Inadequacies
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12083 Registered: May-04 | . " ... the better speakers will ruthlessly reveal the inadequacies of the source." Please give your opinion of what this actually means. This is a phrase that gets bandied about on this and other forums without much meaning IMO. I believe there are more than a few listeners who really don't understand what they are hearing that is "inadequate" and what is "adequate" or could be improved upon with a better source player. The average Big Box store doesn't sell this way and won't have the facilities to demonstrate an "adequate" front end. Without sending the prospective buyer to a specialty shop - which might not exist in their locale - what does "source first" really mean to the typical buyer convinced speakers are the largest bang for the buck item? What improves with a source player upgrade and why is that important to a "better" audio system? If someone is not listening for a "deeper" soundstage or the other accoutrements of a superior source, why not buy better speakers first? Speakers do provide the largest change in the system's personality for the money spent? Saying they will reveal the limitations of the source is fine and well but doesn't truly mean much unless the buyer can hear the improvements wrought from a source player easily and in a simple demonstartion. If the listener's desires for change revolve around tight bass, clear mids and clean highs and SPL's, wouldn't that imply a speaker change is the most beneficial way to spend money? . |
|
Gold Member Username: GavdawgUpstate, New York Post Number: 1058 Registered: Nov-06 | personally, I take this as "garbage in = garbage out". But, you can also take it the source first way, that if you don't have a great source, you may not be uncovering the full potential of your system (unless it really blows). Naturally, if you hook up a pair of Theils to a Sony receiver and KLH DVD player (sarcasm), you are going to hear how bad your upstream components are. I myself do not see the point of upgrading the speakers when you know the rest of your setup is not up to snuff. IMHO, more often than not a casual listener would then assume that the speakers are at fault, and not the quality of the front end. It is amazing how many non-audiophiles think that "a CD player is a CD player, why should I pay more for this one when brand x does the same thing for half the price?" |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 9607 Registered: Dec-04 | The speakers are, indeed the biggest change you can make in a system. The speakers are the 'user interface' of the system, and the one which a lot of people relate most closely to. The speakers may also be the asthetic forefront of a system, or indeed, a room. This may matter more to some people than others, keep in mind that not everyone is able to present a kit or a room in the ideal way. For speakers to be 'revealing', they must have something to reveal. It could be the room. It could be a lousy recording, which would involve all offending parties. It could be your ears or your mood. The speakers might suck. |
|
Silver Member Username: SerniterPiscataway, New Jersey USA Post Number: 198 Registered: Mar-06 | IMO, speakers determine the end presentation. There is probably more variation in the sound of speakers than there is in amplifiers or CD players. Starting out on HiFi, I'd choose the best speaker possible for my money. Later, when I'm more familiar with the speaker, I'll focus on the inadequacies of the source and amplification. An experienced enthusiast may want to go the other way. He already knows what he's trying to build. I started with a Sony HTIB, then swapped the speakers. Fantastic! Swapping the receiver for a NAD was good, but nowhere near the difference the speaker made. Next, I tried different sources (none enthusiast-grade): There was a difference but the cost-benefit ratio the speakers provided simply wasn't there. For someone who's been using good speakers and amplification for a while, the harshness of a poor source will be immediately apparent and continuously bothersome... leading to 'source first'. I wouldn't recommend this route for a beginner experimenting by himself. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 5988 Registered: Feb-05 | What improves with a source upgrade depends on the design philosophy of the manufaturer and their design team(s) as well as the application of technology by the engineering team to meet those goals. The further up the high end ladder, generally speaking, the more likely you will get improvement in all areas what "audiophiles" cherish. Soundstage, imaging, detail etc etc are among the terms used by audiophiles to describe sound and the better they they believe a piece of gear presents these the more desirable they are. Some manufacturers specialize in a particular sound and set out to achieve it by focusing their design goals in that direction...Naim and Rega come to mind. The products one is usually going to find at Best Buy and the like are ones where just enough parts are put into the box to make it work. Yep there is a DAC and transport in a box, however no real time has been spent assuring