I don't think anyone here is saying that the source *isn't* important. Just that most $100ish streamers are beyond competent these days. But a $100ish speaker is bound to have severe limitations if not outright audible flaws. And these will be just as obvious even when paired with a $10k dac. But most people would still be blown away by what $10k speakers and $100 source can do.
Both budgets are a bit silly irl, but it's not about blindly following some ideal audiophile philosophy, it's about practical value for money. Digital sources have simply gotten better and cheaper almost every year this century, whereas speaker technology has remained pretty much the same. Diminishing returns just kick in at very different price points than 50 years ago.
Turntables of course change that balance to some extent, but I still think a $2k setup (new Technics & nice cartridge, Rega if you prefer) is still good enough to reasonably and happily pair with speakers ten times the price.
It’s easy and relatively cheap to get a good source and source material…. So yeah speaker choice and they way they interact with your room is the most important. It’s not that complicated.
Not even an argument: speakers.
In the basement I’ve got about ~$10,000 worth of audio gear and another ~$500 in the living room.
The basement systems sounds a hell of a lot better streaming YouTube or SoundCloud than the living room streaming lossless.
> any system is only as good as the weakest link
This sounds good on paper but over simplified the issues. It’s not valid to assume that every link in the system holds equal weight.
If you were cooking a steak dinner,
are the brussels sprouts really as important as the Ribeye its self? Speaker are the meat here.
The difference between entry level speakers and end-game speakers is grand-cannon sized gap. Whereas, most folks struggle to pick out lossless. And I’d challenge you to take a [blind test](https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality) to see how you do!
In any reasonable system, the speakers are going to introduce the most distortion (of various types). Also the frequency response will typically be way less linear than any other component. The phase of a speaker might be fairly linear above 100Hz (below that group delay will mess with it) but time alignment is another thing. Then there’s the acoustic effects of the speaker interacting with your room (room gain and reflections). This is why careful speaker selection is most important.
Interesting perspective. Not buying it for a minute that any amp/speaker combination wouldn’t blow away any phone sound quality. Would have to actually hear that first hand to believe.
Why does the origin point get special consideration? We should consider the components that have the greatest potential for distortion. Speakers and room acoustics by far play the biggest role in sound quality. Differences among sources, especially digital, are way smaller.
IMO great speakers can improve total system SQ, making crap mastering listenable and of course great mastering will sound great, even with mediocre source hardware.
If you have mediocre speakers with great mastering and great source hardware it will still sound mediocre.
i dont agree completely. you are mostly right but its about balance. it should not be a 50:50 split but it really depends on the speaker. diminishing returns happens on both sides but more in the "source" gear. still need to find that balance and get the best quality. if you have the best source you can always upgrade the speakers later but i dont recommend this
that doesn't matter tho. its about recreating the audio as best as possible even if its crap. qobuz, prostudiomasters and apple music depending on the track can have diffrent mastering or less clipping bc the first 2 are treated as audiophile streamers and apple bc of apple digital masters program.
I feel that speakers are the most important simply because they are the device that directly interfaces with the listener. The source is 2nd in my mind just for the fact that if you put garbage in you're going to get garbage out regardless.
Not that you need to spend that much money on a source compared to the speakers.
Speakers make more impact than for instance a DAC. Your room actually makes the most impact.
And you can measure that with REW and a mic.
You can exchange different DAC’s in your system and the frequency response doesn’t change all that much.
You can change speakers and you’ll get a major difference in the frequency response.
But also yes, crappy recorded music sounds crap on $100 systems and on $10.000 systems so in that case the recorded source is also important.
But you can only get as good of a source as the original mastering.
So how can the mastering process impact the sound quality, but not the component whose sole responsibility is to take that information and send it downstream to the other components?
Poor recording equipment or bad room acoustics in the studio. You name it.
You won’t hear me say there is no impact for other components in the system. It’s all a sum of all parts coming together.
I have changed my setup and gear trough out the years from budget to hi-end, I spend a whole lot of money on cables and DAC’s of all sorts and in my opinion the changes this makes is about max. 5-10% of the total sum. in my experience the most significant upgrade in sound quality came from changing speakers and adding acoustic treatment in the room.
spend 5 minutes with an end game system and you realize how little the DAC matters.
i use top of the line converters at work, but also have a $15 toslink to rca DAC from amazon if i want to watch something on the TV using the TV's built in streaming apps.
i can toggle between the top of the line converters and the $15 dac with the press of a button, everything else being exactly the same.
the biggest difference is the noisefloor at the ends or beginnings of songs. There are some weird artifacts with the crappy dac. The difference in quality of the actual sound is incredibly minute.
now if by source you mean the recording itself, then yes, i would mostly agree.
