Is the source the most important aspect of a sound system?
- Thread starter esc0bar
- Start date
Ron Pilgrim
Well, whadya say, Pilgrim
no doubt about that, I was using extreme examples to illustrate a point. Now, if we take your hypothetical system and upgrade the source, the result will be even better.(a budget source that punches above its weight is still a better source)
Benzlo
Joyfully Addicted
A bad set of speakers or a bad amp will make the best sounding source sound like crap. Speakers are the most important.....duh.
This sums up my point of view better than anything I've said.
There is no 'source'. A CD player by itself doesn't make music. A cartridge by itself doesn't make music. The source is the format..LP or CD. After that, there is your system and each and every part is as important as the next. The CD player interacts with the preamp, and the amp, and through that, the speakers, pretty much simultaneously. If we all could agree on good sound, they could even put all those things in one big box (a really big boombox?) and that box would be 'the source'.
rifftrax
mix-meister
Herein is the most important issue. There is a world of difference between even the most seemingly similar speakers in many cases. The difference between two transports/dvd players/cassette decks/tuners on the other hand can be extremely extremely difficult to spot.
The output from my Pioneer PD-405 sounded spot on identical to that of my BSR MCD-8000 (cd players). There was effictively not a lick of difference I could tell even A/B'ing on a pair of Beyer-dynamic DT-770 through some decent amplification stages. Try to find 2 similarly priced speakers from different manufacturers that sound "identical" and you are in for a pretty rough time. I would also agree that any time you are dealing with a change of "energy-state" involving a transducer is when it is most key to have precision components and parts because the most loss of information is likely to occur at such a stage.
This sums up my point of view better than anything I've said.
There is no 'source'. A CD player by itself doesn't make music. A cartridge by itself doesn't make music. The source is the format..LP or CD. After that, there is your system and each and every part is as important as the next. The CD player interacts with the preamp, and the amp, and through that, the speakers, pretty much simultaneously. If we all could agree on good sound, they could even put all those things in one big box (a really big boombox?) and that box would be 'the source'.
WHAT????
This sums up my point of view better than anything I've said.
What piont of view,.....it's crap!!!!!
There is no 'source'. A CD player by itself doesn't make music. A cartridge by itself doesn't make music. ,......DUH!!!!
IT's where YOUR amp gets the signal to amp,,...HEEELLOWWW
Then,....where dose the signal/music come from?????,......oh,....that CD
I add this to my PRE-AMP,...to go to my AMP,...to my Speakers,..
.
There is no 'source'. A CD player by itself doesn't make music. A cartridge by itself doesn't make music. The source is the format..LP or CD. After that, there is your system and each and every part is as important as the next. The CD player interacts with the preamp, and the amp, and through that, the speakers, pretty much simultaneously. If we all could agree on good sound, they could even put all those things in one big box (a really big boombox?) and that box would be 'the source'.
WHAT????
This sums up my point of view better than anything I've said.
What piont of view,.....it's crap!!!!!
There is no 'source'. A CD player by itself doesn't make music. A cartridge by itself doesn't make music. ,......DUH!!!!
IT's where YOUR amp gets the signal to amp,,...HEEELLOWWW
Then,....where dose the signal/music come from?????,......oh,....that CD
I add this to my PRE-AMP,...to go to my AMP,...to my Speakers,..
.
Last edited:
Arkay
Lunatic Member
This topic will never disappear, it seems. Round and round we go, like musical chairs, and with every post of every thread, someone else is the one temporarily left without a seat.
Let me try to focus a few thoughts on this subject:
1. Yes, you cannot (with current technology) improve on the signal from a source. You can sometimes make it sound better, though. For example, if your original recording has an overly-pronounced midrange, then a cable, amp or speaker that subdues the midrange somewhat, and lets more of the highs and lows through, may make the overall balance seem better. The result can subjectively sound better. However, it hasn't really improved things, because what you really have accomplished is simply to remove some of the sound that was originally there (from the midrange). The old adage remains, "garbage in, garbage out", even if you make the garbage a little tidier. So in a broad theoretical sense, the source could be considered the most important component.
2. However, that does not necessarily mean that in the real world, the source is the area we should focus most on, or even spend the most on. A system is just that: a system. All components must work together. The speed with which a signal moves through a system may be considered as instantaneous, much as the light we see when we switch on a lamp is, effectively, instantaneous. All parts affect the sound. If you doubt this, take any really outstanding system, and replace just one cable on each channel with, say, a piece of string. Now how does it sound? You just lost 100 percent of your sound quality, from just cable! Does that mean that cables are the most important part of the system? They are, if one or two of them are just pieces of string!