that goals around a specific performance parameter that equals a specific sound has been met...does it work...I mean does it read the darn disc...yep...ship it. One of the reasons that auditioning gear is so important is because each manufacturer's design philosophy is like "audio seasoning", some of us like more salt and pepper than others. It doesn't mean that anyone is right or wrong it simply equates to a preference that some products are more likely than others to satisfy. An audio system is like a great dish of which to me the source is the main ingredient. The source is where the desicions around what you are likely to hear from a fine speaker are made. Once the decision around the type of sound you want to hear is made it is then that you should look for the best speaker to best bring that flavor out. Well it's early in the morning and I had 4 hours of sleep last night...can you tell...lol!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 1095 Registered: May-05 | I don't know if they would be ruthless. I've had a few decent speakers in my day and some crappy ones. I've had some decent source components and some crappy ones. I've had people listen to the mediocre source through good speakers and rave about "the sound", especially when I've used a decently recorded CD. I've had "well-qualified" people listen to the same set-up and ask about the "source" and wondered why I was using it. Typically, I've explained that it's what the wife would allow at the moment. When I've upgraded the source, sometimes is fairly noticeable but seldom as noticeable as when I've upgraded speakers. Unlike Art, I've never owned gear that was put together by one manufacturer and intended to "work right" together. I've mixed and matched with both good and bad results. However, without question, when the gear has been better, the quality of the recording is usually the first thing I notice, even more than the source, OR IS IT? I guess I can't answer that. And, I'm writing even later than Art so take it for what it's worth. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 6000 Registered: Feb-05 | I wasn't writing late my friend I was writing early after a late night...lol!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 9630 Registered: Dec-04 | Hi again Daks! |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2397 Registered: May-05 | There are people on every side of the arguement - source, speakers, and probably even amp first. IMO, they're all wrong, and all right. I'm a system balance guy. I don't think anyone should put the bulk of their money in any one area. That doesn't mean spend the same exact dollar amount on each piece, but rather each piece should be in the same class. McIntosh amplification and sources won't make RCA speakers shine. An Apex CD player feeding McIntosh amplification and Sonus Fabers will sound dreadfull. A Linn LP12 feeding an Insignia receiver driving Maggies will be a disaster. I know these are extreme cases, but you get my drift. If a component isn't up to the rest of the system, it can't be fixed by the other components in the rest of the system. A better amp won't make an inferior source better. Also, is it just me or are pre-amps the most overlooked components in a system? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 6005 Registered: Feb-05 | Retail for my main system if you were to buy it today. Turntable/Power supply/Cartridge = $2150 CD Player = $1195 Amp = $1195.00 Speakers = $1395 Cables = $1550 Balanced approach with Synergy first = Music I like that! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12099 Registered: May-04 | . Retail for my system: Turntable: $900 Arm: 400 (1984 pricing) Cartridge: 500 CD player: 1k SACD player: 1k Turntable support: Free (Picked it up off the side of the road and cleaned it up) Pre amp: 900 (1989 pricing) Component rack: 59 Amplifier: (X2) 249 (1962 pricing, they're worth what someone wants to pay in today's market) Speakers: 100 Cables: about $3 CD's and LP's a chunk I'm not sure what any of that proves. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12100 Registered: May-04 | . "McIntosh amplification and sources won't make RCA speakers shine. An Apex CD player feeding McIntosh amplification and Sonus Fabers will sound dreadfull. A Linn LP12 feeding an Insignia receiver driving Maggies will be a disaster." Since you haven't heard these combinations, I'm not certain this proves anything beyond the basic assumption that we all know how to put together a system. That's why I asked the question in the first place. We talk but generally have nothing to back up our words. If we can't state categorically that this is "better" than that, why say it to someone looking for advice? How do you know a McIntosh amplifier and good sources won't make for a quite acceptable system when paired with cheap speakers? I've got the stuff to say you're very wrong. I've heard my system with $39@pr. speakers and been very, very impressed and not just because of the $39 speakers. Friends have been impressed also. I've demonstrated $250 speakers with $15k worth of gear in front of them and found quite a different speaker than when it was hooked up to an Onkyo receiver. I've also