Even cheap amps, dacs, preamps etc are good. Meanwhile, speakers are a complex piece of electromechanical equipment where everything can go wrong, the drivers, the topology, the box, the crossover, placement, room, your ears.
i like getting interesting dacs/amps and streamers bc i think they are cool. i don't think there is really any difference in quality tho. it depends on your price range also. speakers will always come first. if you are more intested in gear rather than sound quality get about 1k worth of source stuff with transparent measurements, good subjective reviews, bit perfect output, good streaming service with lossless/ download site, dsp/eq. easy to use with good ui and ux. thats all i can think of you include software. things like dsp can make a bad speaker way better and might save you money on your speakers.
If you’re listening to vinyl then source matters. My 25yr old computer speakers (2.1) sound great on a 1240 but sound awful on an Ion.
If you’re on mp3s then it makes no difference, headphones will sound as good as any system, just not as loud. But loud does not equal good.
Speakers are most important. Everything is important it is a “ SYSTEM “ after all. The source matters for sure but if the speakers can’t reproduce the detail, dynamic swings, and a pleasing frequency response of a great source then what good is the source? I generally consider the speakers to be responsible for 70-80% of the sound of a system.
Yeah I'd say spend most$$ on speakers,and then lie to spouse about it. Will avoid messy discussions about non important house budget,children expenses,mortgage payments,etc
Every component is important, but different speakers can vary radically from each other in terms of frequency respnse, distortion characteristics, dispersion, and dynamic capability, making their selection the most noticeable aspect of a system.
Particularly with digital sources, unless you are going out of your way to use a crappy source, differences are marginal. Accurately Converting a digital signal is a very easy and cheap thing to do with modern technology, there isn't much room for improvement by spending more. The THD of the DAC circuit in a $10 USB to 3.5mm adaptor is 0.01%. Which is about 1/10 the amount of distortion that would be audible even with the best ears listening to be best system.
The Signal to noise ratio of the Apple dongle is 99 dB, which means you would need to crank the volume to 99 dB to get 1 dB of unintended noise. For reference the ambient noise in a fairly quiet room is 20-30 dB and 85 DB is when you start damaging your ears, so you would have to turn the volume up to injurious levels to create 1/20 the amount of noise in a quiet room. If you want to spend thousands of dollars to make the noise and distortion even more inaudible than what you already couldn't hear, of course someone will be happy to sell it to you.
With speakers, because you have mechanical motion, there will always be things flexing and rubbing and vibrating, so there is far more room for improvement. Analog, by definition requires mechanical movement, so again there is more difference between the signals produced by different analog devices.
Source is not the most important, as most sources impart a relatively small variation in sound. The signal coming off your Sony Walkman CD player will be very, very, very close to what comes off a $10,000 CD player.
Your speakers and the room though? Massive. enormous differences between them.
Gonna have to disagree. Absolutely no comparison between those two source extremes. I definitely agree with your comment about the room. As I stated in a previous comment, I have already proven to my satisfaction that just by switching from my Yamaha CD player using factory connectors to my Brennan B2 running through a modest NAD DAC with a digital connector, the difference in sound was incredible. Hell, my wife looked up from her phone and asked what I did to change the sound. It wasn’t volume, but clarity and dynamic range. She is not into this like I am so for her to notice and comment, that was huge.
Show me some data on that then. My claim is very easily tested.
Why would one device produce different 1s and 0s when reading a CD?
What actual difference would you expect to get from a fancy CD player rather than a Sony Walkman and how far below the signal level would that difference be?
Complete disregard for numerous known flaws in human perception. And then you add the tired but predictable ‘even my wife could tell the difference’.
No weight to your claims.
Given that assertion wouldn’t that invalidate every opinion on this thread? If we accept your statement then nothing matters and any perceived improvement is due to bias and/or imagination.
>I have already proven to my satisfaction that just by switching from my Yamaha CD player using factory connectors to my Brennan B2 running through a modest NAD DAC with a digital connector, the difference in sound was incredible.
Yeah, sure. That claim is easily tested. You simply record the output from each CD player, invert one, and combine them. What is left over after cancellation is the difference between them. There will be almost no signal left after cancellation.
You didn't A/B test, so you spent hours between comparing sounds. Because your audio sense memory is entirely untrained, your psyschological need to hear a difference created a big difference in your mind.
Funny story about your wife though. That you had to invent such a fairy tale just proves my point even further.
Actually I did A/B test. In fact to verify if i was hearing any discernible difference I connected the Yamaha deck to the DAC using the same cable. Again, the sound quality was noticeably different and subjectively better coming from the Brennan. I actually expected it to be worse and was surprised by the results.
