If you evaluate and upgrade only one component at a time, you can avoid a lot of missteps.
Finding the 'weakest link' when upgrading?
Being able to find the weakest link when upgrading is really, really important.
Otherwise a different new component may never really be able to show how it is better. Since the other ’weak’ component(s) is(are) masking the new components better sound.
This is a difficult problem.
My best example is not exactly about the least sound quality, but it may show something about it.
I upgraded a good portion of my equipment all at once when I retired. And I still had in my system an old DAC I bought used. When I received most of the new components (including new preamp, new amp, new speakers and a new turntable and cartridge), I was comparing my old DAC with the new one. And found no sonic difference. I mean I tried every way I could and could not hear any difference between them/ So either I just wasted $25,000 for nothing or?? I was very frustrated.
Anyway, after three weeks I got another new bit which had to be ordered and built
.
When I plugged in the phono box, an epiphany and a flood ot tears.. My $25,000 of new equipment really was better. Since the phono box sounded glorious, thus it made it clear all the rest of the system WAS NOT holding back the new DAC. That new DAC was actually just not any better than my old one. And I returned it.
And unless I just happened to acquire that new phono box a week later, I would have been stumped why the new DAC (which was praised to the skies by both Stereophile and TAS) was not doing better.
I was seriously bummed and confused about wasting a ton of money... until I played the new phono box.
Now it was kind of odd that the two DACs, one, used for $250 )it’ original list price was $1,000) and the other $2,400 and 12 years newer) could sound so alike. But chance happened. (And toss in the official guru magazine praise with it all)
==================================================================
Anyway, how do we find the right part to upgrade? Since making the wrong choice can leave one in the same boat I was in back in my example? (at least until I got the phono box)
I do not have an answer. and I ask.. does anyone?
For me it is just kind of a sixth sense, with little real science to it.
In general I have been kind of lucky.
But how do I know I have managed well?
I do not know.
It has been better more often than not.
(Though I have made a few really terrible choices over many years now and then. Costly choices)
Anyway, my question is how do you make the choice of what to upgrade?
How do you know or decide which is you weakest component?
And do you agree finding the weakest component is really important in the path of upgrading, or one might be making expensive mistakes buying gear, or trying gear? (which may really be great, yet you cannot hear it due to some other weak links in the chain? And though I hate to say so, this weak link may even be cables, or powercords or even the AC from the wall*.
*(but please do not get into a big theory arguments about interconnects and powercords and power conditioners.) Stick to the main topic of knowing how to find the weakest link.
Otherwise a different new component may never really be able to show how it is better. Since the other ’weak’ component(s) is(are) masking the new components better sound.
This is a difficult problem.
My best example is not exactly about the least sound quality, but it may show something about it.
I upgraded a good portion of my equipment all at once when I retired. And I still had in my system an old DAC I bought used. When I received most of the new components (including new preamp, new amp, new speakers and a new turntable and cartridge), I was comparing my old DAC with the new one. And found no sonic difference. I mean I tried every way I could and could not hear any difference between them/ So either I just wasted $25,000 for nothing or?? I was very frustrated.
Anyway, after three weeks I got another new bit which had to be ordered and built
.
When I plugged in the phono box, an epiphany and a flood ot tears.. My $25,000 of new equipment really was better. Since the phono box sounded glorious, thus it made it clear all the rest of the system WAS NOT holding back the new DAC. That new DAC was actually just not any better than my old one. And I returned it.
And unless I just happened to acquire that new phono box a week later, I would have been stumped why the new DAC (which was praised to the skies by both Stereophile and TAS) was not doing better.
I was seriously bummed and confused about wasting a ton of money... until I played the new phono box.
Now it was kind of odd that the two DACs, one, used for $250 )it’ original list price was $1,000) and the other $2,400 and 12 years newer) could sound so alike. But chance happened. (And toss in the official guru magazine praise with it all)
==================================================================
Anyway, how do we find the right part to upgrade? Since making the wrong choice can leave one in the same boat I was in back in my example? (at least until I got the phono box)
I do not have an answer. and I ask.. does anyone?
For me it is just kind of a sixth sense, with little real science to it.
In general I have been kind of lucky.
But how do I know I have managed well?
I do not know.
It has been better more often than not.
