I absolutely agree.
First among equals: order of importance of the audio chain links
- Thread starter JohnA
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
I absolutely agree.
Bernard
Well-known member
You lead a charmed life; I have but one CD player. In any case, if a recording sounds like crap on a CD player that does not makes eveything sound like crap, is it not likely that the recording will sound like crap on every player ?
Agreed, but my point was that the room and speakers have to be considered as one.
Agreed. My first system, when I was a poor student, consisted of a Thorens TT, a Crown preamp, a power amp I built made from 2 power amp modules, and Radio Shack speakers (I was a poor student, so don't laugh). When it came time to upgrade, it seemed ludicrous to buy the latest and greatest Linn Sondek while retaining the "Realistic" speakers, so instead I bought a Quad 303 and Quad ESL 57s.
I don't understand this point at all? Why do they have to be considered as one? That is like saying the amp and preamp have to be considered as one. You can put the same speakers in different rooms. You can put different speakers in the same room. You can change the acoustics of the room any number of ways to get different sound from the same speakers. Why do you say they have to be considered as one?
Most people are going to treat an upgrade to room acoustics as a separate issue from an upgrade in speaker model. And it is separate. The perfect acoustic treatment in a room for one speaker setup may not necessarily be the perfect acoustic treatment for another speaker setup. Room acoustics will react differently to each speaker model you put in the room, and each speaker model will react differently to room acoustics of different rooms.
Indeed I do, but not because of the CD players
My point was that they all sound differently, even when the digital output goes through the same DAC.
Interestingly the least glamorous of all (part of a DVD recorder) measures the best error-correction/tracking of all. What disks skip or sound funny on the others, play with no problem on this one.
Even if the same speakers can sound very different in the same room?
Rich, If I may jump in here with what I 'think' Bernard is saying or at least what my 'take' is.
When one looks at the room and speakers as one, that in itself becomes 'synergy at it's best'
You can apply the same logic as well to the pre-amp and amp, and for that matter the ideal moment of 'synergy' is when ALL components in the chain become one and we then have as close a representation to "live" as possible in our own rooms.
I know I've run the "Synergy" discussion and this one together but it just seemed to 'fit'
Amen, I'm done !!
Last edited:
amey01
Well-known member
Unfortunately, the room IS needed (to keep our systems from the sun, rain, humidity, etc). In that case, it nearly always has a negative effect on the sound.
Bernard
Well-known member
That was my point, especially since you cannot separate the speakers from the room the way you can separate the preamp from the power amp. You can speak about the sound of a preamp independent of everything else, but you can only speak about the sound of a speaker in the context of the room in which it was listened to.
My Take:
The room is the most important because a bad (or even ‘less good’) room will hide most changes you can do upstream. Even if you do hear a difference between amp A and B, a system in a bad room means you’re only hearing a fraction of the possible differences.
After doing all my room treatments (and I’m still not 100% done) recently, I can vouch for the impact of a correctly designed room and the acoustic treatments used as having the absolute, hands down largest impact on the perceived sound.
Now, would a Bose system in my newly treated room sound better than my system did in the less treated version? No, no way.
But the treated room would improve any system one would put in it; more so for the higher caliber systems.
I omit the recording because in my view, a systems job is to as accurately as possible reveal whatever (good or bad) is on the recording. So they are two, very distinct things to me.
- Room
- Speakers
- Preamp-processor
- Source
- Amp
The room is the most important because a bad (or even ‘less good’) room will hide most changes you can do upstream. Even if you do hear a difference between amp A and B, a system in a bad room means you’re only hearing a fraction of the possible differences.
After doing all my room treatments (and I’m still not 100% done) recently, I can vouch for the impact of a correctly designed room and the acoustic treatments used as having the absolute, hands down largest impact on the perceived sound.
Now, would a Bose system in my newly treated room sound better than my system did in the less treated version? No, no way.
But the treated room would improve any system one would put in it; more so for the higher caliber systems.
I omit the recording because in my view, a systems job is to as accurately as possible reveal whatever (good or bad) is on the recording. So they are two, very distinct things to me.