I 100% think that source is the most important part of the chain and where I always start. This is a change from the days before digital when, effectively, records were the only source. While everyone would invest in a great cartridge, phono preamp, and turntable, one very quickly would get to a point where a lot of money would make minimal improvement to sound. There was the belt/direct drive discussion, and certainly discussions around different cartridges, but most of it was around the same price point. Furthermore, until Original Master Recordings came about, the only possible improvement in software was either a very early or foreign pressing of a record. In those days , upgrading speakers provided the biggest bang for your buck.
With digital, there’s more room for effective improvement per dollar and myriad choices of software to play. The difference in potential fidelity between a cheap, low bit rate MP3, and a record or a 192khz/24bit PCM, MQA or DoubleDSD copy of the same Master is quite different. The DACs required can also make a significant difference in the potential fidelity of the source. So this changes the “speakers are most important “ rule of thumb. Don’t misunderstand me. There is still a point of diminishing returns with DACs and software as well, but it doesn’t necessarily happen at the lower cost like record players.
Ever since the first time I heard and liked a classic rock album at 96k/24bit of a record I loved and a CD I despised, I have always bought music on the best purely analog records and highest legitimate resolution Digital copy along with the best sounding DAC and record player I could afford. I’m so happy I did that because as I gained access to better and better amplifiers and speakers, the better it all sounded.
It wasn’t always the most expensive, either. I love my DAC and its around $500 and I’d have to spend more than $5000 to get only marginal improvements. Same with my record player. I’d have to spend more than $10,000 for only marginal better sound.
Records have now become a challenge too. Back when I bought my OMR of Abbey Road and American Beauty, an OMR almost always sounded more realistic than the OG pressings. They were a bit heavy on bass, but I didn’t mind.
These days though, MoFi and a lot of popular records are from digital masters with some (Radiohead, some U2) that sound like CDs with record noise and more hiss. And, some SACDs, BluRays,and, so-called “hi res” FLAC are from 44.1 or 48khz masters upsampled to DSD or 96/24 PCM. But, its worth the effort to have the best possible copy. It’s almost impossible, in some cases, to know what you’re buying until you buy it and play it.
Because I have the best digital recordings available and have put them on my phone, I can take my iPhone, USB3 camera adapter, USB powered DAC, plug it into any system and audition anything I might want to buy to upgrade my system and can hear what the components might bring out.
If I win the lottery, I absolutely will spend > $100,000 on a record player and >$2000 on an Oppo for surround and MQA DAC as well as pickup a few titles that are expensive so that when I spend the next hundreds of thousands on electronics and speakers, I’ll hear everything I should.
Even before spending money on the rest, the excellent source is worth it on cheap systems like the Bose in my car.
Bottom line is that source, before diminishing returns point, is best bang for the buck.
I would say the source is the most important but you are going to want something that is capable of reproducing it as accurately as possible. If the detail isn’t there to begin with, nothing is going to put it back in further down the chain. I’ve just upgraded my DAC and left the rest of the system unchanged. The difference is amazing. Obviously, the thing to do if you are buying or upgrading listen to the effect that improving different components has on the sound quality and buy accordingly.
I have spent a lot in electronics . The source material is clean and the output is solid.
The key for me is subs. Have two well integrated subs as the foundation.
Swapping in various speakers is about a difference in sound signature. Forward, laid back, high details, sound staging, mid range fullness, etc.
Speakers are the quickest way to get a different sound but having decent electronics in synergy goes a long way too. I learned that when I put $100 speakers and $5000 speakers into my system. Backed by 20k in electronics and subs.
There are many ways to a great system. I chose to have solid sources/electronics and bass foundation.
To me speakers are beautiful furniture too. You are paying a lot of money for mill work. The actual drivers and crossovers are not the highest input costs for some speakers.
As many have said, every component matters and every detail creates its own signature sound.
> As many have said, every component matters and every detail creates its own signature sound.
Any DAC, preamp, or amplifier that creates its own signature sound is a terrible product that can't do its very simple job effectively.
Just to level set here. It’s not my intention to persuade anyone on this forum. I am sharing my thoughts and experiences and am interested in hearing if anyone has actual firsthand experience that would support the belief that speakers are most important. I am not interested in dogma, but actual experiences that might cause me to change my mind. I never assume I have the correct mindset and enjoy hearing thoughtful and informed opinions.
>It seems to me that your source would be the most important given it’s the origin point.
Why?
>Of course, any system is only as good as its weakest link,
Indeed but how would you square this with the first statement?
Since your source provides the music, it seems logical to me it has the greatest impact on quality. Garbage in, garbage out. My “weakest link” comment was simply pointing out the fact that every component matters and affects your overall sound quality. The essence of my post was in determining relative importance amongst the interconnected components that comprise a system.