(Though I have made a few really terrible choices over many years now and then. Costly choices)
Anyway, my question is how do you make the choice of what to upgrade?
How do you know or decide which is you weakest component?
And do you agree finding the weakest component is really important in the path of upgrading, or one might be making expensive mistakes buying gear, or trying gear? (which may really be great, yet you cannot hear it due to some other weak links in the chain? And though I hate to say so, this weak link may even be cables, or powercords or even the AC from the wall*.
*(but please do not get into a big theory arguments about interconnects and powercords and power conditioners.) Stick to the main topic of knowing how to find the weakest link.
78 responses Add your response
""
If you evaluate and upgrade only one component at a time, you can avoid a lot of missteps."" That is true. But how do you KNOW which component to upgrade? Are you guessing at which one is the worst sounding of the bunch? Perhaps you are dead certain which one is the worst? Choosing the cheapest/oldest one? Picking one you want to replace because you saw a shiny new 'better' one in a review? Perhaps because you have a long term plan and you just go on down the list as you can afford to upgrade the next item on the list? You happened by accident to see something for sale at a great price and decided 'Why not'? You have a BIG pile of money to burn and buy your dream components? (I think in my 50 years as a person who owns stereo equipment.. I have used all of the above as reasons.) But what is YOUR methodology? |
elizabeth I would say unless you have what would seem to be an obvious mismatch it can frankly be impossible to tell. In fact if the system is sounding good and you're really enjoying it, perhaps there is no "weak link" per se? The potential for improvement is surely almost always there but at what cost? Monetarily and aggravation and timewise. The good news is you obviously listen to your ears, to me that's the most important step. |
""
it can frankly be impossible to tell"" I think there are ways to figure it out, just trying to find what folks think are the ways? In fact I also think it is a great challenge to find the weakest link. Part of it is knowing what one really wants to have 'more of'..or 'less of'. Like less grain. or more clarity, greater dynamics, less treble harshness... greater warmth, less wooly bass ... etc. I can see where if folks are unsure what they really want.. it would be impossible. |
Want the biggest and best change for your system? Sure you do! BUY A BETTER PAIR OF SPEAKERS! They are the weak link and worst measuring of all components! Many speakers cannot even play back a simple pulse - yet are beloved and touted by the "golden ear" crowd! The ancient Quad ESL passes the impulse test with ease and sounds better than 99% of present day speakers! |
I believe I'm with you elizabeth, it can be figured out, but I confess I have no simplified or reliable method per se for doing so. For me although it does come down to experimenting with substitutions (or additions....or even subtractions of whatever gear, wiring or tweaks I can think to try, really), experience and just my best instinct are what I find I fall back on most. That's mostly trying to examine, as best I can, the actual nature of the type of audible noise or distortion I'm looking to remedy to see if that gives me the best suggestion of its possible cause and what component(s) may be involved. For example, I already have some impression, by way of prior experience now, that there may be differences in sound between things like inferior connectors (whose constricted sound may be telling me it's time to either bypass or upgrade them), the overall whiteness or grayness of digital hash or noise or, say, sibilance issues that may be caused by a cart that is not quite properly aligned. Of course, the problem is that virtually any of these sounds may each well have more than one, possible, technical cause...or in fact many causes at the same time...and sometimes we can replace a component that fixes the problem without us ever being able to reach a reliable conclusion as to what it was about the component that was causing the problem. But, listening to the nature of the sound of the problem is about my best bet toward identifying the source of the problem and I'm always aware that my first attempt may fail to impact the problem like I'd hoped, but that the process of elimination is still key. In the end however, I accept that eventually unearthing the real problem and finding a true solution for it is a certainty as an outcome and, in the face of the initial uncertainty, it just may demand both patience and persistence...but it all seems to go with the territory. |
Synergy is one of the most important factors. And replacing one piece at a time is one of the best way to tell differences. You never trully know how a piece will sound untill you hear it in your system. I usually have a long term plan and know what pieces I am not completely happy with. I work toward the end goal. But at this point I am trully happy with my system. There is nothing that I really feel needs upgrading. My phono preamp was the last piece. |