They are all important and anyone can ruin an otherwise good system but I put them in the order that I regard as making a difference or potentially hold-back a system from performing optimally. This is of course, all system dependent.
1. The Room - Has the most overall impact on the sound. Can allow a system to sound its best or make even the best system sound bad. Room acoustics are very very important and treatments can often be a great value in improving the performance of system. Nearly every room has it own unique "voice", some good many not so good. A bathroom is horrible but fortunately I have no plan to install a system there.
2. Speakers - Of all the components, they probably are the largest variable when it comes to sound reproduction, resolution or coloration of sound. Various manufacturers, models and types of speakers can sound very different from each other. More so than any other component.
3. Source - The resolution of sound gets no better after leaving the source component although every component or cable along the way can potentially and easily degrade the signal as it passes through.
4. Amp - First off they have to be a good match in regards to power requirements of the speaker to perform optimally. Even so, most do have different sound characteristics.
5. Preamp - Just like amps, some just sound better than others or at least differently and some are just very transparent which isn't a bad thing at all. A preamp can potentially screw-up the signal. A good preamp supports and compliments the amp.
6. Cables - I find cables to have an impact on the overall performance and do have different "voices" or sounds and some that I have tried don't seem to change anything according to my ears. They make an impact but a relatively small one. When above items are taken care or working together pretty well the system is more resolving and allows to hear more subtle changes in the system including cables. It makes little sense to me to invest in cables in a effort to improve sound performance when the room acoustics are poor.
7. Resonance devices including racks, stands, spikes, isolation devices etc. - Vibrations cause electronics to induce sounds in the signal that shouldn't be there. Resonance effects the final signal to the speaker and certainly the speaker itself I would take care of the above first so you have a better chance of hearing the effects of taking care of any resonance issues.
Recordings are not at the bottom or top of the list because they are the reason for the system in the first place. How can it get any better than the recording that is being played back? If anything, I would include it as part of the source.
Just my opinion based on my experiences and readings. Healthy feedback, constructive criticism and knowledge sharing is encouraged.
1. The Room - Has the most overall impact on the sound. Can allow a system to sound its best or make even the best system sound bad. Room acoustics are very very important and treatments can often be a great value in improving the performance of system. Nearly every room has it own unique "voice", some good many not so good. A bathroom is horrible but fortunately I have no plan to install a system there.
2. Speakers - Of all the components, they probably are the largest variable when it comes to sound reproduction, resolution or coloration of sound. Various manufacturers, models and types of speakers can sound very different from each other. More so than any other component.
3. Source - The resolution of sound gets no better after leaving the source component although every component or cable along the way can potentially and easily degrade the signal as it passes through.
4. Amp - First off they have to be a good match in regards to power requirements of the speaker to perform optimally. Even so, most do have different sound characteristics.
5. Preamp - Just like amps, some just sound better than others or at least differently and some are just very transparent which isn't a bad thing at all. A preamp can potentially screw-up the signal. A good preamp supports and compliments the amp.
6. Cables - I find cables to have an impact on the overall performance and do have different "voices" or sounds and some that I have tried don't seem to change anything according to my ears. They make an impact but a relatively small one. When above items are taken care or working together pretty well the system is more resolving and allows to hear more subtle changes in the system including cables. It makes little sense to me to invest in cables in a effort to improve sound performance when the room acoustics are poor.
7. Resonance devices including racks, stands, spikes, isolation devices etc. - Vibrations cause electronics to induce sounds in the signal that shouldn't be there. Resonance effects the final signal to the speaker and certainly the speaker itself I would take care of the above first so you have a better chance of hearing the effects of taking care of any resonance issues.
Recordings are not at the bottom or top of the list because they are the reason for the system in the first place. How can it get any better than the recording that is being played back? If anything, I would include it as part of the source.
Just my opinion based on my experiences and readings. Healthy feedback, constructive criticism and knowledge sharing is encouraged.