played my LS3/5a's and Mac amplifier with a $129 Sony SACD player and knocked a few people's expectations back after they'd just spent $7k for a system. Am I suggesting this is the way to build a system? No. But I'm really asking for something more absolute than just an opinion. Tell me what you've heard, not just what you think you would hear. If we are going to advise someone to forgo cheap sources in favor of better speakers, why should they do that? What will excellent speakers show that cheap speakers won't? What will expensive sources provide when you still have cheap speakers? . |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 6007 Registered: Feb-05 | Nothing to prove, just stating a fact. I like my system and it's balance and it seems that for my room and music preferences it's just what I need. I am not finding a thing about it that bothers me at this point. I've heard a lot of combinations and generally know what I'm saying to someone who asks a question that I answer. What I can't know is what will sound good to someone else. I too have heard combos that folks would not believe to sound good as well as having setups that most folks would swear ought to be good that sounded awful..audio is interesting hobby. The more experience you get the easier it is to predict what you'll like, however it is very difficult to predict what someone else will find satisfying. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1818 Registered: Nov-05 | But I'm really asking for something more absolute than just an opinion. I'm not qualified to give an absolute, but my opinion says good speakers will be restricted by a bad source (garbage out) and cheap speakers would sound better to some degree with a good source (quality out). Unless we are talking about a specific speaker, I can't see why a cheap speaker couldn't provide a little more cleaner detail (for example) that a good source may provide. On the other hand, I can see a good speaker being restricted by a poor source that can't output that same level of clean detail, though the better speaker may bring some better qualites to the party than the cheap one like smooth out some roughness or such. That an example and the same could be said perhaps for other attributes like controlled bass, etc, etc and etc. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 6008 Registered: Feb-05 | I agree with you MR. And even more I don't think anyone is qualified to give an absolute...all we have is our opinion especially when it comes to something so subjective as audio. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12101 Registered: May-04 | . "The more experience you get the easier it is to predict what you'll like, however it is very difficult to predict what someone else will find satisfying." " ... the better speaker may bring some better qualites to the party than the cheap one like smooth out some roughness or such. That an example and the same could be said perhaps for other attributes like controlled bass, etc, etc and etc." " ... all we have is our opinion especially when it comes to something so subjective as audio." Controlled bass sounds like a good thing to have. That would seem to lean the system in the direction of the speakers first. I haven't had any "etc, etc, etc" in my system for years, so I'm not sure whether that's good or bad. So why do we keep preaching "source first"? Rantz and Art have certainly changed their systems enough to have some idea what "absolutes" they gained when each component was switched for something they felt was "better". So what did you hear? Why did you change one piece and not another? If this is all just opinion, why tell someone to change their source or their amplifier when they want to change speakers? We do it all the time on this forum. Why? We must have a good reason. What is it? We really can't just say it's out opinion and then not have a reason. Please, go back and read the o.p. Possibly suggest a demonstration someone can perform that would show the qualities of each end of the audio chain. I'd like this to be a thread that can be linked to whenever someone suggests source should be first or when speakers should be considered. And think about these two real world demonstrations that impressed groups of people in the audio business. The first demomstration of the superiority of the source was by Linn back in the 1970's. They compared a speakers first system to a source first system. The one system contained a cheap/average for the day turntable combination connected to a decent integrated amplifier and some well thought of speakers. The second system had a Linn LP12 with a good arm and fairly good cartridge running through a good integrated amplifier (Sugden?) and then into some rather inexpensive bookshelf speakers (Castle?). The audio press overwhelmingly thought the source first system was the more musically involving system. Not that long ago, Dave Wilson - the speaker designer/manufacturer - demonstrated at several audio shows his $45k Wilson Maxx II's playing through a decent integrated (Exposure?) driven by an iPod. It would appear the general consensus was the system was very good. Neither system was demonstarted merely to listeners