Even the most basic measurements show that speakers (and their in-room response) are indeed the weakest link in virtually any system. Like roberjerman I therefore use Quad electrostats (and some Harbeth P3ESRs in my study). Even relatively affordable electronics will drive them to perfection, as their creator proved ages ago. Similarly, and I have said and argued this many times before, even pretty affordable digital sources will sound way better than the most expensive vinyl rig. Again, a quick look at the measurement data tells the whole story. It is ironic that Philips who designed most of the CD technology, but who at the time were also among the very best in vinyl production technology, designed the new technology that wiped out their competitive technological advance. Pretty soon after they left what had become a commodity market. |
Weakest link is your own subjective confused expectations. Too many confused folks hearing radical change because they imagined so. If you suppose after significant investment that a system is excellent and truely high fidelity then a “radical improvement” from a tweak is totally inconsistent with the original assumption. EITHER people are highly imaginative and influenced by their expectations more than anything else... OR people have such a lousy crap system that “radical improvement” is still possible... So what is it? Do you have an excellent setup that can only be incrementally improved? Or Do you have a system where a contact goo applied to your fuse box made the earth move and the heavens open up and the angels sang? Which kind of setup do you have or how much are you fooled by your own wild imaginings? And you cannot have it both ways. This is food for thought for those on the merry go round. |
@shadorne Your point about it all being subjective is well taken. But, IMO I think you may be conflating a "weak link" (still a subjective term) that can be tied to some distinct, negative aspect of sound or lack of performance, once it has been successfully eliminated, and those tweaks or general improvements to the overall sound that can be applied **without compromising the sound and performance in any way**. Two different things. In regards to the OP, one requires diagnosis, the other does not. But yes, the impact of all that on total system performance, real or imagined, is something to keep in mind and, in general, I'd say that our expectations do typically grow along with our systems. Regards |
For me, I insist on auditioning any component in my own system before I buy, whether from a dealer or an online retailer. This way you can make your own judgment what needs to be upgraded and then confirm candidates by actually listening to them. I wouldn't go by Stereophile and TAS. They make their money from the industry side, not the readership. |
I guess I don't have a methodology I go more on gut feeling and very good advice from my dealer at times. I agree with the above comment on synergy my components work very well together and I believe the sum is greater than the parts. Currently my upgrades, since my speaker purchase last year, are of the incremental type. A new power cable here, new tubes there, working on the margins. I do realize I've gotten, and many others get there too, to a point where any meaningful component upgrade would require an outsized outlay of capital. |
| Post removed |
Thanks Ivan, great posts. The way I consider ’the weakest link’ as a bottleneck. All the other bits could sound better, but the weakest link is holding the rest back, since the bottleneck is at the peak of it’s performance. And if it is replaced with a better bit of kit, the whole rest of the system can move up, to what is the next block of the component which is doing all it can, and then is the one holding back the other components, which if given a chance, could sound better. And to willemj Agree about speakers. Disagree about CD playback being superior to vinyl. I do confess I have an expensive LP playback setup: Bought here on AgoN’ Kuzma Stabi/Stogi S with a Dynavector 17D3 to the also bought here: ARC SP-15 phono. The closest I get to that using CD is a Sony SCD777ES. My LP playback is definitely better. Though i do play CDs for ease of use. (I typically use a eBay $40/$80 max 5 disc changer( (most changers sound like doggie doo. I found a few models I can enjoy) to my DAC. The sound is slightly less than the Sony SCD777ES playing CD, but good enough for everyday use. ’(saving’ the Sony for as long as I can) If I spent a bit on perhaps a yggdrasil my CD playback might improve? I would never spend more than a few grand on a CD playback DAC. |
" how do we find the right part to upgrade?" This is all about experience, time, listening and talking to those who know, learning. When I build a system I start with speakers first (because these are what we literally connect with) after that the amplifier (this is key for sound quality tubed or not, and ability to drive speakers properly) then a pre amp (possibly tubed or not depending on tone of sound desired) I save the best for last really...a great digital front end (DAC/music server/player) or a fantastic turntable/arm/cartridge with a topnotch phono stage. The source is of course super important as are cables that don’t color or add anything unwanted like darkness or brightness to the overall sound. Finally Ill add that the room your system is in means a hell of a lot...tiny system in BIG room = no fun and vise versa. Very important to get the system dialed in to the room so it feels like the room is alive! Hard to get right. Matt M |