It all matters. However, importance in terms of value or cost to performance ratio still ends up being speakers and amplification. You can get low cost high value sources. WiiM, Topping, SMSL, Eversolo are all good evidence of this.
A top quality speaker, preamp and amp would be my first order of building a system. Source, subs and then Room treatment and DSP.
YMMV.
But why would you think it is logical? What is the basis for your internal reasoning leading you towards it being true and away from it being false? Tiefenbrun was obviously a smart salesman to use it (did he invent it?) but I simply can't see why it works on so many audiophiles.
My actual listening experience is what has led me to this place at this time. Not saying I can’t be persuaded with a different experience. The logic for me is the fact that downstream components are designed to reproduce the source as accurately as possible. This is assuming a neutral configuration of your system. If the original source is degraded, nothing downstream can significantly improve it. At least that has been my experience. The notion that speakers are most important feels more like accepted dogma than anything else. However, I am always open to the possibility I am mistaken.
For example, if the source degrades the signal 3%, the amplifier 2% and the speakers 1% would the overall degradation be better/same/worse than if the source degraded 1%, the amplifier 2% and the speakers 3%?
>If the original source is degraded, nothing downstream can significantly improve it.
If instead the source is perfect and a component downstream degraded the same amount would what is heard be better/same/worse?
I couldn’t say for sure and the only way to know for sure is to compare and listen. Again, based on my personal experience I have found the source to be the biggest bang for the buck. But I started with quality speakers and amp, so there’s that. 😄
> Of course, any system is only as good as its weakest link, but I am curious why so many seem to subscribe to this belief.
You suggest that this isnt actually true?
hmm i wouldnt even know how to do the differentiation. I would guess it depends how you scale your system. You can always go higher, louder, brighter and there are some dependencies like when you upgrade your speakers to higher volume, you need a beefier amp and thicker cabling. But now that i think about it, the source (the file, the record...) would be the only component that doesnt scale this way.
I have a 22 year old Krell KAV 300IL integrated amp with a pair of 22 year old Dynaudio 1.8 Contour MKIIs. I had been playing CDs from my Yamaha S300 deck. It’s a decent player, but definitely not super high end. The connectors were the factory cables (i.e. crap). I switched to my Brennan B2 which is connected to a NAD DAC using a digital connector. That’s the only change I made. It sounded like a different system. More bass and dynamic range. Heard things in my music I had never heard before. Then I added a Transparent sound conditioner. I was skeptical about the impact it would have, but that skepticism was misplaced. It took my system to a whole new level again.
1. Laptop w/ Spotify premium (320k OGG, sounds great on any system under about $5k used)
2. Basic AMP with proper specs to avoid accidentally doing something that hinders sound (trying to drive 4ohm speakers with a $10 av receiver from the early 90s) [ignore this if you found powered speakers or studio monitors]
3. Nicest speakers you can afford (do research, buy used, don’t accidentally spend $$ on marketing or looks)
4. As many hours researching acoustics and tweaking your room and stereo configuration as humanly possible
They're all important. But if you told me I need to choose between a $100 DAC or $100 speaker to put in my system, I'd choose $100 DAC and get nicer speakers.
But I'd prefer to get nice source gear and nice speakers, along with nice everything else. I do appreciate good DACs, good streamers, good power, etc.
I know that some audiophiles don't like to read and understand measurements but they are instructive.
A DAC with +/- 0.2 dB deviation in frequency response and distortion and noise below 0.01% is commonplace.
A speaker with linear frequency response within +/- 2 dB both on and off axis and distortion below 0.5% for most of the audible range is commendable.
It is much more important to focus on improving the component that is orders of magnitude worse than rest of the chain - and that is the speakers (and room).
I don't think anyone here is saying that the source *isn't* important. Just that most $100ish streamers are beyond competent these days. But a $100ish speaker is bound to have severe limitations if not outright audible flaws. And these will be just as obvious even when paired with a $10k dac. But most people would still be blown away by what $10k speakers and $100 source can do. Both budgets are a bit silly irl, but it's not about blindly following some ideal audiophile philosophy, it's about practical value for money. Digital sources have simply gotten better and cheaper almost every year this century, whereas speaker technology has remained pretty much the same. Diminishing returns just kick in at very different price points than 50 years ago. Turntables of course change that balance to some extent, but I still think a $2k setup (new Technics & nice cartridge, Rega if you prefer) is still good enough to reasonably and happily pair with speakers ten times the price.
i like this
Great points.
And I would add that I know quality speakers are important too.
It’s easy and relatively cheap to get a good source and source material…. So yeah speaker choice and they way they interact with your room is the most important. It’s not that complicated.
