Is the source the most important aspect of a sound system?
- Thread starter esc0bar
- Start date
Chill out, dude, it's just audio. We're all just talking, there's no right answer to anything subjective. And yes, this is subjective.
mrt2
Super Member
Well, that was a possibility, but she wanted something that would sound good in a larger room, but for a relatively small sized speaker. I had suggested maybe considering looking for something good used or NOS, like the old Dynaudio audience 52, and less for the digital source, and investing more - something - in amplification.
But one could easily argue that the original signal is itself fabricated and flawed from the moment it enters a microphone, with it's own frequency response, to be manipulated by an engineer, etc etc. Why be so resolute in your allegiance to something that's not 'real' in the first place? I understand why people would be, but for some of us, the only thing that matters is making the final sound into something we find to be musical. If the tubes that are in my CD player warm up the sound a bit, and I find that enjoyable, so be it. I'm in this to listen to music, not my gear, and honestly, sometimes when I've made choices just based on fidelity, I've been unable to listen to some of my favorite songs becaue they weren't recorded well. And there will never be a day when I limit my system to some of the audiophile ear-candy that's out there. I don't want to show off how true to a signal my system is. I want it to transport me away from my couch, the stress from my job, the worries of modern life, and into the music. I honestly don't care if some of the detail that you hear in a recording that is NOT evident when you listen to live music is there. It's just as false as the warmth my speakers add to the midrange.
What about us 'whole system' guys? I feel like I'm caught in the middle.
I think this is an excellent point. I know that the first time I ever put a MoFi disk on my turntable (What else other than Pink Floyd's DSOTM???) back in 1979, the source became the most important part. It's true, too, in the digital format. Some CDs, just like many LPs were, are just poorly done. But get a disk that was engineered and produced by someone who knows what they're doing (Stan Ricker of the JVC used to be the name I'd always check for), and you're gonna have a much better chance of reaching sonic nirvana.
There are certain bands, or at least recordings of certain bands at certain points in their careers that I can't stand listening to. Is it because of the music? No. It's because the recordings were so terribly done that they're almost unlistenable. Well, to my sensitive, delicate, and highly refined ears they are (
).I have a Japanese pressing of Tommy on Polydor that rivals anything MoFi has ever put out. But I also have a late-70s vintage recording that never gets played just because it sounds like mud.
The same holds true for digital recordings. You can hear when the compression gets turned up, so to speak, rendering the music lifeless and dull.
It's definitely worth the extra money, in my book anyhow, to get high quality source material.
But I also think that the two places where you convert one form of energy to another (kinetic to electrical and electrical back to kinetic) are going to be the most critical links in the chain - once you get away from the source.
GAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! You're crazy if you think it's a good single malt scotch!!!!! It's a fine bottle of a micro-brewed IPA or it's nothing at all!!!!!!
No, no, no, wait, wait a second.... ahhhhhh, the meds kicked in.
Never mind what I was saying.
whoaru99
Epic Member
I'm thinking along the lines of what TejasRichard said.
To me, it is going nowhere to argue about which component is the most important because none work without the other, and it's all relative to what you have (or like).
It think the OP was simply asking if a different CD/DVD/BDP player would make a big improvement for him.
So, first, we must argue what constitutes a big or significant difference.
Then, we must argue whether this big difference is compared to other CD/DVD/BDP players, or compared to other components such as amps or speakers.
Personally, I have never heard a CD/DVD/BDP player that made a bigger difference in the sound than different speakers. I believe I have heard differences in CDPs, but in the big scheme of things I consider them subtle differences, others might call these same differences "night and day".
So, my take is if you want the biggest potential to improve (or merely change, if you prefer) the sound in your system, look at your speakers (and room) first.
To me, it is going nowhere to argue about which component is the most important because none work without the other, and it's all relative to what you have (or like).
It think the OP was simply asking if a different CD/DVD/BDP player would make a big improvement for him.
So, first, we must argue what constitutes a big or significant difference.
Then, we must argue whether this big difference is compared to other CD/DVD/BDP players, or compared to other components such as amps or speakers.
Personally, I have never heard a CD/DVD/BDP player that made a bigger difference in the sound than different speakers. I believe I have heard differences in CDPs, but in the big scheme of things I consider them subtle differences, others might call these same differences "night and day".
So, my take is if you want the biggest potential to improve (or merely change, if you prefer) the sound in your system, look at your speakers (and room) first.
I think this gets back to the whole source thing.
BDPs do not (yet) have a pure audio format that takes advantage of the uncompressed audio available in movie sound tracks (at least that I'm aware of).
There are, however, BDPs, like Oppo's BDP-83 that's a true universal disk player, that can play Blu Ray as well as DVD-Audio, SACD, etc...
So, in that case, the Oppo BDP allows you to play source material that's recorded in higher fidelity.
And that Oppo machine has pretty much received universal rave reviews.
BDPs do not (yet) have a pure audio format that takes advantage of the uncompressed audio available in movie sound tracks (at least that I'm aware of).
There are, however, BDPs, like Oppo's BDP-83 that's a true universal disk player, that can play Blu Ray as well as DVD-Audio, SACD, etc...
So, in that case, the Oppo BDP allows you to play source material that's recorded in higher fidelity.
And that Oppo machine has pretty much received universal rave reviews.
marc mc
Super Member
Both great points! The question that comes to mind is why bother posting in a thread like this ?
I have long been of the position that stereo is a representation, not a reproduction of live. I go to a live local show every Thursday night with my Wife and it sounds nothing like my stereos.
marc mc
Last edited:
similost
Rockin and Rollin....