In My Experience, the components tend to make a difference in the following order: Speakers Preamp Amplifier Table, Arm, Cartridge Cables Dac...... I have found that once you get to a certain level in Dacs that there is not near as much difference as in any of the other components..... Maybe cables. Yes, there are differences in Dacs and differences in Cables, but there is a point where once the reach a certain level, the differences are minor or a matter of taste. Maybe the way to put it is..... There is less difference between 2 well designed Dacs at say $500 and $3000 or $4000 that there would be between a $500 Preamp, Amp or speakers vs that $3000 plus component. I suspect if I remember right you were using an old Adcom DAC?... Maybe not, but I suspect that your Dac was of the level that the differences were not night and day. I have built 3 Dacs with 3 different Dac chips, they all perform admirably, they don't sound the same, but they are all very good performers. |
Upgrading can be a difficult, expensive, time consuming path which eventually leads you back to where you started from. However there is a generally accepted hierarchy worth bearing in mind. The listening room plays a big part. Some rooms are just more lively than others. The recording / remastering can also make a huge difference. There are an awful lot of digital recordings that have fallen victim to the crude dynamic compression used in making music sound fuller/punchier through small loudspeakers as found in radios, TVs etc If one HiFi component significantly measures poorly for distortion, it is the loudspeaker. This is where you need to focus your attention because this is the area where everyone can hear differences. Hardly surprising since the sheer variety of design can be bewildering. Different cone materials, cabinet designs, drive unit size, crossover decisions, etc etc. The other major area where you can find vast improvements is in the area of vinyl playback. Once you move past something like the Pro-ject Classic to something like the new Technics decks (various 1200s) improvements start to rapidly diminish. There's only so much improvement in speed stability and resonance control and tracking performance that remains possible. Valve amplification is seen by some as a mere cosmetic difference but it may be one you prefer. As for the rest, amplifiers, CD players, DACs, cables, etc there is little or no supporting evidence that they yield any sonic differences as the late Peter Aczel told us repeatedly for decades. It is a shame that you had to find out the truth about DACs for yourself. However it us reassuring that your ears were telling you the truth. |
#1 Speakers It gets harder after that. #2 Analog components (power/pre amps, capacitors, tubes - if equipped, power supplies, etc) #3 Digital components (digital side of DACs, CD transports, network streamers, etc) #4 Interconnects (not sure if these would make any difference but according to many, they do) |
| Post removed |
The discussion has kind of wandered off 'how to find the weakest link' (in one's current system, to upgrade etc) to a 'what are the components order of importance.' Which has been discussed many many times in other threads. Though the order of importance does matter greatly in how we decide what should be upgraded next. I would like to stick to how to find the weakest link in setup already in use. I agree it is hard to define, but I am hoping for some insights. timlub, I sold the Adcom preamp years ago! I bought a Bryston BP-26 almost 8 years ago. (when I also upgraded amp and speakers) |
As you mentioned previously, changing the phono stage proved to be a considerable upgrade in your system. That was by trial and error, and luckily your phono stage was an upgrade on the previous one. It didn't mean that the system was an upgrade. I would surmise that if your current loudspeakers are a full bandwidth design then the only way for you to determine whether they are the weak link is by direct comparison with alternative options. If funds allow you could even audition state of the art equipment to determine where your system might be lacking. The same would go for turntables /arms/ cartridges and for tube amps if applicable in your case. In an imperfect world it might be wise to first determine just what you are looking for before throwing any more money at it. Assembling an audio system is not always a simple case of buying expensive components and hoping for the best. There is nothing like comparison when it comes to audio. You'll know it when you hear it, if you don't then you can pass. |
I don't think there's any rigorous method that can be applied (as you usually can with substitutions when tracking down a specific wiring problem). You could serially get a much more expensive/highly regarded model of each component in the system, and swop it in, and see which substitution produced the biggest positive change, but then you'd be ignoring system synergies to say nothing of issues of output and input impedances. And other variables as well. Most of us, most of the time, go on gut feeling. Reinforced, perhaps, if one of the components is older than the others or not so highly regarded or notionally "out of line" of whatever you think that component should cost as a % of the total system. |