Last edited:
DTB300
Well-known member
IMO - Room optimization and room treatments for the home enthusiast really has not blossomed or become affordable until the last year or two. Most who did this in the past had big $$$ to have a room designed and built from the ground up.
Bernard
Well-known member
I always owned a room of some kind for my system. It gets kinda cold here in Eastern Canada listening to your system out in the open air, especially this time of year.
How many of you optimized your system before you owned a room of any kind?
tonepub
Senior Member
I had the luxury to start with the room, and it's really helped to have a good room... I did all of my stuff by ear and common sense to start, got it measured (with a good idea where I still had a couple of problems) and the measurements confirmed what I was hearing.
I few more tweeks and I was on my way! Still a few little things, but the couple of thousand bucks I spent on the room did way more than buying expensive cables, etc.
I see it all as incremental. If you can do as much as you can do to your room first, it will be a lot easier to hear the other things you will try. Vibration control and expensive cables for me are the last things to do, because they offer the least gain for the most money, but will still take a great system a few more steps if you land on the right combination...
I few more tweeks and I was on my way! Still a few little things, but the couple of thousand bucks I spent on the room did way more than buying expensive cables, etc.
I see it all as incremental. If you can do as much as you can do to your room first, it will be a lot easier to hear the other things you will try. Vibration control and expensive cables for me are the last things to do, because they offer the least gain for the most money, but will still take a great system a few more steps if you land on the right combination...
Dreamer
Classified Forum Moderator
MAn, this is a tough one. There are just so many variables, and so many "well in MY system..." situations...
But I'd say that the room is probably first in order of importance. I don't care how pristine the recording is, how great your speakers are, or how "true" the cabling is, if the room has wonky acoustics, ANY system will sound rough in it.
I'd probably put the recording second. I've heard some really fantastic recordings sound like crap because of system issues, and I've heard some FANTASTIC systems sound dicey because of bad recordings (well, the systems actually sounded "true" to the recording--GI-GO...)
After that, I'd lean towards an "all things being equal" stance--if all the parts of your rig are of equally high quality, AND syergistically matched, then once the first two issues (room and recordings) are taken care of, the system should sound pretty good.
I've heard some pretty inexpensive speakers sound as good as speakers costing 100 times more, when driven by a high-end set of amps and a good front end (case in point: Radio Shack Minimus 7's--the biggest "sleeper" in the audio world!) and I've hard some pretty good speakers (my Sequels) sound like they were broken when driven by amps that weren't up to the task (a Tandberg and a NAD) or front end gear that just didn't have the resolution or weren't synergistic with the rest of my gear (Sony NS-3100ES DVD player, several NAIM CD players), and I've heard cables in my system that just DID NOT sound right as well (home-made speaker cables, a few AudioQuests, Monsters of several types, Audio Metallurgy).
Granted I've got by no means a "reference-level" rig, but I know what sounds good in my system and what doesn't. Some gear and cables make things sound better, some make it sound worse. It's all about synergy I think.
Also, there is a large "subjective" facet to audio system design as well. Some people like the "big, airy soundstage" sound that Martin Logans give you--some people prefer the pinpoint soundstage location of "cone" drivers. Some folks like the laid-back, refined, highly detailed resolution of "Brit gear" like Rega or Meridian CD players, others might prefer the all-out detail of a Krell or Wadia digital front end. Some folks might prefer the warm, tubey sound of Carver or ARC amps, others like the more clinical sound of Krell or Bryston.
So I think it ultimately comes down to what you as an individual like, and what you can actually hear with your ears. If cranking a Boston CD on your Sony, Technics, or Yamaha rig brings goosebumps to your arms, then more power to you. If you need to have gear that cost more than some people's houses to bring mist to your eyes, then so be it.
My sweety would be perfectly happy with a pair of small Bose bookshelf speakers, a Sony receiver, and factory cables. She appreciates the way my current rig sounds, (she especially likes the AKG K-701's coupled with the Benchmark DAC1) but she doesn't NEED a rig of this quality and resolution to really ENJOY the music like I do. On lesser systems, I just can't enjoy the music, even if it's a great recording of a performer I love--in fact, the more I like a recording, the more demanding I tend to be of the rig playing it. I've been to some of my non-audiophile friend's houses, and to be honest, I can't hardly stand to listen to their stereos as anything more than low-level background music at a party.