Since someone else pointed out this quote.. I gotta comment.. I believe I've got killer speakers, at least to me they sound it... and I still firmly believe the speakers are more important for the sound than the source...
Think about this for a moment.. what is USUALLY the most expensive part of a really good system? Usually the speakers is where the most time is taken to choose, and the most listening done before buying, along with the most expensive part of the system..... SO.. I think that might help decide the argument..
A hard conversation if we are assume we are talking a high $ system.
My #2 system (assuming I bought them all new):
Speakers $7000
Amplifiers $3000
Line stage $4000
CDP and DAC combined $2000
Speaker cable $1000
Interconnects $500
Total $17.5K
Now assuming we do our homework and each item is best in class for the price range.
Are the source guys saying this would sound better?
Speakers $2000
Amplifiers $3000
Line stage $4000
CDP and DAC $6000
Speaker cable $1500
Interconnects $1000
Total $17.5K
I don’t think so….
What proportions of $17.5K do you think are correct?
My #2 system (assuming I bought them all new):
Speakers $7000
Amplifiers $3000
Line stage $4000
CDP and DAC combined $2000
Speaker cable $1000
Interconnects $500
Total $17.5K
Now assuming we do our homework and each item is best in class for the price range.
Are the source guys saying this would sound better?
Speakers $2000
Amplifiers $3000
Line stage $4000
CDP and DAC $6000
Speaker cable $1500
Interconnects $1000
Total $17.5K
I don’t think so….
What proportions of $17.5K do you think are correct?
Well, the thread was about blue ray players, so I really don't know why I'm posting in this thread! But I generally like to put forward my theory that it's not about the source or the speakers, but the whole system, because I honestly believe that. It doesn't matter how much you extract of the original material (LP/CD, etc), if your amps and speakers can't bring that to life in a well treated room, it doesn't matter. And if your turntable or CD player is flawed, those flaws will continue on down the line. And if all this doesn't work together, the rhythm, the timbre, the musicality goes out the window. A stereo system, as a whole, is a machine, and to focus on one part over another just doesn't make much sense to me.
I don't understand the theory of focusing so much on having a turntable and cartridge and arm that all work well together and then cutting it off at that...to separate that from the whole system and call it 'the source'...when all the musical information from that point could be thrown out the window by a preamp that robs the system of dynamics or an amp with too little damping factor to control the woofers or speakers that rob the music of it's scale and impact (which is something I think that gets too overlooked....so much effort is made to retrieve/achieve a flat frequency response, while scale/impact/dynamics are often treated as secondary, hence the popularity of small monitors.)
In the most musical system I've ever heard, the source and amps cost many times more than the speakers (which retailed for 'only' about $3000). But the speakers were designed by the person who's system it was. The entire system was set up to work as a unit, with the speakers being designed to do no harm to the signal, while maintaining a sense of reality and scale that was simply amazing to hear. And that's the way I think it should be.
I don't begrudge anybody for their opinion on this matter, and while I say I don't listen to my system, I listen to my music, that's not to say I don't think the system is important..it's how I get to the music. And that's why I post in a thread like this. I honestly feel it's about the system, and not one part.
marc mc
Super Member
I spent yesterday morning at a friends who has 20K in his TT and we listened to $1,100 Klipsch LaScala's and it was awesome. So I don't think dollar value is the point. And I don't know anyone that plays LP12's through $40 speakers but the audio lanscape seems to be full of $40 TT's and CDP's with legendary speakers and owners that think even a Rega P3 is a waste of money. Which is fine if you have even heard a P3 which it seems many have not.
The point is I have no problem with the guy that had a great source and decided a moderate one is just as satisfying. It's the life time Dual owner that thinks an LP12 is not much better who is wrong in his dogma.
marc mc
Audio_Works
Had a bad monday
If we look at it technically, loudspeakers present the most trouble. It is where we leave electrical world and go into mechanical world. And right now, after so many years loudspeakers still can't do it properly.
One can easily design a source, an amplifier with 0.001% THD levels, huge bandwidth, great efficency etc etc. What about speakers? Do u know the THD, IMD levels of speakers? And this is just keeping things simple cuz there are so so many other problems. What about efficency? 4% sounds high? Well actually it is high for speakers today.
So i say there are still "tweakings" to be done at loudspeaker department at manufacturer's R&D department as well as at our audiophile's home.
One can easily design a source, an amplifier with 0.001% THD levels, huge bandwidth, great efficency etc etc. What about speakers? Do u know the THD, IMD levels of speakers? And this is just keeping things simple cuz there are so so many other problems. What about efficency? 4% sounds high? Well actually it is high for speakers today.
So i say there are still "tweakings" to be done at loudspeaker department at manufacturer's R&D department as well as at our audiophile's home.
whoaru99
Epic Member
I believe that comes from the multichannel PCM (MPCM) soundtrack that many (or most), including PS3, BDPs can play either via HDMI or the multichannel analog outputs. Of course, the receiving processor/receiver will need to be able to handle the incoming MPCM from HDMI or will need to have multichannel analog inputs.
It's funny that you use the Dual to make the point, where I've said basically the same phrase once or twice, replacing the word "Dual" with "Advent". I don't think the guy running Advents or Dual is wrong about them, but I disagree when he tries to tell me that I can't better them, at least to my ears. Maybe to his ears, they're exactly what he wants, though.
eljr
Koyaanisqatsi
Why preamp?
One reason I've been looking into the Oppo myself is that I've heard it has a decent analogue stereo out. Solution: Get the oppo, and an Xbox 360 so I dont' have to worry about which is a better BDP.