Here is your truth; upgrade anything, as there are endless levels of improvement to all systems. The only way to know with certainty is to know a product line or have compared any given component to several others. Or, learn what a particular technology can or cannot do. All components of systems are weak links relatively. Start upgrading anywhere in the rig, and you'll see. |
You're not going to find that weakest link until you try something else. You need not overthink all of this (I wish I could follow my own advice). My recent purchase of new speakers completely changed the way I listen, which opened another can 'o worms. I know you don't want to hear about cables but through some trial and error, that is where it has to be made up now, with my speaker cables. I'm sticking with the same brand and only going up to a thicker gauge and hopefully, that will be that. It's a fine balancing act that's done and once you pull out that straw, you upset that balance, and must be prepared to carefully suss things out. All the best, Nonoise |
The room is the weakest link. Next is the setup itself. Then speakers. Then everything else. Get your current system dialed-in to play the room. This takes patience and dedication. Jim Smith's book Get Better Sound is invaluable. Dedicated room with acoustic treatment. Then, and only then, consider spending money on "upgrades". |
Random weak links: very low frequency vibration, RFI/EMI generates by microchips inside electronics, RFI/EMI carried by House AC, RFI/EMI coming in from outside, magnetic fields generated by large transformers, 60 cycle hum from transformers, direction of all wire, cables and fuses, scattered background laser light, as well as some other things outside scope. |
The reason that folks talk about a hierarchy of component contribution to sound quality is that it sets expectations on what degree of improvement is possible. It also relates to your theory of constraints question in that something like a DAC could never be a bottleneck since they are all now essentially equal. I agree with roberjerman about the speakers. I would add you need to measure/ understand your listening room to know if that is a potential path for a sound quality upgrade. |
Great topic! Others have covered most of my thoughts. It mostly comes down to the three E’s... Experience, experience, experience. This comes in several ways. Early on, there’s a temptation to just trade equipment if something is not pleasing you. Big mistake. Room acoustics, clean electricity, component decoupling/isolation are the basics. More importantly, one’s time spent with their system evaluating/learning the differences and the logical way to go about it all.This means one needs to become intimately familiar with their system in every aspect.Then comes component synergy. This ain’t for the meek. It can be highly rewarding. If I could only go back 30 years? to experience the level of realism I’m now enjoying in my system, I may look/feel a lot younger? |
Hi Elizabeth, Sorry, yep, I took you a bit off subject. I was thinking that that was the order that could make the biggest difference in your system, so when you asked about the weakest link, I was thinking what might make the biggest change, sorry, my bad. As far as the Adcom, I knew that you had switched to the Bryston, I was actually thinking that you had an old Adcom GDA600 or GDA700 DAC. Then I mentioned the differences in Dac's being smaller to accent why you might have found little or no difference between Dac's. I missed you posting for quite some time, glad to see you back! |
There's some great discussion here -- really glad I signed up for this forum! I do agree that it would be great to "determine what you're looking for" or find out "what one really wants to have 'more of'..or 'less of'.'" But how do I know what my system could be with a change or two? I've always been very happy with whatever system I had -- and amazed when I upgraded something and heard/felt the difference!! I totally agree with the consensus here that speakers are the first bottleneck. I'd say the cartridge and preamp (if you have a vinyl system) are next. Then the amp. Interconnects , speaker cables... maybe. I'll upgrade from the generic plain-vanilla ones, but haven't heard a real difference -- maybe my system is just not sensitive enough. And I can't agree at all with Willenj about the superiority of digital sources; they're convenient, but still inferior even to my mid-fi vinyl system. I do look forward to other and different opinions! gasbose |
I agree with Douglas ;p People who think all DACs sound the same either haven't heard the top tier of today's digital or their system is simply not resolving enough to show the difference. Power is also critical, you can read up on my system page about my recent experience with placing a Shunyata Denali 6000/S on different materials. Ultimately, everything matters as your system gets more resolving. However, it's also a blessing to have a less resolving system since it saves money in that no difference will be heard (but that's a far cry from their actually being no difference in performance). |