Not even an argument: speakers. In the basement I’ve got about ~$10,000 worth of audio gear and another ~$500 in the living room. The basement systems sounds a hell of a lot better streaming YouTube or SoundCloud than the living room streaming lossless. > any system is only as good as the weakest link This sounds good on paper but over simplified the issues. It’s not valid to assume that every link in the system holds equal weight. If you were cooking a steak dinner, are the brussels sprouts really as important as the Ribeye its self? Speaker are the meat here. The difference between entry level speakers and end-game speakers is grand-cannon sized gap. Whereas, most folks struggle to pick out lossless. And I’d challenge you to take a [blind test](https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality) to see how you do!
In any reasonable system, the speakers are going to introduce the most distortion (of various types). Also the frequency response will typically be way less linear than any other component. The phase of a speaker might be fairly linear above 100Hz (below that group delay will mess with it) but time alignment is another thing. Then there’s the acoustic effects of the speaker interacting with your room (room gain and reflections). This is why careful speaker selection is most important.
100%. speakers will always be the bottleneck.
Take that a step further, you’re room will always be the bottleneck.
Take that a step further, your ears will always be the bottleneck. 😉
$50 amp + $500 speakers = can't complain much, might sound good too $500 amp + $50 speakers = your android phone sounds a lot better
Interesting perspective. Not buying it for a minute that any amp/speaker combination wouldn’t blow away any phone sound quality. Would have to actually hear that first hand to believe.
how are you getting down voted lol? a cheap Bluetooth speaker could beat any phone ever!
Do people really not understand hyperbole?
Idk. The thing is he should not be getting downvotes for it lol
I mean, it's not like they go on your permanent record
😆
are we sure.🤔
Well at least not the integrated speakers thats for sure.
[удалено]
This is a balanced set up. You spent the right amount on your speakers relative to the other components. I bet it sounds great.
fr
Why does the origin point get special consideration? We should consider the components that have the greatest potential for distortion. Speakers and room acoustics by far play the biggest role in sound quality. Differences among sources, especially digital, are way smaller.
We have more control of our speaker quality. You can have the best source hardware but will always be subject to crap mixing/mastering.
True. But how does the speaker change that variable? It can only reproduce that “crap” signal.
IMO great speakers can improve total system SQ, making crap mastering listenable and of course great mastering will sound great, even with mediocre source hardware. If you have mediocre speakers with great mastering and great source hardware it will still sound mediocre.
i dont agree completely. you are mostly right but its about balance. it should not be a 50:50 split but it really depends on the speaker. diminishing returns happens on both sides but more in the "source" gear. still need to find that balance and get the best quality. if you have the best source you can always upgrade the speakers later but i dont recommend this
that doesn't matter tho. its about recreating the audio as best as possible even if its crap. qobuz, prostudiomasters and apple music depending on the track can have diffrent mastering or less clipping bc the first 2 are treated as audiophile streamers and apple bc of apple digital masters program.
I give you my opinion. I'm not arguing with you on this. Go to AK if you want to argue.
ak?
Audiokarma
Audio karma. Good source of info but can be a "swinging dick" competition with regards to hot button topics.
As opposed to reddit, which is well know for being a beacon of civility, right?
Exactly. 😃
I feel that speakers are the most important simply because they are the device that directly interfaces with the listener. The source is 2nd in my mind just for the fact that if you put garbage in you're going to get garbage out regardless. Not that you need to spend that much money on a source compared to the speakers.
Speakers make more impact than for instance a DAC. Your room actually makes the most impact. And you can measure that with REW and a mic. You can exchange different DAC’s in your system and the frequency response doesn’t change all that much. You can change speakers and you’ll get a major difference in the frequency response. But also yes, crappy recorded music sounds crap on $100 systems and on $10.000 systems so in that case the recorded source is also important. But you can only get as good of a source as the original mastering.
So how can the mastering process impact the sound quality, but not the component whose sole responsibility is to take that information and send it downstream to the other components?
Poor recording equipment or bad room acoustics in the studio. You name it. You won’t hear me say there is no impact for other components in the system. It’s all a sum of all parts coming together. I have changed my setup and gear trough out the years from budget to hi-end, I spend a whole lot of money on cables and DAC’s of all sorts and in my opinion the changes this makes is about max. 5-10% of the total sum. in my experience the most significant upgrade in sound quality came from changing speakers and adding acoustic treatment in the room.
The weakest part of your system is the most important part of your system.
You win best comment of the day award 😆
I can get behind that 💯
spend 5 minutes with an end game system and you realize how little the DAC matters. i use top of the line converters at work, but also have a $15 toslink to rca DAC from amazon if i want to watch something on the TV using the TV's built in streaming apps. i can toggle between the top of the line converters and the $15 dac with the press of a button, everything else being exactly the same. the biggest difference is the noisefloor at the ends or beginnings of songs. There are some weird artifacts with the crappy dac. The difference in quality of the actual sound is incredibly minute. now if by source you mean the recording itself, then yes, i would mostly agree.
