What Matters and What is Nonsense


I’ve been an audiophile for approximately 50 years. In my college days, I used to hang around the factory of a very well regarded speaker manufacturer where I learned a lot from the owners. When I started with audio it was a technical hobby. You were expected to know something about electronics and acoustics. Listening was important, but understanding why something sounded good or not so good was just as important. No one in 1968 would have known what you were talking about if you said you had tweaked your system and it sounded so much better. But if you talked about constant power output with frequency, or pleasing second-order harmonic distortion versus jarring odd-order harmonics in amplification, you were part of the tribe.

Starting in the 1980s, a lot of pseudo scientific nonsense started appearing. Power cords were important. One meter interconnects made a big difference. Using a green magic marker on the edge of a CD was amazing. Putting isolation dampers under a CD transport lifted the veil on the music. Ugh. This stuff still make my eyes roll, even after all these years.

So I have decided to impart years and years of hard won knowledge to today’s hobbists who might be interested in reality. This is my list of the steps in the audio reproduction chain, and the relative importance of each step. My ranking of relative importance includes a big dose of cost/benefit ratio. At this point in the evolution of audio, I am assuming digital recording and reproduction.

Item / Importance to the sound on a scale of 1-10 / Cost benefit ratio

  • The room the recording was made in / 8 / Nothing you can do about it
  • The microphones and setup used in the recording / 8 / nothing you can do about it.
  • The equalization and mixing of the recording / 10 / Nothing you can do about it
  • The technology used for the recording (analog, digital, sample rate, etc.) / 5 / nothing you can do about it.
  • The format of the consumer recording (vinyl, CD, DSD, etc.) 44.1 - 16 really is good enough / 3 / moderate CB ratio
  • The playback device i.e. cartridge or DAC / 5 / can be a horribe CB ratio - do this almost last
  • The electronics - preamp and amp / 4 / the amount of money wasted on $5,000 preamps and amps is amazing.
  • Low leve interconnects / 2 / save your money, folks
  • Speaker cables / 3 / another place to save your money
  • Speakers / 10 / very very high cost to benefit ratio. Spend your money here.
  • Listening room / 9 / an excellent place to put your money. DSPs have revolutionized audio reproduction
In summary, buy the best speakers you can afford, and invest in something like Dirac Live or learn how to use REW and buy a MiniDSP HD to implement the filters. Almost everything else is a gross waste of money.
128x128phomchick

Showing 2 responses by hifiman5

@prof  @mickeyb   I do not doubt the veracity of your posts regarding cabling not being an important contributor to your system's sound.  My experience involves that spending judiciously on upgraded cables does make a real difference to the overall sound of my system.  When I upgraded my speakers in the summer of 2016, Johnny Rutan told me that I might have issues with the very large gauge AQ Earth series speaker cables with the new speakers.  I had all but forgotten about his brief comment until about 5 months in or so with the new speakers the bass seemed on the heavy, slower side relative to the rest of the frequency spectrum.  It was then that I began to research the vast array of cable offerings looking for the right fit for my system.  When I found them, the heaviness was gone and the treble and soundscape opened up. Interestingly, they were considerably less expensive than the AQ's.

Have you experimented with fancy cables?  If so, did you hear any differences worth noting?  I'm just curious to hear about experiences that differ from mine.

Thanks!
Interesting tweak or what I prefer to term, "tuning" last evening.  I have been auditioning a new phono stage.  It is a FET design and as such has a warmer tubier sound sans tubes in much the same way that conrad johnson's SS preamps did years ago.  Very resolving, revealing details that my 25+ year old phono pre never did.  The tuning involved footers.  I started with two Herbie's soft tenderfeet and two hard tenderfeet.  Next I went to four hard tenderfeet.  My objective is to eek out as much top end air and detail as possible.  The four hard feet were more revealing but  what really got me where I wanted to go sonically was removing the Herbie feet and using three #4 Black Diamond racing cones.  Voila!! More pluck, cymbal decay and hall sound, with super tight bass and jumping dynamics.  Just beautiful.

The OP is "What matters and what is nonsense".  That experience matters.  I checked the results today and the results were confirmed.  Keeping the new gear.  Lovely vinyl sound.🎼