This is, of course, the recurring response when someone says some components make little or no sonic contribution: 'your system is not good enough'. The counter argument is that there are no measurment data that suggest there are differences above human hearing acuity, and no controlled listening tests. And in my case, I think Quad 2805 electrostats (plus sub) are revealing enough. |
@willemj The belief that good components make everything ancillary (cables, power, teacups, fuses, magic paste) affect the sound is total hogwash. Only lousy crap components do that. A well designed and well built component should be resolving to the source material and minimize noise and contamination from everything else. Pretty obvious really. Why anyone would want components that are affected by everything other than the source music is beyond me. |
willemj .... there are no measurment data that suggest there are differences above human hearing acuity, and no controlled listening tests ...Instead of repeated ad nauseum that there is no data, why not collect some of your own? Why not design some controlled listening tests and see where they lead? Of course, that requires a lot more work than just repeating "... there is no data ..." |
I love the cognitive dissonance routinely expressed here. When you read the recommendation to “trust you ears” what they really mean is trust your eyes. Once you see the 0.25” thick CNC milled front panel and silky smooth control knobs, you’ll know which component sounds better. And if you ask the “trust your ears” crowd to do a blind test to pick out the component that so obviously sounds better, you’ll get a litany of excuses as to why listening tests are not a valid way to judge audio - LOL. We were debating the merits of DACs on another forum, one that is more engineering focused. The most strident proponents of DACs sounding different have a commercial interest in designing and selling them. I’m sure that doesn’t happen here. I read recently that in today’s world opinion carries as much weight as facts. So, as long as you don’t work for Boeing, GE (jet engine or medical divisions), United Technologies, etc, you can believe that fuses have a direction, wire needs to be “burned in”, and that the USB spec for Bit Error Rate is inadequate for audio. No real harm done. Audio is a hobby after all and all you are wasting is money. On-line readers in any forum have to parse the legitimate and practical from the unfounded and absurd. Caveat emptor applies. You should be skeptical of any on-line advice including this one. For those that don’t have a lot of resources and are trying to get the biggest bang for the buck in their system, even more care is required. I continue to suggest (as others have) that you spend most of your budget on the best speakers you can afford and skip the amp and DAC upgrades. The distortion in electronics is extremely low compared to the speaker/ room interaction. Once you hit a certain level of design competency and build quality, there is little to no difference in this equipment - none that can be heard anyway. |
Well Elizabeth, I owe you a big apology, I've got your thread Hi Jacked and off on another tangent. I'll respond once and then ask others to open another thread if you'd like to take it further.... This whole thing that there aren't performance differences between DAC's.... Where did that come from? Seems like my words were really twisted. So, what I said was "on well designed Dacs" that the differences are less than that of different designs of amps/preamps etc.... I still stand by that. Take a EE Dac Mini, A Holo Spring, A Soekris, An Ares, Denafrips and I'm sure others that I haven't thought of.... Great Dacs in their own right. All Affordable Dacs that would not be embarrassed in any system. Can you hear a difference, OF COURSE! I have myself sat in front of many systems with other people... On person says, "The Difference is Hugh" another says, "I can hear it" I feel like that when someone wants to hear things that they do and as our ears become more refined over the years that yes, one person is capable of picking nuances that another may not. @douglas_schroeder Doug, I read your reviews, you've earned my respect, but I have also been in or around audio for 39 years and have rubbed shoulders with granted old timers, but none the less with some of the industry greats. I've heard many many systems and have come to KNOW that I don't have tin ears and have not needed to question my own judgement for many years. As I stated here, I think that its easy to over state what HUGE is. @bar81 No one said that All DAC's sound the same... Again, On Well Designed Equipment............ My own current DAC is a DIY ES9018 DAC... It was ok, I was a bit disappointed and took it to my old friend Ed Martin from Marcof. He built a filter network and regulation for the power supply and absolutely transformed this DAC. I would have no fear putting it in any system and being embarrassed, but I'm not delusional that many top notch DACs would outperform it to some degree.... So, not being embarrassed???? are the differences Huge? To one person yes, maybe, but to another, "I can hear a difference". |