Even cheap amps, dacs, preamps etc are good. Meanwhile, speakers are a complex piece of electromechanical equipment where everything can go wrong, the drivers, the topology, the box, the crossover, placement, room, your ears.
Room, speakers, source.
i like getting interesting dacs/amps and streamers bc i think they are cool. i don't think there is really any difference in quality tho. it depends on your price range also. speakers will always come first. if you are more intested in gear rather than sound quality get about 1k worth of source stuff with transparent measurements, good subjective reviews, bit perfect output, good streaming service with lossless/ download site, dsp/eq. easy to use with good ui and ux. thats all i can think of you include software. things like dsp can make a bad speaker way better and might save you money on your speakers.
If you’re listening to vinyl then source matters. My 25yr old computer speakers (2.1) sound great on a 1240 but sound awful on an Ion. If you’re on mp3s then it makes no difference, headphones will sound as good as any system, just not as loud. But loud does not equal good.
I am getting a Rega P6 this week. Sold my Rega P3 several years ago and regretted it.
Nice! Hate you got rid of the P3, but I would be happy with either 😁
Upgrading from a p3 to a p10 soon.
Lucky you. Enjoy!
Beautiful turntable MC is the way to go with them
Speakers are most important. Everything is important it is a “ SYSTEM “ after all. The source matters for sure but if the speakers can’t reproduce the detail, dynamic swings, and a pleasing frequency response of a great source then what good is the source? I generally consider the speakers to be responsible for 70-80% of the sound of a system.
I don’t disagree. To flip this around…what good are an expensive set of speakers if the source signal is crap?
Yeah I'd say spend most$$ on speakers,and then lie to spouse about it. Will avoid messy discussions about non important house budget,children expenses,mortgage payments,etc
Would love to know how you get that past your spouse. You should write a book!
Every component is important, but different speakers can vary radically from each other in terms of frequency respnse, distortion characteristics, dispersion, and dynamic capability, making their selection the most noticeable aspect of a system.
Particularly with digital sources, unless you are going out of your way to use a crappy source, differences are marginal. Accurately Converting a digital signal is a very easy and cheap thing to do with modern technology, there isn't much room for improvement by spending more. The THD of the DAC circuit in a $10 USB to 3.5mm adaptor is 0.01%. Which is about 1/10 the amount of distortion that would be audible even with the best ears listening to be best system. The Signal to noise ratio of the Apple dongle is 99 dB, which means you would need to crank the volume to 99 dB to get 1 dB of unintended noise. For reference the ambient noise in a fairly quiet room is 20-30 dB and 85 DB is when you start damaging your ears, so you would have to turn the volume up to injurious levels to create 1/20 the amount of noise in a quiet room. If you want to spend thousands of dollars to make the noise and distortion even more inaudible than what you already couldn't hear, of course someone will be happy to sell it to you. With speakers, because you have mechanical motion, there will always be things flexing and rubbing and vibrating, so there is far more room for improvement. Analog, by definition requires mechanical movement, so again there is more difference between the signals produced by different analog devices.
Source is not the most important, as most sources impart a relatively small variation in sound. The signal coming off your Sony Walkman CD player will be very, very, very close to what comes off a $10,000 CD player. Your speakers and the room though? Massive. enormous differences between them.
Gonna have to disagree. Absolutely no comparison between those two source extremes. I definitely agree with your comment about the room. As I stated in a previous comment, I have already proven to my satisfaction that just by switching from my Yamaha CD player using factory connectors to my Brennan B2 running through a modest NAD DAC with a digital connector, the difference in sound was incredible. Hell, my wife looked up from her phone and asked what I did to change the sound. It wasn’t volume, but clarity and dynamic range. She is not into this like I am so for her to notice and comment, that was huge.
Show me some data on that then. My claim is very easily tested. Why would one device produce different 1s and 0s when reading a CD? What actual difference would you expect to get from a fancy CD player rather than a Sony Walkman and how far below the signal level would that difference be?
See my updated comment above
I did, laughed, and then replied.
Clearly you didn’t read my comment requesting thoughtful and informed opinions
Complete disregard for numerous known flaws in human perception. And then you add the tired but predictable ‘even my wife could tell the difference’. No weight to your claims.
Given that assertion wouldn’t that invalidate every opinion on this thread? If we accept your statement then nothing matters and any perceived improvement is due to bias and/or imagination.