3. In practical terms, then, the most important part of YOUR system --that is, of any given system you are considering-- is whatever component is the "weakest link", the one that is holding back the other parts of the system the most. It is the one which, when it is replaced or upgraded, makes the biggest positive impact on the final sound. In one system, perhaps an outstanding, highly revealing system, it may be the original recording, whose weaknesses are clearly audible. In another system, it might be the pre-amp, or even the cables.
4. BUT in MOST systems, especially digital ones, it is likely to be the speakers. I've heard far greater differences between speakers than between any other components, in systems that were otherwise the same. When Yamaha introduced the NS-1000 monitors, they declared it "the end of the weak link", for precisely this reason: speakers are usually the weakest link in an audio system, the one place where the biggest improvement can be found when upgrading.
5. It is still true that, with truly outstanding, revealing speakers, the source flaws will be evident, and the importance of the source will be revealed. But those same recordings that sound flawed, would not sound so with lesser speakers, and even the best sources cannot sound truly superb without outstanding speakers. Both are important: good speakers can distinguish between good and bad sources, and better sources will sound better through virtually any speakers. But speakers are where the biggest real-world improvement can usually be found in most systems.
6. Let any one component be substantially inferior to the others in a system, and the decrease in sound quality will be evident (but no where else as much as with speakers), so in a particular system, any "weak link" component can be said to be the most important part of that system. Just remember the strings for cables!
7. The reason we focus on the beginning and end of the chain --sources and speakers-- is, as has been said, because they are where energy is converted from mechanical or sonic vibration to/from electrical; these are the transducers, where the highest demands are being placed and where the most room is for flaws to be introduced. They are the most difficult parts to make well and good. Amplifiers in-between can alter the sound in varying ways, but --at least among the better ones-- tend to alter it much less than either cartridges or speakers.
8. Don't forget the importance of the listening environment, or even the listener him/herself, to the overall equation. If someone is partially deaf, they become arguably "the weakest link". Perhaps an equalizer or hearing aid could be the "most important" component in a system for someone with imparied hearing.
9. Ultimately, this whole discussion is a bit silly, as a system cannot function without each of its parts functioning in some degree of harmony (pun intended
) with the others.
Let me try to focus a few thoughts on this subject:
1. Yes, you cannot (with current technology) improve on the signal from a source. You can sometimes make it sound better, though. For example, if your original recording has an overly-pronounced midrange, then a cable, amp or speaker that subdues the midrange somewhat, and lets more of the highs and lows through, may make the overall balance seem better. The result can subjectively sound better. However, it hasn't really improved things, because what you really have accomplished is simply to remove some of the sound that was originally there (from the midrange). The old adage remains, "garbage in, garbage out", even if you make the garbage a little tidier. So in a broad theoretical sense, the source could be considered the most important component.
2. However, that does not necessarily mean that in the real world, the source is the area we should focus most on, or even spend the most on. A system is just that: a system. All components must work together. The speed with which a signal moves through a system may be considered as instantaneous, much as the light we see when we switch on a lamp is, effectively, instantaneous. All parts affect the sound. If you doubt this, take any really outstanding system, and replace just one cable on each channel with, say, a piece of string. Now how does it sound? You just lost 100 percent of your sound quality, from just cable! Does that mean that cables are the most important part of the system? They are, if one or two of them are just pieces of string!
3. In practical terms, then, the most important part of YOUR system --that is, of any given system you are considering-- is whatever component is the "weakest link", the one that is holding back the other parts of the system the most. It is the one which, when it is replaced or upgraded, makes the biggest positive impact on the final sound. In one system, perhaps an outstanding, highly revealing system, it may be the original recording, whose weaknesses are clearly audible. In another system, it might be the pre-amp, or even the cables.
4. BUT in MOST systems, especially digital ones, it is likely to be the speakers. I've heard far greater differences between speakers than between any other components, in systems that were otherwise the same. When Yamaha introduced the NS-1000 monitors, they declared it "the end of the weak link", for precisely this reason: speakers are usually the weakest link in an audio system, the one place where the biggest improvement can be found when upgrading.