@mikexxyz Mike, you hit send to post your response right before my last response, thank you, well said. So, @Elizabeth .... I contend that the only way to really know the weak link in your system is to know you.... your taste, what is warm, what is airy, what is dry, what is smooth, what is detailed etc.... Then learning each component and the merits or short comings in your system, Only at that point can you make truly "Educated Guesses" at what the week link in your system is. I think all of us have made costly choice or maybe have kicked ourselves for selling a component. Nature of the beast with this hobby. You've been at this along time yourself. I wish there was a formula to follow, wouldn't that be nice. I'd love to hear anyone has that formula. |
mikexxyz I love the cognitive dissonance routinely expressed here. >>>>>Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle! You usually don’t see pseudo skeptics accusing the other side of cognitive dissonance. Wow! mikexxyz When you read the recommendation to “trust you ears” what they really mean is trust your eyes. Once you see the 0.25” thick CNC milled front panel and silky smooth control knobs, you’ll know which component sounds better. And if you ask the “trust your ears” crowd to do a blind test to pick out the component that so obviously sounds better, you’ll get a litany of excuses as to why listening tests are not a valid way to judge audio - LOL. >>>>>Yeah, right. Maybe if you just fell off the turnip truck yesterday. Again, you don’t see pseudo skeptics accusing audiophiles of using listening tests. mikexxyz We were debating the merits of DACs on another forum, one that is more engineering focused. The most strident proponents of DACs sounding different have a commercial interest in designing and selling them. I’m sure that doesn’t happen here. >>>>I see what you mean - the ones who should know more about them? mikexxyz I read recently that in today’s world opinion carries as much weight as facts. So, as long as you don’t work for Boeing, GE (jet engine or medical divisions), United Technologies, etc, you can believe that fuses have a direction, wire needs to be “burned in”, and that the USB spec for Bit Error Rate is inadequate for audio. No real harm done. Audio is a hobby after all and all you are wasting is money. >>>>>Oopsy, daisy! There’s that cognitive dissonance beamin’ down at ya. Thanks for the heads up! |
Hi Elizabeth, One thing that hasn’t yet been mentioned which I’ve found to often be helpful in identifying a weak link, or at least in narrowing down the possibilities, is the use of a good quality pair of headphones. Despite the fact that headphone listening is of course inherently a very different experience than listening via speakers, I have nevertheless found that comparing results between what I hear from the various speakers I’ve had over the years and what I have heard from my very revealing Stax electrostatic headphones can be very helpful in determining whether a perceived issue is being introduced by some combination of the amp, speaker, and room, or by something further upstream. Beyond that, in addition to doing listening comparisons to the extent possible I do a lot of research of relevant experiences that are reported by others, such as the audiophiles who post here and in other forums as well as reviewers. In doing so I apply grains of salt in each case to the extent I feel is appropriate based on my knowledge of the particular commentator. And I also rely on my technically-based instincts to the extent I consider appropriate in each particular case. Best regards, -- Al |
A very few comments. 1. I really like the headphone idea - if one has good headphones and a good headphone amp, which can a) be modest in cost and b) have no room interactions. 2. While this will spark more debate, i do believe that speakers are the biggest contributors to distortion, and that amps, in the last 20 years, have progressed a TON. I hear what was said above and still think sources - whether a DAC or a TT/tonearm/cart/setup/prayers - is next. Don't take offense at the prayers part, getting a TT set up is HARD. I would suspect most are not. If a DAC properly re-clocks i don't buy the importance of a CD transport, and never heard it (once re-clocked, without - its a form of analog time-base distortion and very, very real). 3. Putting aside strange interactions, swapping one item at a time is the only way to really tell. This demands that you truly patronize, loyally, a good retailer who will let you do this. You will pay more. It will be worth it. (unless the journey and the pain are the point of the effort...) Have fun. G |
The idea that your system can have a bottleneck or weak link in the same way that a PC can is one that only a disreputable dealer could hope to profit by. Hi-Fi performance is measured mainly in terms of distortion, whereas PC performance is measured mainly in terms of speed. Until all PCs processes become instant there will always be room for improvement, processor speed, RAM, hard drive, internet speed etc. Any one of them could be a weak link. Hi-Fi design is over a century old and many components now have distortion levels no human can discern by hearing alone. With digital components having vanishingly low levels of distortion, amplifiers since the 1970s, you should be able to get great results with any budget CD player/ amp paired with loudspeakers of your own preference. Even the best loudspeaker has hundreds of times more distortion than any amplifier you could buy. Of course system matching (amplifier power/loudspeaker impedance) and component isolation/setup remain crucial. This is where a good dealer may be of assistance. |