who had no more than opinions to offer. They were shown to the professional audio writers and designers, people who make their living knowing what sounds like music and what doesn't. Wilson's demonstartion seems to have had less overall effect on the industry than Linn's but they still both make a point that seems to contradict the other. As a matter of fact, I think Wilson's message was intended to refute Linn's. I'm not arguing for or against anyone's opinion or for or against any one way to build a system. But we, as a group, repeatedly suggest one way and I'm intersted in why we do that. Have we all been convinced ourself or is it just what we do? . |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 6010 Registered: Feb-05 | Sorry, all threads are just general entertainment for me. I don't post with the thought that it will be reference material. I come here for fun...nothing more. I do the work thing for money this is purely entertainment. When I make any suggestion here it is specific to the situation and system involved and is never meant as a universal or absolute truth...always my opinion is just that, nothing more. It is an opinion born of decades of experience listening to music both live and recorded but it can never substitute for the ears of the beholder. He/she who posts with a question will always be the final arbiter of their truth. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 6011 Registered: Feb-05 | BTW Jan I remember the Wilson thing...very cool. I also had a very inexpensive Sony SACD player that to this day is the best SACD player I've owned. I believe we mentioned that in another thread recently. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1819 Registered: Nov-05 | Well. I can say with an absolute, that there were differences when I upgraded my speakers for the 602's to the Quad 22L's. But I'd only be telling differences in traits such as bass control and mid range high end smoothness. Upgrading the CD players along the way made music much more enjoyable. The system became more musical and involving with each upgrade. This is why I think source first. Speakers can add different (or better) qualities to the sound, but, in my limited experience, the better the source the sound is more musical and involving. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12105 Registered: May-04 | . "Sorry, all threads are just general entertainment for me. I don't post with the thought that it will be reference material. I come here for fun...nothing more." I don't get this. If you post on the forum it is a reference that people can look back on at any time. How can you not post with the idea it isn't permanent or relevant? If someone sees your past comments or mine or Rantz's, they are looking at a reference of what you said and thought at that time. I understand we all come here because we enjoy the forum; but I have a feeling that when some newbie asks for assistance they are not doing it solely for your entertainment, Art. I assume they really are trying to improve their system or their understanding of how audio works. It seems that if you are here, you should be willing to extend some assisitance in their quest and not just seek your own personal entertainment. That's all this thread is about. We say the same thing over and over without explanation. I would very much appreciate those members who have some experience in this matter joining in to help those who don't understand how a system works. You are here now. You should know what you've heard when you change components. You say you've heard lots of components and lots of systems. That should make you an ideal reference amongst the many on this forum who have upgraded their systems. Is there some reason you don't want to commit to a "reference" thread? . |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 6013 Registered: Feb-05 | "I don't get this. If you post on the forum it is a reference that people can look back on at any time. How can you not post with the idea it isn't permanent or relevant?" Easily...you should try it sometime, it's infinitely more relaxing I assure you..lol! "I understand we all come here because we enjoy the forum; but I have a feeling that when some newbie asks for assistance they are not doing it solely for your entertainment, Art." I don't recall having said that anyone comes here for my entertainment. I said that I come here as entertainment and I'm allowed to be entertained by whatever pleases me, same as you. I doubt you would come here if you didn't enjoy it on some level. I have been thanked many times here and through personal messages. I have helped many folks and I have enjoyed it greatly. I intend to continue, and if that entertains me..so be it. You may note that I didn't contribute to the reference music library thread either. Taking this that seriously simply makes it less enjoyable to me. It's a hobby and nothing more. I take listening to music and making sure I make time for music very seriously...audio forums are the fun and entertaining part of the hobby for me. Debates and reference threads are for people who take this far more seriously than I do and that's ok with me. I would hope it's ok with you...after all it's my life and my way of enjoying my time off from work. Now you fella's go on with your thread... I will continue to help anyone who asks a question I think I can answer and I suspect I will continue to get the many PM's that I get asking for assistance and thanking me for taking the time to reply. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 100 Registered: Oct-07 | I believe this to be a variation on the 'weakest link' idea. Most BigBox store demos start with speakers, maybe? A closely related idea is that of 'synergy' where the end result is greater than the sum of the parts. A source revealed to be bad can be said to be 'anti-synergistic'. Thats why some people have a fairly stable system for years and others make a career of 'upgrades'. A person starting out in the bigbox store is probably more interested in the 'package' than any individual idea of 'source inadequacy'. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12106 Registered: May-04 | . ""I don't get this. If you post on the forum it is a reference that people can look back on at any time. How can you not post with the idea it isn't permanent or relevant?" Easily...you should try it sometime, it's infinitely more relaxing I assure you..lol! "I understand we all come here because we enjoy the forum; but I have a feeling that when some newbie asks for assistance they are not doing it solely for your entertainment, Art." I don't recall having said that anyone comes here for my entertainment. I said that I come here as entertainment and I'm allowed to be entertained by whatever pleases me, same as you. I doubt you would come here if you didn't enjoy it on some level. I have been thanked many times here and through personal messages. I have helped many folks and I have enjoyed it greatly. I intend to continue, and if that entertains me..so be it. You may note that I didn't contribute to the reference music library thread either. Taking this that seriously simply makes it less enjoyable to me. It's a hobby and nothing more. I take listening to music and making sure I make time for music very seriously...audio forums are the fun and entertaining part of the hobby for me. Debates and reference threads are for people who take this far more seriously than I do and that's ok with me. I would hope it's ok with you...after all it's my life and my way of enjoying my time off from work. Now you fella's go on with your thread... I will continue to help anyone who asks a question I think I can answer and I suspect I will continue to get the many PM's that I get asking for assistance and thanking me for taking the time to reply." In the time it took you to post that, you could have said something useful. Thanks, Art. Enjoy yourself. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12107 Registered: May-04 | . "A source revealed to be bad can be said to be 'anti-synergistic'." What's that mean? Sorry, LS, I don't think that has any more relevance to a newbie than "inadequacies". . |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 6014 Registered: Feb-05 | LOL!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 102 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, your right, it was meant as a gentle poke at the Ann Landers mentality. You and 99% of others have said the #1 newbie useful bit of advice......Listen...... lots. I have yet to hear enough systems in enough combinations to make the statement....Speaker X (fill in blank) should not be used with Amp Y, also fill in blank. That's why I stay out of those threads. I believe there is some merit to the 'weakest link' model. A can and string in the signal chain yields bad results, even if everything else is first class. This feeds back to why some newbies feel that specs are important. Kind of like a life ring. Didn't do the Titanic people much good, but it was something to cling to. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2401 Registered: May-05 | There's no way to answer the riddle you've weaved this thread into. You ask opinions -- "Please give your opinion of what this actually means." Then state you don't want opinions, but absolute terms -- "But I'm really asking for something more absolute than just an opinion." "If this is all just opinion, why tell someone to change their source or their amplifier when they want to change speakers? We do it all the time on this forum. Why? We must have a good reason. What is it? We really can't just say it's out opinion and then not have a reason." I've suggested upgrading the source several times before speakers and other components for a very simple reason - most of the newbies here overlook it and have very weak sources. It's very typical for a person asking what speakers they should look at when they have a good amp/receiver and decent speakers, but are running a cheap DVD or CD player. "I've heard my system with $39@pr. speakers and been very, very impressed and not just because of the $39 speakers." Just because it sounds impressive to you doesn't mean it sounds impressive to everyone or anyone else. Everyone listens for different things. If I'm correct, the $39 speakers you're running are single driver DIY speakers. Single driver speakers on average are