5. It is still true that, with truly outstanding, revealing speakers, the source flaws will be evident, and the importance of the source will be revealed. But those same recordings that sound flawed, would not sound so with lesser speakers, and even the best sources cannot sound truly superb without outstanding speakers. Both are important: good speakers can distinguish between good and bad sources, and better sources will sound better through virtually any speakers. But speakers are where the biggest real-world improvement can usually be found in most systems.
6. Let any one component be substantially inferior to the others in a system, and the decrease in sound quality will be evident (but no where else as much as with speakers), so in a particular system, any "weak link" component can be said to be the most important part of that system. Just remember the strings for cables!
7. The reason we focus on the beginning and end of the chain --sources and speakers-- is, as has been said, because they are where energy is converted from mechanical or sonic vibration to/from electrical; these are the transducers, where the highest demands are being placed and where the most room is for flaws to be introduced. They are the most difficult parts to make well and good. Amplifiers in-between can alter the sound in varying ways, but --at least among the better ones-- tend to alter it much less than either cartridges or speakers.
8. Don't forget the importance of the listening environment, or even the listener him/herself, to the overall equation. If someone is partially deaf, they become arguably "the weakest link". Perhaps an equalizer or hearing aid could be the "most important" component in a system for someone with imparied hearing.
9. Ultimately, this whole discussion is a bit silly, as a system cannot function without each of its parts functioning in some degree of harmony (pun intended
) with the others.
Last edited:
#1 - the health of your ears (good single malt scotch can help this).
#2 - speakers, because this is what you hear. Buy the best you can afford and this choice will be the limiting factor of your system.
After this its not so easy to detemine because it depends on what you choose for #2, but #3 is to make sure you have an amp that compliments the speakers.
#4 - is the preamplifier and source combination. You can't seperate these two in your decision as their sound depends on each other directly.
#2 - speakers, because this is what you hear. Buy the best you can afford and this choice will be the limiting factor of your system.
After this its not so easy to detemine because it depends on what you choose for #2, but #3 is to make sure you have an amp that compliments the speakers.
#4 - is the preamplifier and source combination. You can't seperate these two in your decision as their sound depends on each other directly.
marc mc
Super Member
I think the speaker first guys should have to state what sources they have owned first and foremost. I mean I get the feeling from these guys that say $5K CDP's sound like their oppo dvd players, that they have never heard a 5K CDP. And whats the point of yattering on about TT's vs speakers when your expierence is defined by budget TT's with $100 carts? that you "think" sound "almost" as good as a Linn? Because they do not sound anything like a Linn! which of course you don't know because you haven't heard a Linn.
So why don't you guys who are speakers first state what your "source" is and has been.
BTW has anyone ever noticed that the guys who believe in "source first" own killer speakers as well? I have.
marc mc
So why don't you guys who are speakers first state what your "source" is and has been.
BTW has anyone ever noticed that the guys who believe in "source first" own killer speakers as well? I have.
marc mc
Last edited:
Rybeam
Super Member
I use a $45 Philips CD/DVD player on my system and it sounds great. A 30 plus year old Dual with a Shure M97xe, not exactly high end, sounds wonderful. I run these through a re-capped Pioneer SX950, nothing special. The sound comes out of Bozak Symphony's, they are the system, speakers make the system. IMO
rifftrax
mix-meister
I have a Marantz DV7000, Denon DA-500, Adcom GCD-575 and Lucid ADA-1000.
Have owned MOTU MKII2408, Zero 24/192 DAC - other pro audio interfaces.
Those items are no Linn but the Marantz retailed for a grand, as did the Lucid converter I believe and the Adcom was around $500 (IIRC). I have MIT and aural thrills interconnects and Monster cable powerline 300 IEC running to a massive Topaz Line 1 conditioner then on to multiple perma power voltage regulators. I'm a big fan of keeping the signal path clean but I will always believe speakers have the most impact per money spent. I would gladly use a first gen. PS1 as a source with multiple thousand dollar speakers. I would not use a Burmester cd player with $40 speakers on the other hand. Think about it. If you want to get into "gear envy" e-penis competition then you will always find someone with a different opinion who's gear stomps all over what you think is your 'ultimate reference system'. I wouldn't go throwing a sole argument by authority position like that.
Have owned MOTU MKII2408, Zero 24/192 DAC - other pro audio interfaces.