Does that make me a "golden-eared audio snob"? No. It just means that I have set very high standards for my own listening experiences. If I tell them that their systems suck, THEN I'm being a snob. But if I tell them that the Oppo or Blue Jeans cables would really improve the sound of their stereo, I think I'm actually improving their quality of life. (or does that just make me a sort of "high-end drug peddler" or a "vector for infectious Joey-itis"?!?)
Just my opinion, brothers and sisters. Take it for what it's worth...
--Richard
But I'd say that the room is probably first in order of importance. I don't care how pristine the recording is, how great your speakers are, or how "true" the cabling is, if the room has wonky acoustics, ANY system will sound rough in it.
I'd probably put the recording second. I've heard some really fantastic recordings sound like crap because of system issues, and I've heard some FANTASTIC systems sound dicey because of bad recordings (well, the systems actually sounded "true" to the recording--GI-GO...)
After that, I'd lean towards an "all things being equal" stance--if all the parts of your rig are of equally high quality, AND syergistically matched, then once the first two issues (room and recordings) are taken care of, the system should sound pretty good.
I've heard some pretty inexpensive speakers sound as good as speakers costing 100 times more, when driven by a high-end set of amps and a good front end (case in point: Radio Shack Minimus 7's--the biggest "sleeper" in the audio world!) and I've hard some pretty good speakers (my Sequels) sound like they were broken when driven by amps that weren't up to the task (a Tandberg and a NAD) or front end gear that just didn't have the resolution or weren't synergistic with the rest of my gear (Sony NS-3100ES DVD player, several NAIM CD players), and I've heard cables in my system that just DID NOT sound right as well (home-made speaker cables, a few AudioQuests, Monsters of several types, Audio Metallurgy).
Granted I've got by no means a "reference-level" rig, but I know what sounds good in my system and what doesn't. Some gear and cables make things sound better, some make it sound worse. It's all about synergy I think.
Also, there is a large "subjective" facet to audio system design as well. Some people like the "big, airy soundstage" sound that Martin Logans give you--some people prefer the pinpoint soundstage location of "cone" drivers. Some folks like the laid-back, refined, highly detailed resolution of "Brit gear" like Rega or Meridian CD players, others might prefer the all-out detail of a Krell or Wadia digital front end. Some folks might prefer the warm, tubey sound of Carver or ARC amps, others like the more clinical sound of Krell or Bryston.
So I think it ultimately comes down to what you as an individual like, and what you can actually hear with your ears. If cranking a Boston CD on your Sony, Technics, or Yamaha rig brings goosebumps to your arms, then more power to you. If you need to have gear that cost more than some people's houses to bring mist to your eyes, then so be it.
My sweety would be perfectly happy with a pair of small Bose bookshelf speakers, a Sony receiver, and factory cables. She appreciates the way my current rig sounds, (she especially likes the AKG K-701's coupled with the Benchmark DAC1) but she doesn't NEED a rig of this quality and resolution to really ENJOY the music like I do. On lesser systems, I just can't enjoy the music, even if it's a great recording of a performer I love--in fact, the more I like a recording, the more demanding I tend to be of the rig playing it. I've been to some of my non-audiophile friend's houses, and to be honest, I can't hardly stand to listen to their stereos as anything more than low-level background music at a party.
Does that make me a "golden-eared audio snob"? No. It just means that I have set very high standards for my own listening experiences. If I tell them that their systems suck, THEN I'm being a snob. But if I tell them that the Oppo or Blue Jeans cables would really improve the sound of their stereo, I think I'm actually improving their quality of life. (or does that just make me a sort of "high-end drug peddler" or a "vector for infectious Joey-itis"?!?)
Just my opinion, brothers and sisters. Take it for what it's worth...
--Richard
Similar threads