going to be far cheaper than multi-driver speakers due to less parts needed, and usually (but not always) a smaller enclosure. Add to that the DIY aspect. No one needs to be paid labor. Most designs are free and shared. No one needs to be paid every time the design is implemented. Your $39 DIY speakers would probably cost a few hundred dollars if they were mass produced and distributed. Furthermore, single driver speakers will do some things that no mutli-driver speaker will do, no matter how expensive and well designed they are. The opposite is also true. The trade offs may be right up your alley, giving you all the important qualities you like, while the areas that they lack may be unimportant to you. Personally, I like single driver speakers' cohesiveness, but can't justify using them because their lack of frequency response and control at the extremes. You most likely don't care about these as much as I do. To each their own. "Since you haven't heard these combinations, I'm not certain this proves anything beyond the basic assumption that we all know how to put together a system." How do you know this? I haven't heard every one of my for example systems, but I've heard enough systems with this approach to know what I'm talking about. I have a $50 Apex CD player lying around the house. My wife bought it a few years before we started dating. I tried it out in my NAD/PSB systems, and my current Bryston/PSB system. No other way to describe it: Awful. I've heard a $10k Linn LP12 setup feeding Linn separates, which powered $300 Linn Kans. Not very good. The Kans punch far above their weight, but not nearly far enough. I've heard a Rega Apollo feeding a NAD 320BEE, powering PSB Image T55s. The result was pretty good, but was significantly improved with better amplification, like a Bryston B60. In fact, in my system, I've tried countless cheap sources out of boredom and/or mere curiousity. Playstation 1 and 2, Apex CD player, Apex DVD player, iPod, portable Sony Minidisc player to name a few. They all sucked. None of them came anywhere near my Apollo. My 10 year old NAD changer blew the doors off of them all. Here's how - In a single word - MUSICALITY. A better source sound more like live music in a number of ways. Truer attack and decay times. Notes start and end more realistically. Far less exaggeration and smearing. Better control of frequency extremes. Better CD players go low in depth without losing control, and higher without becoming grating. Cleaner sound. Better equipment has less noise in the system. More believeable image sizes and placement. There are plenty more, this is just scratching the surface. The only way to determine the extent of these changes is to compare two different sources in the same system, with the same room, using the same music. Any other way compromises the validity of the changes. But... You can make this argument for any component. Hence my system balance approach. A chain is only as strong as it weakest link. Which brings me back to the way I stared my post - I suggest upgrading the source over other components when it's an obvious weakness and the weakest link in the chain. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2402 Registered: May-05 | Just to add... I've often asked newbies who state things like 'I liked the speakers, but not the receiver' how exactly they determined they liked one and not the other. Not a single one ahs answered me. If that's the only time they've heard, say a Paradigm speaker, how do they know that the speaker was doing the good things, and the reciever wasn't? Even better - how do they know it was the speakers and not the source. Still waiting for a newbie to answer how when they've only heard a speaker once, knew they liked the speaker and not the rest of the system. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12116 Registered: May-04 | . Just to respond ... Thanks for beginning to touch on what improvements can be expected when a source component is changed for something "better". Since that only scratches the surface, as you say, I hope you and others will continue to add to the thread. This is what I would like newbies to find when they come to this thread. Yes, you can make the argument for any component but I'm primarily interested in what changes with a source since that is a typical recommendation for this forum and usually the most difficult for a newbie to appreciate. As to opinions and absolutes, I didn't expect the request for opinions to result in so much mumbo jumbo from people who had done system upgrades. I simply assumed that anyone who had done such a swap (particularly those who had done it or heard it several times) would have absolutes they could express even if they did so as mere opinions. Yes, we all listen for different priorities but justifying a non-answer by suggesting everything is "subjective" is not much more than dodge of the original question. If everything is subjective, then there's no need for us to answer any request for assisitance. What you've provided in your post is what I was expecting and is a start on why someone might consider a source over new speakers. Do you have any ideas for a demonstration of this improvement? No, the $39 speakers were from Best Buy, mass marketed and factory produced. As I indicated I have a whole $100 tied up in my DIY's ($150 now that I've acquired a second set of drivers). The $39 speakers are two ways and not SDFR's. You might barf when you hear these speakers just as I might turn red and break out in a rash when I hear what you listen to. That wasn't the point of my post. The point was simply that you were making broad generalizations that did nothing to further the discussion of what improves with a change of source components. If balance means spending the same amount for every component, then obviously I don't agree that's a precursor to a good system. If balance means finding the synergy between components, then I certainly agree with that. But then we will have to begin a thread to describe to a newbie just what "synergy" means. . |
|
Silver Member Username: SerniterPiscataway, New Jersey USA Post Number: 199 Registered: Mar-06 | How does one define 'newbie'? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12119 Registered: May-04 | . You don't "define" newbie, you are a newbie. If you know you're a newbie and admit it, then you're probably a newbie. You might not be a total newbie and still have never heard "source first". That would make you a newbie to the idea. |
|
Silver Member Username: SerniterPiscataway, New Jersey USA Post Number: 200 Registered: Mar-06 | Thanks, Jan. I asked hoping to provide a basis from which to build a case. However, the point of this thread seems more to elucidate the differences people perceive between sources. Sadly I don't have experience with high-end sources and probably cannot contribute. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12120 Registered: May-04 | . If you have experience changing speakers, you're welcome to contribute. If you have changed from a low end source to a better source, you are welcome to contribute. You do not have to have experience with expensive components. Tell us what you've found to be true and let the reader decide what's relevant to their situation. . |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2403 Registered: May-05 | Were the $39 speakers the Insignias? I bought a pair for my brother last Christmas and gave him my old NAD 304. The Insignias can be described as impressive, but only in a few ways. They can be described as awful in other ways. I think they're a one trick pony. OK, maybe a two trick pony. They're very cohesive and soundstage better than some speakers costing a hundred times more than they do. They're very colored tonally and have problems at the top and bottom ends of the spectrum. Their biggest weakness is their cabinet noise. But that's not what this thread is all about. I never said that anyone should spend the same dollar amount. In fact, here's what I said a few posts ago - "That doesn't mean spend the same exact dollar amount on each piece, but rather each piece should be in the same class." And I still stand by that. In a Rega Brio/Apollo/R1 system, the Apollo costs almost twice the price of anything else, yet its still a very well balanced system. The Apollo doesn't outclass anything in it. But it is capable of more than the system has to offer. Metaphorically speaking, I was urging people not to put a Ford Escort engine in a Porsche 911. Nor to put a Prosche 911 engine in an Escort. Far too many people have asked about speaker and amp upgrades while ignoring the fact that they're running a low quality universal player or 15 year old Sony CD changer. As to demonstration of the improvements, its the same as any other component - Every other component in the system remains the same. The room remains the same. Take a recording that you're very familiar with, and play it through the system with a new source. Forget about the Hifi attributes that people try to describe. Just listen to the music. If it sounds great but doesn't move you, move on. If it doesn't have soul and emotion, don't waste your time. After you think you've found what it is you're looking for, keep it for about a week. Then go back to the old source. What's missing? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12122 Registered: May-04 | . "But that's not what this thread is all about." Correct. So why'd you have to go through all that? "I never said that anyone should spend the same dollar amount." Where did I say you did? What's the problem here, SP? That I asked you to stick to the subject of the thread? . |
|