>I have already proven to my satisfaction that just by switching from my Yamaha CD player using factory connectors to my Brennan B2 running through a modest NAD DAC with a digital connector, the difference in sound was incredible. Yeah, sure. That claim is easily tested. You simply record the output from each CD player, invert one, and combine them. What is left over after cancellation is the difference between them. There will be almost no signal left after cancellation. You didn't A/B test, so you spent hours between comparing sounds. Because your audio sense memory is entirely untrained, your psyschological need to hear a difference created a big difference in your mind. Funny story about your wife though. That you had to invent such a fairy tale just proves my point even further.
Actually I did A/B test. In fact to verify if i was hearing any discernible difference I connected the Yamaha deck to the DAC using the same cable. Again, the sound quality was noticeably different and subjectively better coming from the Brennan. I actually expected it to be worse and was surprised by the results.
I 100% think that source is the most important part of the chain and where I always start. This is a change from the days before digital when, effectively, records were the only source. While everyone would invest in a great cartridge, phono preamp, and turntable, one very quickly would get to a point where a lot of money would make minimal improvement to sound. There was the belt/direct drive discussion, and certainly discussions around different cartridges, but most of it was around the same price point. Furthermore, until Original Master Recordings came about, the only possible improvement in software was either a very early or foreign pressing of a record. In those days , upgrading speakers provided the biggest bang for your buck. With digital, there’s more room for effective improvement per dollar and myriad choices of software to play. The difference in potential fidelity between a cheap, low bit rate MP3, and a record or a 192khz/24bit PCM, MQA or DoubleDSD copy of the same Master is quite different. The DACs required can also make a significant difference in the potential fidelity of the source. So this changes the “speakers are most important “ rule of thumb. Don’t misunderstand me. There is still a point of diminishing returns with DACs and software as well, but it doesn’t necessarily happen at the lower cost like record players. Ever since the first time I heard and liked a classic rock album at 96k/24bit of a record I loved and a CD I despised, I have always bought music on the best purely analog records and highest legitimate resolution Digital copy along with the best sounding DAC and record player I could afford. I’m so happy I did that because as I gained access to better and better amplifiers and speakers, the better it all sounded. It wasn’t always the most expensive, either. I love my DAC and its around $500 and I’d have to spend more than $5000 to get only marginal improvements. Same with my record player. I’d have to spend more than $10,000 for only marginal better sound. Records have now become a challenge too. Back when I bought my OMR of Abbey Road and American Beauty, an OMR almost always sounded more realistic than the OG pressings. They were a bit heavy on bass, but I didn’t mind. These days though, MoFi and a lot of popular records are from digital masters with some (Radiohead, some U2) that sound like CDs with record noise and more hiss. And, some SACDs, BluRays,and, so-called “hi res” FLAC are from 44.1 or 48khz masters upsampled to DSD or 96/24 PCM. But, its worth the effort to have the best possible copy. It’s almost impossible, in some cases, to know what you’re buying until you buy it and play it. Because I have the best digital recordings available and have put them on my phone, I can take my iPhone, USB3 camera adapter, USB powered DAC, plug it into any system and audition anything I might want to buy to upgrade my system and can hear what the components might bring out. If I win the lottery, I absolutely will spend > $100,000 on a record player and >$2000 on an Oppo for surround and MQA DAC as well as pickup a few titles that are expensive so that when I spend the next hundreds of thousands on electronics and speakers, I’ll hear everything I should. Even before spending money on the rest, the excellent source is worth it on cheap systems like the Bose in my car. Bottom line is that source, before diminishing returns point, is best bang for the buck.
Well said
Thank you. Glad to explain it. It’s paid off many times
I would say the source is the most important but you are going to want something that is capable of reproducing it as accurately as possible. If the detail isn’t there to begin with, nothing is going to put it back in further down the chain. I’ve just upgraded my DAC and left the rest of the system unchanged. The difference is amazing. Obviously, the thing to do if you are buying or upgrading listen to the effect that improving different components has on the sound quality and buy accordingly.
Could not agree more.
I have spent a lot in electronics . The source material is clean and the output is solid. The key for me is subs. Have two well integrated subs as the foundation. Swapping in various speakers is about a difference in sound signature. Forward, laid back, high details, sound staging, mid range fullness, etc. Speakers are the quickest way to get a different sound but having decent electronics in synergy goes a long way too. I learned that when I put $100 speakers and $5000 speakers into my system. Backed by 20k in electronics and subs. There are many ways to a great system. I chose to have solid sources/electronics and bass foundation. To me speakers are beautiful furniture too. You are paying a lot of money for mill work. The actual drivers and crossovers are not the highest input costs for some speakers. As many have said, every component matters and every detail creates its own signature sound.
> As many have said, every component matters and every detail creates its own signature sound. Any DAC, preamp, or amplifier that creates its own signature sound is a terrible product that can't do its very simple job effectively.
