive. Prior to the step, all directions were possible. That is inclusive. The same, yet different.
Now, for teaching to take place, there must be a defined vector, because without it, there is only "all". "All" can also be defined as "nothing" because the probability wave of "all" is continuous until an event is defined along that wave somewhere. When a student needs to move(on a vector) from his current state, to another state(higher learning), a step must be made, thus defining the direction of the vector. His teacher evaluates the direction of the vector, to show him whether his step was closer or further from the teacher's instruction. So, there is a constant interaction of inclusivity(all), and exclusivity(one) in the learning process. The consecutive steps toward the desired goal along a particular vector can be called learning. It is a process of selecting certain points(events) from the changing probability waves(contiunuum), to effect the desired result.
So I do say that exclusivity as an orientation, is consistent with the teaching approach, inasmuch as the exclusivity is an inherent part of the inclusivity that it is "plucked" from. The consecutive selections of these events from the continuum, that can be called the "learning process" is actually forming a wave of its own, with events selected from other waves, and is only possible by a sentient being,that is capable of effecting his own changes on the ultimate continuum of existence/non-existence.
Please don't get out the bamboo stick. |
Marco, I've been through that recently also. Very sorry to hear that it has happened to you. I thought that I couldn't get another dog, after that happened. But after 3 months, I couldn't live without one, either. I finally got another one, and it made all the difference in the world. You can't replace them, but you can love another one. When you feel like you can, then give it a try. |
Very nice photos, Marco. I have a 135 pound male Rottweiler named Magnum. He just turned 2 years old, and was born on my 46th birthday. My previous Rottweiler was named Thunder and he died at 6 years old from cancer. He was as good as they get. I like the "big dogs" like you do. My dog is scary as hell to look at, but he's just a big baby to me. He wears a 30 inch collar!
My old next door neighbor(who moved away now) was a Pit Bull breeder, and had 37 of them next door. Blues, Red Noses, Brindles, Black and White, all kinds. He had this awesome Red Nose named Chief that was 105 pounds of solid muscle. A perfect traditional Southern Red Nose with a head like a concrete block. A very awesomely beautiful dog.
Give Diesel a big hug for me. |
Oooohh! Asa, that was a Hula-popper with a treble hook! You're bound to attract a lot of "objectivist" fish with that one. They have minds like a steel trap - clamped shut! |
