What you have failed to decode at the source,cannot be made up for by an amp,any amp.What is gone,is gone.
9 responses Add your response
Tpsonic is correct, but that doesn't lead me to conclude that one should spend more on digital than an amp.
IMHO, you'll get a more satisfying system short term, and better value for your money long term, by putting more $ into the amp. Digital depreciates too fast. If you're patient, and watch the auctions closely, you can sometimes get decent digital for $30-35% of MSRP. For a good amp, you'll always pay 50%, maybe 60% for a hot piece. If you buy last years' digital on the cheap, you can get a nice amp that will keep you happier longer.
Just another viewpoint...
Tpsonic is right. Nothing in the audio chain can be added later if it was not retrieved from the source. I would suggest getting the best source you can afford or justify and then go for the less important pieces later.
Every piece in the chain is important, but the source is the most important if one does not count the LP or CD from which the music is derived, but they are not technically part of the system.
I think this question cannot be answered in aby theoretical sense or doctrinaire manner. If I look at the systems I have put together recently, the amp has always cost more. Yet the piece that usually had to be most carefully selected for long term musical enjoyment was the CDP. I think this situation has changed in recent years. Only a few years ago the piece that was harder to get right was the amp, but there are a lot more musical amplifiers available today than there were just five to ten years ago (given the lack of decent valve amps that made their way to my country back then).