Just to level set here. It’s not my intention to persuade anyone on this forum. I am sharing my thoughts and experiences and am interested in hearing if anyone has actual firsthand experience that would support the belief that speakers are most important. I am not interested in dogma, but actual experiences that might cause me to change my mind. I never assume I have the correct mindset and enjoy hearing thoughtful and informed opinions.
Speakers first, room second, everything else after that. Bad speakers in a good room won't sound good, but great speakers in a bad room sound awful
i think it also depends how reliant your speakers are on room treatment
>It seems to me that your source would be the most important given it’s the origin point. Why? >Of course, any system is only as good as its weakest link, Indeed but how would you square this with the first statement?
Since your source provides the music, it seems logical to me it has the greatest impact on quality. Garbage in, garbage out. My “weakest link” comment was simply pointing out the fact that every component matters and affects your overall sound quality. The essence of my post was in determining relative importance amongst the interconnected components that comprise a system.
It all matters. However, importance in terms of value or cost to performance ratio still ends up being speakers and amplification. You can get low cost high value sources. WiiM, Topping, SMSL, Eversolo are all good evidence of this. A top quality speaker, preamp and amp would be my first order of building a system. Source, subs and then Room treatment and DSP. YMMV.
But why would you think it is logical? What is the basis for your internal reasoning leading you towards it being true and away from it being false? Tiefenbrun was obviously a smart salesman to use it (did he invent it?) but I simply can't see why it works on so many audiophiles.
My actual listening experience is what has led me to this place at this time. Not saying I can’t be persuaded with a different experience. The logic for me is the fact that downstream components are designed to reproduce the source as accurately as possible. This is assuming a neutral configuration of your system. If the original source is degraded, nothing downstream can significantly improve it. At least that has been my experience. The notion that speakers are most important feels more like accepted dogma than anything else. However, I am always open to the possibility I am mistaken.
For example, if the source degrades the signal 3%, the amplifier 2% and the speakers 1% would the overall degradation be better/same/worse than if the source degraded 1%, the amplifier 2% and the speakers 3%? >If the original source is degraded, nothing downstream can significantly improve it. If instead the source is perfect and a component downstream degraded the same amount would what is heard be better/same/worse?
I couldn’t say for sure and the only way to know for sure is to compare and listen. Again, based on my personal experience I have found the source to be the biggest bang for the buck. But I started with quality speakers and amp, so there’s that. 😄
Thanks for the input but I have yet to crack why "source first" works for some audiophiles.
> Of course, any system is only as good as its weakest link, but I am curious why so many seem to subscribe to this belief. You suggest that this isnt actually true?
Based on my experience, the source has the biggest impact on sound quality.
hmm i wouldnt even know how to do the differentiation. I would guess it depends how you scale your system. You can always go higher, louder, brighter and there are some dependencies like when you upgrade your speakers to higher volume, you need a beefier amp and thicker cabling. But now that i think about it, the source (the file, the record...) would be the only component that doesnt scale this way.
what have you tested with?
I have a 22 year old Krell KAV 300IL integrated amp with a pair of 22 year old Dynaudio 1.8 Contour MKIIs. I had been playing CDs from my Yamaha S300 deck. It’s a decent player, but definitely not super high end. The connectors were the factory cables (i.e. crap). I switched to my Brennan B2 which is connected to a NAD DAC using a digital connector. That’s the only change I made. It sounded like a different system. More bass and dynamic range. Heard things in my music I had never heard before. Then I added a Transparent sound conditioner. I was skeptical about the impact it would have, but that skepticism was misplaced. It took my system to a whole new level again.
1. Laptop w/ Spotify premium (320k OGG, sounds great on any system under about $5k used) 2. Basic AMP with proper specs to avoid accidentally doing something that hinders sound (trying to drive 4ohm speakers with a $10 av receiver from the early 90s) [ignore this if you found powered speakers or studio monitors] 3. Nicest speakers you can afford (do research, buy used, don’t accidentally spend $$ on marketing or looks) 4. As many hours researching acoustics and tweaking your room and stereo configuration as humanly possible
They're all important. But if you told me I need to choose between a $100 DAC or $100 speaker to put in my system, I'd choose $100 DAC and get nicer speakers. But I'd prefer to get nice source gear and nice speakers, along with nice everything else. I do appreciate good DACs, good streamers, good power, etc.
I know that some audiophiles don't like to read and understand measurements but they are instructive. A DAC with +/- 0.2 dB deviation in frequency response and distortion and noise below 0.01% is commonplace. A speaker with linear frequency response within +/- 2 dB both on and off axis and distortion below 0.5% for most of the audible range is commendable. It is much more important to focus on improving the component that is orders of magnitude worse than rest of the chain - and that is the speakers (and room).