Gold Member Username: Mike3Wylie, Tx USA Post Number: 1049 Registered: May-06 | I know if I run Pink Floyd Animals Track 3 - Pigs out of my DVD writer on my laptop to my system it is pretty uninspired. The mids are present but the detail is gone the soundstage is pulled back the bass and upper treble are lifeless. I just messed with this last week so the recollection if fresh. When I A/B'd my Marantz SACD/DVD DV8400 against my Samsung DVD player it blew it away sonically. The timing and presence were actually there. Then I flipped it over to 2 channel and became of the opinion that I would have to spend over $5K on a DVD player to compete with the Saturn in 2 Channel. Even the Apollo I had was so much more musical than the Marantz. The Apollo and Saturn make the Marantz sound clinical. I was also aware of the differences as I moved up from brand "X" DVD player to dedicated CD player, Denon, to better, Rotel, and again to Apollo, and again to Saturn. I have previously posted on the Apollo / Saturn A/B. So I know that source makes a difference. But I also changed out inter-connects, some with subtle differences, each time getting a little more out of the sound. Red and white RCA ends with black wire, Home Depot gold tipped RCAs, Audioquest King Cobra Interconnects, Purist Audio Elementa Interconnects, Tara Labs Air 3 Interconnects, each sounding slightly better than the last. Then the last couple, the Dareds followed by my and Jan's DIY Interconnects each which made a huge difference. Like there were no wires difference. Same for speaker wires. I was going up that food chain until I did the DIY thing there too. I started with 12 gauge twisted copper speaker wire, went the Audioquest 6 plus (or something like that) route, then a local speaker wire maker's product which wowed me for the expansion and depth it gave to my staging. Finally I settled on Jan's DIY speaker wires with my modifications. Experienced the same results as with my ICs. Yet these changes could be categorized as subtle when I compare them to the changes I made in source. Each change, except the Dareds and DIYs I had to listen for the change is sound. My source changes announced themselves immediately. My point is I know that how you connect your system makes a difference, not as much as source to me, but a difference. Let's see, I had an AVR, then an old Lexicon for a pre-amp, moved to the Creek (integrated), and finally my Rogue. And you know what, I know that the pre-amp really has an impact on your sound. In my experience I would credit the pre-amp as "cleaning" up the sound. Giving me less of anything the further up in quality I went. The AVR and Lexicon altered the sound. The Creek gave the sound its signature. The Rogue gives me texture and nothing else. Amps? Yep, AVR, Adcom, Creek, Carver, and MAC. Do they make a difference, you bet they do, why else would you go spend the money? The AVR did voice and effects ok. Music not ok. The Adcom gave me a sense of staging, some level of dynamics, but not much as I thought at the time I was using it. The Creek brought in pace and timing, but it had its signature over the music and presentation. I posted quite a bit about the refurbed Carver when I put it in. I was thrilled with it. Would have stayed thrilled with it until I tried the MAC MA 6200 (amp only). Carver was suddenly retired as I heard what I did not know I was missing when I put the MAC into my kit. That led to my MC-7300 which I have posted enough about also. The amp upgrades made less of an impression on me than the source upgrades. Speakers, JBL, MA Silver 8i's, and Gallos. The Gallos' give me better bass, cohesiveness, and upper range clarity than anything I have used. They often simply disappear while in use. Yes, speakers make a difference too. I can get into tuners but the audience for that is limited, from AVR, Yamaha Natural Sound, Carver 11b, Pioneer SX-650, to Kenwood KT-8300. I will not be upgrading from here unless I see a MAC MR-67 or 71 Tube Tuner fall off the back of a truck (and I catch it before it hits the ground). Everything can make a difference, again why else would you spend the money. Let's not forget about room treatments and the room (environment) as a whole. Moving did me wonders. So dollar for dollar, the DIY wires would win as far as most significant change, as my combined output for what I use today is about $10, not counting the sub-amp connections which are in the mix only when something drops below 35Hz. Otherwise, impact on my set-ups were; 1. Source 2. Pre-amp 3. Amp 4. Room (treatments, size, furniture, speaker and seating placement, etc.) 5. Wire, Power Cords, Interconnects 6. Speakers I have not kept most of my old gear so I cannot say how good matches with not so good but I have enough stuff around to do a good to bad or bad to good set-up. I may mess around on occasion as Stu does, but then again, most of my messing around lately is subtle tweaking. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1076 Registered: Jun-07 | Can u send me a link to the Jan/Mike DIY Interconnect cable? I would like to try it out. lol You wanna hear a horrible Source comparison? Slap a cd into a Xbox 360...then the Apollo. I threw up a little when hearing music being craped out by the 360.  |
|
Gold Member Username: Mike3Wylie, Tx USA Post Number: 1050 Registered: May-06 | https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/accessories/342576.html I modified mine by adding a strand of .999 pure silver on ICs. Also had to use variable gauges and twists on the speaker wire, including some silver, to get it right depending on the amp / speaker combo. It is not as complicated as I am making it sound. The silver gave me better top end extension and balanced the treble presence to the upper mid-range. But again that was right for my system. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1077 Registered: Jun-07 | Thanks Mike. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics