What affects your sound the most- preamp or speakers

[JohnVF]

I took issue with John VF's opinion that "everything" made the biggest difference. That doesn't make sense. Nor does it answer your question. The Duh! was in answer to John's post.

My comment was just that synergy between all components is more important than the performance of any one link in the chain. And in my experience, that is the case. Beyond that, it's personal preference as to which matters most.

I've had excellent cartridges sound terrible when poorly matched to an arm (AT-150mlx on my VPI). I've had excellent speakers sound bad when poorly matched to an amp (Kef 103.2 on my Fisher x202b). In both of those instances, the cart and the speakers have sounded great in other systems. I've also assembled great sounding systems, and watched them fall apart when putting in a different preamp. A preamp that sounded great in another system. As I stated earlier in this thread, the preamp is more important -to me- in a system comprised of quality components. I can live with many different types of speakers, but I can't live with a sonically dead, flat, harsh sounding preamp. Same with cartridges...but of course, as was the case with the AT/VPI combo, the cart's interaction with the arm spoiled the whole sound. So the cart was very important in that scenario. But you can't say that it was solely the fault of the cart..it was the turntable it was attached to, and to some degree the phono preamp as well. They just sounded terrible together. You can't judge the quality of any component except within system it is hooked to. Run big infinities off of a low powered tube amp? Not going to work. Run Altec 19s off of a big wattage solid state amp? Probably a waste of one of their biggest strengths, their efficiency and maybe not the smoothest sounding amp for that speaker.

 

[marc mc]

I can live with many different types of speakers, but I can't live with a sonically dead, flat, harsh sounding preamp.

The key to this whole thread is that statement John. But it's just not understood. The eurika preamp moment has to occur for that statment to be understood. And as Arthur used to say once your ears are opened to something like that you can never go back. And I can't stand bad pre's no matter what speakers you use.

But the truth be told as I was saying to don in my last post. I really can't listen to a passive set up at all anymore for the same reasons. Take the upgrade to an open sounding pre and times it by 5 and thats what the jump is with active setups. Its really not even comparable. Actives are not another way of doing things like so many think. It is a completely different way of doing the whole thing. Passive upgrades are like climbing a ladder. Actives are like a rocket ship.

I've come to realise that if audiophiles had not gone the mainstream passive route that finding actives crossovers that match our cut-off needs would be one of our main concerns. I know for a fact that our hobby would be far different and we would all enjoy far better sound. I certainly know that if I had been introduced to actives at the beginning that 90% of what I did in this hobby would have never happend.

marc mc

 

[doucanoe]

But the truth be told as I was saying to don in my last post. I really can't listen to a passive set up at all anymore for the same reasons.

marc mc

In the 90's, I took my audio so seriously that my main systems retail value was approaching the 20K mark at one point. My speakers were not 40-50% of investment by the way.

I found myself knowing what I wanted out of my system but was chasing my tail to the extent that I wasn't enjoying or listening to music anymore but analyzing and critiquing every nuance it produced. At that point, It wasn't much fun anymore.

I have certainly heard a lot more passive set-ups than active, but I can honestly say that I have never heard one that spoiled my appreciation for passive. Maybe the ones I have heard have not been executed properly

I realize that this doesn't have much to do with the question at hand. Be that as it may. One thing I can say for sure is that I hope to never hear anything passive or active that would spoil my appreciation for music if it's not using the same delivery method.

I'm not excited about returning to that point in the hobby again

RC

 

[marc mc]

I have certainly heard a lot more passive set-ups than active, but I can honestly say that I have never heard one that spoiled my appreciation for passive. Maybe the ones I have heard have not been executed properly

How many actives do you think you heard?

marc mc

 

[niklasthedol]

The key to this whole thread is that statement John. But it's just not understood. The eurika preamp moment has to occur for that statment to be understood. And as Arthur used to say once your ears are opened to something like that you can never go back. And I can't stand bad pre's no matter what speakers you use.

But the truth be told as I was saying to don in my last post. I really can't listen to a passive set up at all anymore for the same reasons. Take the upgrade to an open sounding pre and times it by 5 and thats what the jump is with active setups. Its really not even comparable. Actives are not another way of doing things like so many think. It is a completely different way of doing the whole thing. Passive upgrades are like climbing a ladder. Actives are like a rocket ship.

I've come to realise that if audiophiles had not gone the mainstream passive route that finding actives crossovers that match our cut-off needs would be one of our main concerns. I know for a fact that our hobby would be far different and we would all enjoy far better sound. I certainly know that if I had been introduced to actives at the beginning that 90% of what I did in this hobby would have never happend.

marc mc

So U think active speakers will solve all compromises in the chase for nirvana in SQ?

"dolph"

 

[garww]

Mechanical motion is the weak link and that is usually speakers, unless you have those propane powered wave generators.

 

[doucanoe]

How many actives do you think you heard?

marc mc

Three of four along with one of my own. The most impressive being a hottsy tottsy Meridian system.

My point being, I guess I had better stay away from active if not excepting less would be the result of it.

RC

 

[marc mc]

So U think active speakers will solve all compromises in the chase for nirvana in SQ?

"dolph"

IMO they solve the biggest one. I understand that actives are not popular. I'm surpirsed by that but I understand it. I mean think about it, we went the passive directin as a hobby because the mainstream did.

Audiphiles take the mainstream ideas and improve them. We tweak and develop the full potential of what the mainstream chooses. And an active crossover and 2 or more amps that require set-up is not what the mainstream would ever choose. So its understandable that all these years later that the active idea is not the norm, not mainstream and not what most audiophiles have ever heard more than a few examples of. So of course its going to be downplayed and marginalized.

Dolph actives are not something that audiophiles tried and rejected because of SQ. The early legends of audio chose it and headed that direction, thats why the greatest active crossovers are from the 70's and 80's. The fact was the mainstream market would never adopt it due to complexity, not SQ.

I chose to answer your question more for fun that anything but if you read my posts again they are really directed towards John and Don. I have read enough from these guys to know that we share common priorities and I know that a small nudge and opportunty and they would be full flight active fans like myself.

You and I on the other share this planet and I imagine thats were our similarities end.

marc mc

 

[marc mc]

Three of four along with one of my own. The most impressive being a hottsy tottsy Meridian system.

Without any details its hard to know what you heard or didn't hear. I do know that overwhelming majority of statements and posts that I have read about actives are as far from my expereiences as imaginable. I even took one of my systems to a few friends places and left it there to get feedback. I wanted to make sure that I was hearing what I thought I was hearing and when I went back to pick it up they assured me that it was not my imagination.

I read a great Bob Stuart interview once. It was about designing digital speakers and he was explaining the advatages of the design development that Meridian uses and he said that all that aside his speakers get 70-80% of their performance simply because of the advantages of being active.

marc mc

 

[JohnVF]

I have contemplated going active or at least experimenting with it. The closest I've heard to a true active system is in some of the sound studios I have been in, though I rarely get a chance to know exactly what they are using as I'm usually just sitting in on sound mixing sessions. Some of them have used separate amps and active crossovers, others had powered monitors. At least one of these studios had the best system I have ever heard, though.

 

[doucanoe]

I read a great Bob Stuart interview once. It was about designing digital speakers and he was explaining the advatages of the design development that Meridian uses and he said that all that aside his speakers get 70-80% of their performance simply because of the advantages of being active.

marc mc

That could very well be true.

Keep in mind that I said the Meridian was the one that sticks out in memory as the most impressive active system I have heard. I don't however, think I would list it high as one of the most impressive systems I have heard overall.

Thats not a comment on active in general.


RC

 

[marc mc]

That could very well be true.

Keep in mind that I said the Meridian was the one that sticks out in memory as the most impressive active system I have heard. I don't however, think I would list it high as one of the most impressive systems I have heard overall.

Thats not a comment on active in general.


RC

I understood that and I'm not a meridian fan. I just thought it was humble for Bob to admit that the active advantages played such a large role when he could have attribited it all to his design work.

I should also add that actives have many meanings. My real expereince and success is in shunting bass work away from the main drivers and the amp driving them. How guys can have a hard time understanding how good their speakers sound when they are not asked to play below 70Hz is beyond my understanding. The clarity, imaging, dynamics and impact in the midrange their speakers are freed up to produce is shocking and something that you would think audiophiles would line up to get. Its miles beyond the differences in amps, cables, racks, stuff on the walls and the like.

It's funny that when you talk to guys that design electronics and understand this hobby from that side. Almost all the ones I've told about my active findings just look at you and say "well of course its better"

The thing that I find the most ironic is actives have had next to zero development in the last 20 years. I can only imagine what would have happened had the same amount of work that has gone into passives had been applied to them. I mean most of the guys that rave about actives are using crossovers that cost a couple hundred bucks. Just think if actives like John Curl's Symmetry ACS-1 were the norm.




marc mc

 

[onepixel]

I'm using a Cary Audio tube pre-amp. For the most part it's nearly transparent. Meaning it doesn't impart any "tubey" sound or anything. This may be due to having a good "front end." Rolling tubes does affect the sound some.

If everything (recording, source, cart, DAC, etc.) is equal up to the pre-amp and speakers. The speakers in "my" system makes the biggest difference.

 

[rcspkramp]

The key to this whole thread is that statement John. But it's just not understood. The eurika preamp moment has to occur for that statment to be understood. And as Arthur used to say once your ears are opened to something like that you can never go back. And I can't stand bad pre's no matter what speakers you use.

But the truth be told as I was saying to don in my last post. I really can't listen to a passive set up at all anymore for the same reasons. Take the upgrade to an open sounding pre and times it by 5 and thats what the jump is with active setups. Its really not even comparable. Actives are not another way of doing things like so many think. It is a completely different way of doing the whole thing. Passive upgrades are like climbing a ladder. Actives are like a rocket ship.

I've come to realise that if audiophiles had not gone the mainstream passive route that finding actives crossovers that match our cut-off needs would be one of our main concerns. I know for a fact that our hobby would be far different and we would all enjoy far better sound. I certainly know that if I had been introduced to actives at the beginning that 90% of what I did in this hobby would have never happend.

marc mc

I know what you mean about actives. I remember hearing Braun LV-1020s way back when and being pretty much gobsmacked. I owned PMC AML-1s for quite a while and they were truly excellent speakers. Just ran a balanced cable to them and done.

 

[doucanoe]

I understood that and I'm not a meridian fan. I just thought it was humble for Bob to admit that the active advantages played such a large role when he could have attribited it all to his design work.

I should also add that actives have many meanings. My real expereince and success is in shunting bass work away from the main drivers and the amp driving them. How guys can have a hard time understanding how good their speakers sound when they are not asked to play below 70Hz is beyond my understanding. The clarity, imaging, dynamics and impact is something that you would think audiophiles would line up to get. Its miles beyond the differences in amps, cables, racks, stuff on the walls and the like.

It's funny that when you talk to guys that design electronics and understand this hobby from that side. Almost all the ones I've told about my active findings just look at you and say "well of course its better"

The thing that I find the most ironic is actives have had next to zero development in the last 20 years. I can only imagine what would have happened had the same amount of work that has gone into passives had been applied to them. I mean most of the guys that rave about actives are using crossovers that cost a couple hundred bucks. Just think if actives like John Curl's Symmetry ACS-1 were the norm.




marc mc

I can understand and appreciate the benifits but my adventures going active with horns have been a mixed bag. The ability to drive LF with solid state amplification and HF with tube is of interest to me but I have never been able to pull it off well. I seemed to be continually chasing down hum and finally gave up on it. I'm sure I will give it another go at some point but for today, I'm content.


Just thinking about all those extra amps and additional cabling makes me break out in hives. It flys in the face of my now a day minimalist approach.

RC

 

[garww]

It doesn't have to be complicated with the bass. I fed a lux bridgable with the tape out and balanced the tone role-off on both amps. My experiment was with a lux-1070 with Jamo CBR p200 and Lux X series integrated 120w(?) and a old homemade enclosure that served many purposes depending what driver was in there.

 

[doucanoe]

It doesn't have to be complicated with the bass. I fed a lux bridgable with the tape out and balanced the tone role-off on both amps. My experiment was with a lux-1070 with Jamo CBR p200 and Lux X series integrated 120w(?) and a old homemade enclosure that served many purposes depending what driver was in there.

You have just outlined my personal definition of complicated

RC

 

[mikethebike]

Mechanical motion is the weak link and that is usually speakers, unless you have those propane powered wave generators.

Are you talking about those 'flame tweeters' I saw up in Canada back in the mid 80's? The ones that were illegal in the US? If it makes sound...it's mechanical. Doesn't matter how the sound is generated, sound is mechanical. Unless you are a TRUE audiophile and then you have a different set of physics laws that you subscribe to.

 

[garww]

You have just outlined my personal definition of complicated

RC

Ya, I'm content with my 3-way box. If it's not reproduced, then who needs it. After 35 years of fretting over little things, I see that I only care about a few things today.

 

[garww]

Are you talking about those 'flame tweeters' I saw up in Canada back in the mid 80's? The ones that were illegal in the US? If it makes sound...it's mechanical. Doesn't matter how the sound is generated, sound is mechanical. Unless you are a TRUE audiophile and then you have a different set of physics laws that you subscribe to.

As I remember it, the tweeter are much like the full-range ones I read about in Popular Science/Mechanics around that era.

I'm just suggesting that the mechanical box is the weak link, UNLESS you really reduce the sprung mass. And then, my reference to the gas fired cooker.