Those items are no Linn but the Marantz retailed for a grand, as did the Lucid converter I believe and the Adcom was around $500 (IIRC). I have MIT and aural thrills interconnects and Monster cable powerline 300 IEC running to a massive Topaz Line 1 conditioner then on to multiple perma power voltage regulators. I'm a big fan of keeping the signal path clean but I will always believe speakers have the most impact per money spent. I would gladly use a first gen. PS1 as a source with multiple thousand dollar speakers. I would not use a Burmester cd player with $40 speakers on the other hand. Think about it. If you want to get into "gear envy" e-penis competition then you will always find someone with a different opinion who's gear stomps all over what you think is your 'ultimate reference system'. I wouldn't go throwing a sole argument by authority position like that.
Last edited:
marc mc
Super Member
I have the feeling that the "speaker" first guys are confusing the amount of difference with importance of difference. Meaning, yes speakers make the biggest difference in sound. But the "source" first guys are saying that source makes the most important differences in sound. And to them if fidelity to the original is the goal of audio! then the source has to be accurate and though the signal at that level is smaller, it's more important. Because an accurate speaker playing an inaccurate signal in the long run won't satisfy them.
Of course changing speakers around with a Dual TT will cause the sound to change, even radically change. But I can't listen to a Dual TT through any of them. The first song and I would be saying "dude you need a better turntable" Because people with better sources all they will hear is the clarity of a poor source through good speakers. And the guy with great speakers that has never owned a good source will only hear the best speakers he has owned so far. And then we argue about what we hear on forums.
marc mc
Of course changing speakers around with a Dual TT will cause the sound to change, even radically change. But I can't listen to a Dual TT through any of them. The first song and I would be saying "dude you need a better turntable" Because people with better sources all they will hear is the clarity of a poor source through good speakers. And the guy with great speakers that has never owned a good source will only hear the best speakers he has owned so far. And then we argue about what we hear on forums.
marc mc
mrt2
Super Member
The tone of your post suggests you think some of us are coming at the problem ignorant of what a great source can do, and I think that is uncalled for.
But since you asked:
I currently have two digital sources up and running: an Arcam Alpha 7 and an Arcam CD192, and a ProJect 1.2 with Grado cart. I have also heard $5,000 universal players and $5,000 turntables, as well as budget sources driving more expensive electronics.
Part of my perspective comes from having switched out sources and amplifiers with the same speakers. So for example, having switched between the 192 and the Alpha 7 in the same system, Arcam Delta 290 amp and Linn speakers, I would say the 192 sounds better, but not radically so. By comparison, I noticed a much larger difference switching amps between the Arcam amp and an old Kenwood KA 6100, than I did switching between a 12 year old cd player that retailed for $700 and a 1 year old player that retailed for $1,700 new.
Now I have a friend who ignored my advise about matching amp and speakers first, budgeting a little less for a quality source. She spent equal amounts on source and speakers, about $1,500 to $1,600 each, and skimped on amplification, sticking with an old Harmon Kardon receiver from the 80s. Her system sounds OK, but her room is a little large and she really needs a powerful amp to driver her Dynaudio speakers. I felt like I have better synergy with my system, even though I have no doubt her speakers are better than mine, and she has the same source as I do.
dogscanskate
Super Member
Are you saying that you feel her better Dynaudio speakers would surpass your lesser Linns if it was fed by a better, more powerful amplifier?
You are making the point I have been trying to make all along
!
Speakers are very important and room dependant as we all know. I'm just happy to see that they deserve a better amplifier to fill that room.
As for cdp's and their related discs, depending on which kind of music you listen to, I would guess the limiting factor is the compression we find on discs now (popular music of course) sadly. On a really well mastered disc, there would probably be a wider gap between the 2 cdp's you own but mind you, there are very good cdp's that are affordable and that do better more expensive machines. Even quality playback is not necessarily related to cost, there are gems out there that outperform many high priced units.
You are making the point I have been trying to make all along
! Speakers are very important and room dependant as we all know. I'm just happy to see that they deserve a better amplifier to fill that room.
As for cdp's and their related discs, depending on which kind of music you listen to, I would guess the limiting factor is the compression we find on discs now (popular music of course) sadly. On a really well mastered disc, there would probably be a wider gap between the 2 cdp's you own but mind you, there are very good cdp's that are affordable and that do better more expensive machines. Even quality playback is not necessarily related to cost, there are gems out there that outperform many high priced units.
Last edited:
jn229
Super Member
I am and always will be a front end guy. This does not mean if I had $5000.00 I would spend the most on the front end. The speakers would demand the majority of the budget. But, the premier component, the one I most trust for its accuracy, its faithfulness to the original performance, would be the source. So for $5000.00 the speakers would be around 2000.00 the amps 2000.00 and the CD player 1000.00. Remember $1000.00 will buy a better CD player then $2000.00 will buy in speakers. If your buying used, there are no rules except cost, chance and reputation.
The above is only my opinion.
The above is only my opinion.
mrt2
Super Member
Are you saying that you feel her better Dynaudio speakers would surpass your lesser Linns if it was fed by a better, more powerful amplifier?
You are making the point I have been trying to make all along
Speakers are very important and room dependant as we all know. I'm just happy to see that they deserve a better amplifier to fill that room.
Yes, that is the point I am trying to make. A little off topic here, but she invested in source and speakers and basically budgeted nothing for amplification.
While I was glad to see my friend willing to invest in good speakers, synergy is very important. The Dynaudios are somewhat demanding, both in drawing current and in terms of overall efficiency. That is their tradeoff. For relatively compact bookshelfs, they can fill up a large room and go relatively low, but you need a good amp, like 100 wpc of high quality amplification for them to sound their best.
Instead of going for the more expensive source, my advise (sadly was not followed) would have been to buy the less expensive digital source, for aroud $300 to $600 retail, and budget $1,000 to $1,200 or so for a better amp then the old Onkyo, which is not really up to the task of driving relatively inefficient speakers in a larger room.
dogscanskate
Super Member
She could have gone for the more expensive source, a better amp and maybe a more modest speaker system, that's what I would have suggested.
We are getting the idea that great speakers demand the best ancillary equipment to feed them properly.
We are getting the idea that great speakers demand the best ancillary equipment to feed them properly.
TejasRichard
Babies taste of chicken..
Man, I think some people need to take a step back. Where is all this aggression coming from? If you look back at the original post, and the follow-ups by the original poster, it is obvious he was asking a specific question in order to make a better decision about a possible purchase, not a hypothetical question looking for nebulous answers. How did we devolve to what amounts to name-calling (even if it is just by implication) and posturing? What happened to "all audio, no attitude" ? I'm all for debate and discussion, but we can do that without getting nasty. So far, it seems there has been a tendency in this thread to set up whole villages of little straw men, which have been categorically knocked down, stamped on, spit at, and I even think I saw someone carrying a can of gasoline...
Lets try this fairly:
Assuming components of equal quality (no gpc players paired with martin-logans, etc),
which part of the chain is likely to make the GREATEST degree of change if it is exchanged for another of the same type of component in the same price range (IE one $500 dollar set of speakers for another vs one $500 CD player for another)
The problem with this question seems to me to be that there is no way to quantify these changes. How does one quantify how much change happens when going from a $500 set of speakers to a $5000 set? It has been established many times that the relationship is NOT purely arithmetical in nature. So,if there is not , currently, a way to quantify the change that happens within a single component change, how can we expect IN ANY WAY to effectively communicate to someone else the ratio between 2 different component changes (IE a-b vs c-d).
The whole thing is just silly. Which is better, a $5000 CD player, or $5000 speakers? It is a null question. It has no meaning because the only basis for comparison is the value of change it would impart to the system, which was just stated to be unquantifiable. It comes back to the bottleneck mentioned earlier in the thread, everything will only sound as good as it's weakest component allows. It doesn't matter how much better your new source is if your speakers aren't up to showing the difference, which means you have wasted your money. On the flip side, if you're speakers are too much better than the components, you will be reminded of the fact every time you turn your system on. And there's that word again: system. All parts have to work together.
You can more easily define the value each component has within the system if you talk about building from the ground up rather than the impact changing any one component will have on the whole. I don't think anyone here would espouse spending 99% of your budget on the source an splitting the 1% between all the rest of the components, at least not if you're talking about what an average person has to spend (with a budget of $1000000, I'm sure if you spent $900000 on a 'table you could probably spend $100000 on the rest of the components and be reasonably happy, lol! but try this with $1000 dollars and see what happens)
In a way, it all comes down to diminishing returns. Which component has a steeper diminishing returns slope? At what point do the changes become subtle? Contemporary wisdom has it that the slope starts sooner for electronics than it does for speakers, but for me to comment on that would simply be hear-say. In the price-bracket that I operate in, there is definitely a larger change-relative-to-price between speakers, but, for all i know, it may be that speakers have the steeper drop-off where electronics, while starting the diminishing-returns slope sooner, may have a shallower slope. Again, for me, this is all just speculation. However, if this is the case, there are a whole lot of people getting SERIOUSLY burned on speakers, cause a slope that steep would imply virtually NO difference between a $1000 set and a $10000 set. Given that the original poster is asking about a PS3 as a audio/video source, I think we can assume he isn't in the $5000 component crowd. Using only that choice of source as the basis for component expense, I would think he is also still in the range where speakers would make the most difference. No, strike that. It is still subjective. Which is more important: the ability of the source to present an uncolored signal, or the ability of the system to pass the signal uncolored? It is circular and dependant on the person you ask. "Which is more important, to have a signal free of jitter (or tape hiss, if you like analogue) or accurate speakers with holographic imaging?" That's like asking: Which is better steak or chocolate pudding? Both are great, but which is better will vary according to whom you ask.
To answer the original poster's intent:
Everything I have read says that the PS3 is a fine bluray player, with excellent video and audio for the money. Also, the load-times are ultra-quick compared to almost all the other players (in some cases, literally minutes faster).
Lets try this fairly:
Assuming components of equal quality (no gpc players paired with martin-logans, etc),
which part of the chain is likely to make the GREATEST degree of change if it is exchanged for another of the same type of component in the same price range (IE one $500 dollar set of speakers for another vs one $500 CD player for another)
The problem with this question seems to me to be that there is no way to quantify these changes. How does one quantify how much change happens when going from a $500 set of speakers to a $5000 set? It has been established many times that the relationship is NOT purely arithmetical in nature. So,if there is not , currently, a way to quantify the change that happens within a single component change, how can we expect IN ANY WAY to effectively communicate to someone else the ratio between 2 different component changes (IE a-b vs c-d).
The whole thing is just silly. Which is better, a $5000 CD player, or $5000 speakers? It is a null question. It has no meaning because the only basis for comparison is the value of change it would impart to the system, which was just stated to be unquantifiable. It comes back to the bottleneck mentioned earlier in the thread, everything will only sound as good as it's weakest component allows. It doesn't matter how much better your new source is if your speakers aren't up to showing the difference, which means you have wasted your money. On the flip side, if you're speakers are too much better than the components, you will be reminded of the fact every time you turn your system on. And there's that word again: system. All parts have to work together.
You can more easily define the value each component has within the system if you talk about building from the ground up rather than the impact changing any one component will have on the whole. I don't think anyone here would espouse spending 99% of your budget on the source an splitting the 1% between all the rest of the components, at least not if you're talking about what an average person has to spend (with a budget of $1000000, I'm sure if you spent $900000 on a 'table you could probably spend $100000 on the rest of the components and be reasonably happy, lol! but try this with $1000 dollars and see what happens)
In a way, it all comes down to diminishing returns. Which component has a steeper diminishing returns slope? At what point do the changes become subtle? Contemporary wisdom has it that the slope starts sooner for electronics than it does for speakers, but for me to comment on that would simply be hear-say. In the price-bracket that I operate in, there is definitely a larger change-relative-to-price between speakers, but, for all i know, it may be that speakers have the steeper drop-off where electronics, while starting the diminishing-returns slope sooner, may have a shallower slope. Again, for me, this is all just speculation. However, if this is the case, there are a whole lot of people getting SERIOUSLY burned on speakers, cause a slope that steep would imply virtually NO difference between a $1000 set and a $10000 set. Given that the original poster is asking about a PS3 as a audio/video source, I think we can assume he isn't in the $5000 component crowd. Using only that choice of source as the basis for component expense, I would think he is also still in the range where speakers would make the most difference. No, strike that. It is still subjective. Which is more important: the ability of the source to present an uncolored signal, or the ability of the system to pass the signal uncolored? It is circular and dependant on the person you ask. "Which is more important, to have a signal free of jitter (or tape hiss, if you like analogue) or accurate speakers with holographic imaging?" That's like asking: Which is better steak or chocolate pudding? Both are great, but which is better will vary according to whom you ask.
To answer the original poster's intent:
Everything I have read says that the PS3 is a fine bluray player, with excellent video and audio for the money. Also, the load-times are ultra-quick compared to almost all the other players (in some cases, literally minutes faster).
Last edited: